Cady's Take:

"The Passion of the Christ" is about the final 12 hours in the life of Jesus (James Caviezel), beginning with his betrayal and capture, and concluding with his crucifixion. We first see him kneeling in prayer, terrified of his coming ordeal and emotionally assaulted by Satan (Rosalinda Celentano), who mockingly contends that no one man can possibly carry the burden of mortal sin.

While there are a few flashbacks to earlier times, these are rare, and mostly only of Christ’s words during the last supper. Cutaways hint at Jesus' teachings and significant works, but if you aren't familiar with the Bible already, the movie does little to inform you about Christ’s story.

Essentially, this movie is a two-hour death scene. This biblical drama is so violent, so extremely bloody; it's anyone's guess how it managed to skirt by with just an R rating, instead of the NC-17. The film focuses almost exclusively on cruelty and suffering. Gibson’s version of the Gospels is harrowingly violent; the final hour of "The Passion of the Christ" essentially consists of a man being beaten, tortured and killed in graphic and lingering detail. This is not a movie for children, or for adults averse to images of violence. It is easily one of the most violent films I have ever seen.

Maia Morgenstern is terrific as Mary and Hristo Shopov makes Pontius Pilate's dilemma very believable, as Pilate knows Jesus is innocent, but he is a politician who fears a rebellion and the ire of Caesar. The episode with Simon of Cyrene, who is drafted to help Jesus carry his cross, is a brief but extraordinary journey from indifference to empathy.

Gibson attempts to put the viewer into Jesus' perspective, often switching the camera into his upside-down view after a stumble. We see Christ's suffering, not as a judgment or an attempt to make us feel guilty, but as a testament to the best parts of his philosophy. He went through this because he loves us, the movie says; he loves us so much that he endured the worst possible tortures on our behalf.

Since the film itself does little to define Jesus as a man beyond the pain, how you view him is shaped by what you think of him before you land in your seat, not by anything the movie throws to you.

“The Passion of the Christ” is a singular cinematic experience. I thought it would be difficult to view a movie so talked about, so controversial, however the moment – and I do mean the moment – that the first scene appeared, all else was lost. Every perception I had had of the movie prior to walking into the theatre and sitting down disappeared as Jesus and his disciples pray. This is, without question, the most violent and bloody movie I have ever seen.

Anti-Semitism
Does the “Passion” encourage anti-Semitism, or contain any anti-Semitic messages? No. The Jews and the Romans are depicted as equally culpable, and although Pontius Pilate is depicted as weak, and not entirely convinced he should put Jesus to death, it does not make him any more sympathetic or any less culpable. The Roman soldiers who beat Jesus did so with glee.

Violence
Is the “Passion” too violent? “Too violent” implies that perhaps the violence is gratuitous or unnecessary. Crucifixion is violent, beating and flogging are violent. I am not sure I would want to see a movie that sacrificed vision for palatability. This is Mel Gibson’s vision, just as any movie is the vision of its writer/director, and as such any violence is not included as a cinematic tool, but as essential to the story itself.

Controversy
Is the “Passion” a controversial film? Or more accurately, should it be? I should hope so. If you want to see a movie that does not inspire thought, or debate, or contemplation do not see “The Passion”. Film should be a vehicle for not just entertainment, but for the expression of important ideas. Hopefully they are ideas to which not everyone subscribes and will foster debate and understanding. There is a difference between a movie and a film. “The Passion of the Christ” is a film.

Perhaps the most moving, and compelling area of the film is the relationship between Jesus and his mother Mary. Mary watches as her son is taken to the Jewish elders, to Pontius Pilate, to Herrod, and back to Pontius Pilate. She follows him as he carries the cross, and rushes to his side when he falls. Mary stands at Jesus’ feet, his blood running down the cross to which he is nailed, and hangs suspended between two criminals, and she feels his soul pass from his body.

I was surprised how much of my Catholicism came back to me while watching the Passion. I was also surprised to find that I understood certain aspects of the Scripture that I had not given much consideration. For instance, the claim that Jesus had made – that he could destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. This is repeated several times by the Jewish priest Caiaphas and it never occurred to me that the temple of which Jesus spoke was himself; a prediction of his death and resurrection.

There have been critics who claim the movie focuses too much on the passion and not enough on Jesus and his message. This movie is not about Jesus’ message, it is about his torture and his death, about his sacrifice and his love for his father. I find it difficult to believe that most people who go to this movie do not have enough contextual information on their own to need anything more within the movie. It is enough to know that Jesus was a prophet, and that he was killed for his beliefs. Is there anyone out there who does not know at least that much? Anyone who will be going to see the film, at any rate? I doubt it.

Jim Caviezel is really outstanding. Honestly and truly, his portrayal of Jesus is searing, reverent, and in all honesty, quiet. I was struck with the authenticity of the entire movie, from sets to costume to performances. I am not entirely sure I can watch this movie again, but I am better for having seen it.