Jesus in Film: A Comparative Study of the Portrayal of Jesus in The Passion of the Christ and Jesus of Montreal -by Clark Driver
Jesus has been portrayed over the years in numerous ways in different types of media. Films specifically, have contained diverse interpretations of the Christ figure. To examine this phenomenon, I looked at the ways Jesus was portrayed in two cinematic works: The Passion of the Christ and Jesus of Montreal. Both pieces have their similarities yet represent diverse interpretations of the last days of Jesus’ life. Both films, though in very different ways, attempt to draw in the viewer, and personalize the Passion story. The Passion of the Christ aims to look behind the more modern world’s view of the cross. As Mel Gibson (the director of the film) states, Christians these days are too used to seeing a beautiful, clean image of Christ on the cross. Gibson’s goal was to bring out the reality of what actually happened to Jesus—a slow and painful death. By revealing the horrific truth of the violence Jesus suffered for people’s sins, the audience is forced to understand the passion story as a more personal event. Jesus of Montreal, on the other hand, encourages the viewer to create a personal interpretation of the passion story, and the Bible in general, changing it from an out-of-date story into something relatable that can be adapted to their modern lives.
The Passion of the Christ was released in 2004, and represents the last twelve hours of Jesus’ life. Throughout the film, there are various flashbacks of Jesus’ earlier life as a carpenter with his mother, along with talking with his disciples. However, the main focus of the film is the suffering Jesus experienced on his final day before he was crucified. Mel Gibson’s intent was to show (graphically) the extent of the painful torture Jesus suffered for our sins. This display of suffering is used to reveal the truth behind Jesus’ sacrifice, and the depth of his love for humanity. Unfortunately for Gibson, many critics believed the graphic violence in the movie was extreme and obscene, resulting in the discomfort (and sometimes sickness) of many viewers. For example, Timothy Beal believes the Gibson film should be titled The Beating of the Christ rather than The Passion of the Christ, because of the amount of movie violence (2006). Additionally, Amelia Arenas points out that if Jesus was to actually have suffered such amount of violence in the film, he could not have possible survived due to blood loss and therefore, she believes the work to be an inaccurate representation to prove a point (2004). Kathleen Corley and Robert Webb agree with Arenas’ criticism, pointing out that the gospels in the bible serve as more of an outline for the movie containing similarities rather than exactly as depicted in the text (2004). Additionally, as Beal and Linafelt comment, some viewers also believe that Gibson’s depiction of Jews in the film represents anti-Semitic themes (2006). For instance, in one scene, an angry Jewish crowd is given the choice to either release Jesus or Barnabas, a convicted murderer. The crowd screams to release Barnabas and kill Jesus. The Romans in the film are portrayed more positively than the Jews because Gibson shows them as the facilitators rather than the accusers. It’s clear in the film that Pontius Pilate does not, in fact, want to kill Jesus. And so, the blame is put directly on the Jews rather than the Romans portraying anti-Semitism.
The second work I reviewed was Jesus of Montreal. The movie was released in the United States in 1990, and is a modern depiction of the passion story. The plot takes place in Montreal, Canada during the late 1980’s, and tells the tale of out of work actors putting on a play that reveals their interpretation of the passion story. The play however did not go over well with the surrounding community along with the Catholic Church that employed them. Because of the actors’ extreme and untraditional interpretation of the last days of Christ, townspeople became so angry that they rioted during one of the performances, resulting in a fatal head injury to the character that plays Jesus. The director, Denys Arcand, clearly intended the Jesus character’s martyr for his cause to parallel the true Christ’s sacrifice for his own cause. This parallel is used to make an ancient religious story accessible, and interesting, to a modern-day audience, allowing viewers to connect on a personal level with the passion story. Jesus of Montreal was well-received by the majority of critics, who found Arcand’s innovative story refreshing. Lloyd Baugh stated that the work represents a transitional piece in which more modern interpretations of the bible come out of the classical gospel stories (1997). Tom O’Brien praises its ability to reinvent the passion story in an engaging, modern manner. He also points out that Arcand, unlike Gibson, was able to successfully and effectively balance humor and tragedy in his version of the passion play, drawing viewers in and still emphasizing the power of the sacrificial figure (1990).
In the eyes of different directors, Jesus can take on different transformations. I conclude that the main reason for this is to try to emphasize different aspects of the gospel stories according to the director’s viewpoints. Whereas in Jesus of Montreal the director chooses to follow a more modern theme to better connect with modern society, in The Passion of the Christ, Gibson chooses to take on a more historically-based view to emphasize the reality of the suffering of Jesus. Each director clearly takes liberties in certain aspects of the filmmaking process in order to better exemplify his goals. Both films are worth watching to allow viewers to better understand his/her own beliefs of the gospels as they are portrayed in the bible. By recognizing that directors drive the characterizations of Jesus in their films, viewers can better challenge and analyze the films themselves, and specifically the objectives of the directors. Similarly, this reorganization of variances in the telling of the gospel stories can be applied to the gospels themselves. Just as a viewer of film can recognize differences, as I have, readers can also recognize differences in the gospels and challenge the accuracy of the text by considering the purpose of the writer. By recognizing the influences of the historical background and the author’s purpose, readers are able to better discern the accuracy of the historical Jesus, and make their own conclusions about his life and what he stood for.
The Passion of the Christ was released in 2004, and represents the last twelve hours of Jesus’ life. Throughout the film, there are various flashbacks of Jesus’ earlier life as a carpenter with his mother, along with talking with his disciples. However, the main focus of the film is the suffering Jesus experienced on his final day before he was crucified. Mel Gibson’s intent was to show (graphically) the extent of the painful torture Jesus suffered for our sins. This display of suffering is used to reveal the truth behind Jesus’ sacrifice, and the depth of his love for humanity. Unfortunately for Gibson, many critics believed the graphic violence in the movie was extreme and obscene, resulting in the discomfort (and sometimes sickness) of many viewers. For example, Timothy Beal believes the Gibson film should be titled The Beating of the Christ rather than The Passion of the Christ, because of the amount of movie violence (2006). Additionally, Amelia Arenas points out that if Jesus was to actually have suffered such amount of violence in the film, he could not have possible survived due to blood loss and therefore, she believes the work to be an inaccurate representation to prove a point (2004). Kathleen Corley and Robert Webb agree with Arenas’ criticism, pointing out that the gospels in the bible serve as more of an outline for the movie containing similarities rather than exactly as depicted in the text (2004). Additionally, as Beal and Linafelt comment, some viewers also believe that Gibson’s depiction of Jews in the film represents anti-Semitic themes (2006). For instance, in one scene, an angry Jewish crowd is given the choice to either release Jesus or Barnabas, a convicted murderer. The crowd screams to release Barnabas and kill Jesus. The Romans in the film are portrayed more positively than the Jews because Gibson shows them as the facilitators rather than the accusers. It’s clear in the film that Pontius Pilate does not, in fact, want to kill Jesus. And so, the blame is put directly on the Jews rather than the Romans portraying anti-Semitism.
The second work I reviewed was Jesus of Montreal. The movie was released in the United States in 1990, and is a modern depiction of the passion story. The plot takes place in Montreal, Canada during the late 1980’s, and tells the tale of out of work actors putting on a play that reveals their interpretation of the passion story. The play however did not go over well with the surrounding community along with the Catholic Church that employed them. Because of the actors’ extreme and untraditional interpretation of the last days of Christ, townspeople became so angry that they rioted during one of the performances, resulting in a fatal head injury to the character that plays Jesus. The director, Denys Arcand, clearly intended the Jesus character’s martyr for his cause to parallel the true Christ’s sacrifice for his own cause. This parallel is used to make an ancient religious story accessible, and interesting, to a modern-day audience, allowing viewers to connect on a personal level with the passion story. Jesus of Montreal was well-received by the majority of critics, who found Arcand’s innovative story refreshing. Lloyd Baugh stated that the work represents a transitional piece in which more modern interpretations of the bible come out of the classical gospel stories (1997). Tom O’Brien praises its ability to reinvent the passion story in an engaging, modern manner. He also points out that Arcand, unlike Gibson, was able to successfully and effectively balance humor and tragedy in his version of the passion play, drawing viewers in and still emphasizing the power of the sacrificial figure (1990).
In the eyes of different directors, Jesus can take on different transformations. I conclude that the main reason for this is to try to emphasize different aspects of the gospel stories according to the director’s viewpoints. Whereas in Jesus of Montreal the director chooses to follow a more modern theme to better connect with modern society, in The Passion of the Christ, Gibson chooses to take on a more historically-based view to emphasize the reality of the suffering of Jesus. Each director clearly takes liberties in certain aspects of the filmmaking process in order to better exemplify his goals. Both films are worth watching to allow viewers to better understand his/her own beliefs of the gospels as they are portrayed in the bible. By recognizing that directors drive the characterizations of Jesus in their films, viewers can better challenge and analyze the films themselves, and specifically the objectives of the directors. Similarly, this reorganization of variances in the telling of the gospel stories can be applied to the gospels themselves. Just as a viewer of film can recognize differences, as I have, readers can also recognize differences in the gospels and challenge the accuracy of the text by considering the purpose of the writer. By recognizing the influences of the historical background and the author’s purpose, readers are able to better discern the accuracy of the historical Jesus, and make their own conclusions about his life and what he stood for.
Annotated Bibliography
Arenas, Amelia. “Between Pleasure and Horror: Watching Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ.” Arion Third series, 12, No. 1 (Spring-Summer 2004):1-15.
In this article, Arenas argues that the violence Gibson incorporated into the movie is quite literally overkill and an inaccurate representation of reality to prove a point. Arenas argues that Gibson stressed the fact that Jesus could not possibly have survived considering the type of beating he received along with how long he endured it. Because of the types of weapons used in the movie (which represent historical accuracy) Jesus would not be able to sustain such a lengthy beating without losing blood and dying or passing out. Arenas also states the importance of Gibson’s usage of secondary scenes and flashbacks that help draw the movie together. The scenes are used to depict different times of Jesus’ life such as when he was with his mother, when he was a carpenter, or talking to his disciples. Arenas believes the work to be, “a mass-media ritual-the filmic equivalent of a sacrificial feast.”
Baugh, Lloyd. Imaging the Divine Jesus and Christ-Figures in Film. Franklin, WI: Sheed and Ward, 1997.
The author of the book Imaging the Divine Jesus and Christ-Figures in Film covers many ideas and viewpoints of Jesus being portrayed in various films. Baugh has two main sections in his book: the first being “The Jesus-Film,” and the second being “The Christ-Figure.” Throughout each section, Baugh covers topics such as Jesus according to Hollywood, Jesus in musicals, scandals, and classics, along with more modern “transitional” images of Jesus in films. Many of the articles don’t relate exactly to either The Passion of the Christ or Jesus of Montreal films, however, they give some information that is useful when looking into the pieces. There is a specific section on Jesus of Montreal that gives insight into the author’s views of the movie. The author mostly describes the movie and how the main character (Daniel Coulombe) represents the Jesus character as portrayed in the gospels. The author lists the Jesus of Montreal section as a transition period. This work is used to represent when some of the more modern images of Christ are being pushed into new ideas.
Beal, Timothy K., and Tod Linafelt. Mel Gibson's Bible: Religion, Popular Culture, and the Passion of the Christ. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.
The book is organized into three parts: The Passion as Interpretation, where the book compares the character of Jesus in biblical and other religious texts with Mel Gibson’s version; Ethical and Theological Responses, consequences of Gibson’s chosen depiction of the Gospels; Passion, Media, and Audience, analyzing the differences in viewer reactions. While many viewers considered the film a religious experience, others saw the work as more focused on violence and anti-Semitism. One remark that was made in the article was that the film was miss-named. Instead of being called The Passion of the Christ, it should have been called The Beating of the Christ. Various aspects of the movie (such as the cross) are inaccurate. Because the movie represents an entire cross rather than the typical crossbeam, the weight of it would far exceed what one man could carry.
Brown, Candy G. “America’s Passion for Jesus.” Reviews in American History 32, No. 3 (September 2004): 439-446.
America’s Passion for Jesus is a critical analysis of two separate works: Jesus in America, and American Jesus and how they have contributed to the image of Jesus in America. Brown argues that the two authors are clearly more focused on Jesus in American culture rather than the historical Jesus. The article also looks into the idea of Jesus being viewed as an American hero. In the beginning of the article, the author brings up an interesting statistic. Brown states, “Americans have ranked Jesus as the thirteenth ‘greatest American of all time’.” I find this particular statistic interesting. It brings up questions like; can Jesus even be considered American; and why would the Son of God only rank number thirteen? The author concludes with the remark that neither Jesus in America or American Jesus compare in historical accuracy as the newer America’s God and Theology in America.
Corley, Kathleen E., and Robert L. Webb. Jesus and Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ: The Film, the Gospels and the Claims of History. London: Continuum, 2004.
The article opens with the comment that Mel Gibson portrayed more of an “artistic creation” of the last 12 hours of Jesus’ life rather than a realistic documentary. The gospels in the bible serve as more of an outline for the movie containing similarities rather than exactly as depicted in the text. The authors argue that the movie puts more of the blame for Jesus’ death with the Jewish authorities rather than Pilate himself. This is mostly due to the more positive representation of Pilate in the film. At the end of the article the author states, “I find Mel Gibson’s film The Passion theologically problematic, historically unlikely, and literally uncritical- but I have a growing appreciation for Gibson’s commitment to his artistic version.” It is clear that many critics have something negative to say. Where as some found the movie inaccurate and distasteful, others just seem to complain about the violence.
Fredriksen, Paula. From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.
Musser, Charles. “Passions and the Passion Play: Theater, Film and Religion in America, 1880-1900.” Film History 5, No. 4 (December 1993): 419-456.
This article highlights what it means to be a passion play/film. The author covers a variety of topics such as the origin of passion plays and the ways they have changed over history. The article was written before The Passion of the Christ came out so it does not reference any specifics from the film; however, the article was written in 1993, which was after Jesus of Montreal was produced. The article gives detailed insight into what it means to be a passion play/film and how the information can be incorporated into modern works such as The Passion of the Christ. The article discusses how passion plays were originally banned in all of the original colonies except Virginia and Maryland.
O’Brien, Tom. “Jesus of Montreal.” Film Quarterly 44, No.1 (Autumn 1990): 47-50.
In this short article, O’Brien reviews the film Jesus of Montreal. He praises its ability to reinvent the passion story in an engaging, modern manner. According to O’Brien, the movie does an excellent job of incorporating a sense of humor into a usually serious topic, and still maintaining an appropriate level of idealism. By the middle of the play, a typical viewer isn’t sure if the film is a comedy or a tragedy. O’Brien comments that he believes Arcand (film director) is good at making suggestions without overdoing them. The film is a wonderful example of humor and idealism brought to such a serious and controversial subject.
Prince, Stephen. “Beholding Blood Sacrifice in The Passion of the Christ.” Film Quarterly 59, No. 4 (Summer 2006): 11-22.
Prince uses Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ to illustrate the effect violence has in media and how viewers interpret it. Prince makes the point that when looking at historical methods of Roman torture, it is obvious that the “realism” of Gibson’s scenes prove to be more “movie violence” than anything. Anyone viewing the film would recognize the torture scenes as more than just Romans torturing a criminal but rather violent acts that resemble unrealism. Although some view the movie as fake and excessive to try to prove a point, Prince states that sympathetic viewers watching the movie have the perception of “cinematic realism.” Prince makes the comment that many viewers of the film couldn’t watch, found it disturbing, or even got nauseated. Prince also stated one of the weapons used in the film (a flagrum) would have produced larger amounts of blood due to the extensive use of the torture device.
Reinhartz, Adele. “Jesus in Film: Hollywood Perspectives on the Jewishness of Jesus.” Journal of Religion and Film 2, No. 2 (October 1998), https://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/JesusinFilmRein.htm (accessed 16 April 2012).
The author discusses the role of Jesus in films, indicating that films are the most prevalent media used to portray Jesus in today’s society. These films greatly shape people’s views of the historical Jesus. Depending on where the director is drawing his/her background information, the portrayal of Jesus changes. This particular author discusses the fact that Jesus was a Jew, and the different ways in which filmmakers portray his ethnic and religious identity. To accomplish her goal, Reinhartz performs a comparative survey of three films in which Jesus’s “Jewishness” plays a role, and aligns those portrayals with academic discussions. The author states that, “Jesus of Montreal draws an analogy between the scriptural Pharisees and the Catholic church in modern Quebec and uses Matthew 23 to give passionate expression to the corruption of the church.” The author also states that the film tends to portray Jews in a more positive way than other passion films.
Scalia, Bill. “Re-Figuring Jesus: Christ and Christ-Figures in ‘Jesus of Montreal.” Religion and Literature 33, No.1 (Spring 2001): 75-90.
One of Scalia’s main arguments is the difference between Christ-figures and characters that perform Christ-like acts. Christ figures signify both the acts of Jesus along with the life of Jesus where as Christ-like figures only seems to emphasize the actions. Many movies seem to put more emphasis on Christ-like acts rather than Christ figures. Scalia states some of these aspects in relation to Jesus of Montreal. Scalia believes that in towards the end of the movie, when the main character falls from the cross, it, “determines his transformation from a ‘Christ-like’ figure to a ‘Christ-figure’.” Because the main character actually dies at the end of the film, the main character becomes a sort of martyr for the cause. This would support what Scalia is trying to say when he compares the two figures.
Scham, Sandra. “The Archeology of The Passion.” Near Eastern Archeology 66 No. 3 (September 2003): 143
Scham notes some of the accuracy of various aspects of the movie such as language used, costumes, and set layout and how they are used in the film. Scham says that the location where the movie was filmed was chosen to represent middle-eastern cities such as Bethlehem, Jerusalem, and Nazareth. Although the common viewer may find the depiction of the cities as realistic, historians and archaeologists believe it to be rather inaccurate. Because Gibson wanted his film to be a more “accurate” representation of the story, he seems to be more accurate in some aspects while not in others. Scham concludes with the realization that books and movies are made to sell, not necessarily to depict historical accuracy. By Gibson being a prior filmmaker, he would be conscious of the requirements to get a movie to sell.
Walsh, Richard. “The Passion as Horror Film.” Journal of Religion and Popular Culture. 20 (Fall 2008), http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art20-passionashorror.html (accessed 27 April 2012).
In the article The Passion as Horror Film, Walsh describes the relationship between Gibson’s Passion of the Christ and horror films. Walsh states that because the gospels do not focus on Jesus’ suffering, by Gibson exemplifying the act, he is merely stretching reality into a horrific story. Gibson states that the majority of Christians are used to viewing a “pretty cross on a wall.” Walsh’s response to Gibson is Gibson’s film makes any passion movie prior look like a pretty cross on a wall. Gibson’s film is so gory that it stands alone when compared to and makes other films seem mundane. Walsh also compares the Passion film to Gibson’s Braveheart film. Walsh states, “Gibson’s Jesus is a death-wish hero—like Martin Ritt in Lethal Weapon (Burnett) or John Coffey in The Green Mile—who sees death as good, because life is nothing but pain, suffering, and evil.” Walsh believes that the movie is an extremist view of reality that has been stretched to prove a point.
In this article, Arenas argues that the violence Gibson incorporated into the movie is quite literally overkill and an inaccurate representation of reality to prove a point. Arenas argues that Gibson stressed the fact that Jesus could not possibly have survived considering the type of beating he received along with how long he endured it. Because of the types of weapons used in the movie (which represent historical accuracy) Jesus would not be able to sustain such a lengthy beating without losing blood and dying or passing out. Arenas also states the importance of Gibson’s usage of secondary scenes and flashbacks that help draw the movie together. The scenes are used to depict different times of Jesus’ life such as when he was with his mother, when he was a carpenter, or talking to his disciples. Arenas believes the work to be, “a mass-media ritual-the filmic equivalent of a sacrificial feast.”
Baugh, Lloyd. Imaging the Divine Jesus and Christ-Figures in Film. Franklin, WI: Sheed and Ward, 1997.
The author of the book Imaging the Divine Jesus and Christ-Figures in Film covers many ideas and viewpoints of Jesus being portrayed in various films. Baugh has two main sections in his book: the first being “The Jesus-Film,” and the second being “The Christ-Figure.” Throughout each section, Baugh covers topics such as Jesus according to Hollywood, Jesus in musicals, scandals, and classics, along with more modern “transitional” images of Jesus in films. Many of the articles don’t relate exactly to either The Passion of the Christ or Jesus of Montreal films, however, they give some information that is useful when looking into the pieces. There is a specific section on Jesus of Montreal that gives insight into the author’s views of the movie. The author mostly describes the movie and how the main character (Daniel Coulombe) represents the Jesus character as portrayed in the gospels. The author lists the Jesus of Montreal section as a transition period. This work is used to represent when some of the more modern images of Christ are being pushed into new ideas.
Beal, Timothy K., and Tod Linafelt. Mel Gibson's Bible: Religion, Popular Culture, and the Passion of the Christ. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.
The book is organized into three parts: The Passion as Interpretation, where the book compares the character of Jesus in biblical and other religious texts with Mel Gibson’s version; Ethical and Theological Responses, consequences of Gibson’s chosen depiction of the Gospels; Passion, Media, and Audience, analyzing the differences in viewer reactions. While many viewers considered the film a religious experience, others saw the work as more focused on violence and anti-Semitism. One remark that was made in the article was that the film was miss-named. Instead of being called The Passion of the Christ, it should have been called The Beating of the Christ. Various aspects of the movie (such as the cross) are inaccurate. Because the movie represents an entire cross rather than the typical crossbeam, the weight of it would far exceed what one man could carry.
Brown, Candy G. “America’s Passion for Jesus.” Reviews in American History 32, No. 3 (September 2004): 439-446.
America’s Passion for Jesus is a critical analysis of two separate works: Jesus in America, and American Jesus and how they have contributed to the image of Jesus in America. Brown argues that the two authors are clearly more focused on Jesus in American culture rather than the historical Jesus. The article also looks into the idea of Jesus being viewed as an American hero. In the beginning of the article, the author brings up an interesting statistic. Brown states, “Americans have ranked Jesus as the thirteenth ‘greatest American of all time’.” I find this particular statistic interesting. It brings up questions like; can Jesus even be considered American; and why would the Son of God only rank number thirteen? The author concludes with the remark that neither Jesus in America or American Jesus compare in historical accuracy as the newer America’s God and Theology in America.
Corley, Kathleen E., and Robert L. Webb. Jesus and Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ: The Film, the Gospels and the Claims of History. London: Continuum, 2004.
The article opens with the comment that Mel Gibson portrayed more of an “artistic creation” of the last 12 hours of Jesus’ life rather than a realistic documentary. The gospels in the bible serve as more of an outline for the movie containing similarities rather than exactly as depicted in the text. The authors argue that the movie puts more of the blame for Jesus’ death with the Jewish authorities rather than Pilate himself. This is mostly due to the more positive representation of Pilate in the film. At the end of the article the author states, “I find Mel Gibson’s film The Passion theologically problematic, historically unlikely, and literally uncritical- but I have a growing appreciation for Gibson’s commitment to his artistic version.” It is clear that many critics have something negative to say. Where as some found the movie inaccurate and distasteful, others just seem to complain about the violence.
Fredriksen, Paula. From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.
Musser, Charles. “Passions and the Passion Play: Theater, Film and Religion in America, 1880-1900.” Film History 5, No. 4 (December 1993): 419-456.
This article highlights what it means to be a passion play/film. The author covers a variety of topics such as the origin of passion plays and the ways they have changed over history. The article was written before The Passion of the Christ came out so it does not reference any specifics from the film; however, the article was written in 1993, which was after Jesus of Montreal was produced. The article gives detailed insight into what it means to be a passion play/film and how the information can be incorporated into modern works such as The Passion of the Christ. The article discusses how passion plays were originally banned in all of the original colonies except Virginia and Maryland.
O’Brien, Tom. “Jesus of Montreal.” Film Quarterly 44, No.1 (Autumn 1990): 47-50.
In this short article, O’Brien reviews the film Jesus of Montreal. He praises its ability to reinvent the passion story in an engaging, modern manner. According to O’Brien, the movie does an excellent job of incorporating a sense of humor into a usually serious topic, and still maintaining an appropriate level of idealism. By the middle of the play, a typical viewer isn’t sure if the film is a comedy or a tragedy. O’Brien comments that he believes Arcand (film director) is good at making suggestions without overdoing them. The film is a wonderful example of humor and idealism brought to such a serious and controversial subject.
Prince, Stephen. “Beholding Blood Sacrifice in The Passion of the Christ.” Film Quarterly 59, No. 4 (Summer 2006): 11-22.
Prince uses Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ to illustrate the effect violence has in media and how viewers interpret it. Prince makes the point that when looking at historical methods of Roman torture, it is obvious that the “realism” of Gibson’s scenes prove to be more “movie violence” than anything. Anyone viewing the film would recognize the torture scenes as more than just Romans torturing a criminal but rather violent acts that resemble unrealism. Although some view the movie as fake and excessive to try to prove a point, Prince states that sympathetic viewers watching the movie have the perception of “cinematic realism.” Prince makes the comment that many viewers of the film couldn’t watch, found it disturbing, or even got nauseated. Prince also stated one of the weapons used in the film (a flagrum) would have produced larger amounts of blood due to the extensive use of the torture device.
Reinhartz, Adele. “Jesus in Film: Hollywood Perspectives on the Jewishness of Jesus.” Journal of Religion and Film 2, No. 2 (October 1998), https://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/JesusinFilmRein.htm (accessed 16 April 2012).
The author discusses the role of Jesus in films, indicating that films are the most prevalent media used to portray Jesus in today’s society. These films greatly shape people’s views of the historical Jesus. Depending on where the director is drawing his/her background information, the portrayal of Jesus changes. This particular author discusses the fact that Jesus was a Jew, and the different ways in which filmmakers portray his ethnic and religious identity. To accomplish her goal, Reinhartz performs a comparative survey of three films in which Jesus’s “Jewishness” plays a role, and aligns those portrayals with academic discussions. The author states that, “Jesus of Montreal draws an analogy between the scriptural Pharisees and the Catholic church in modern Quebec and uses Matthew 23 to give passionate expression to the corruption of the church.” The author also states that the film tends to portray Jews in a more positive way than other passion films.
Scalia, Bill. “Re-Figuring Jesus: Christ and Christ-Figures in ‘Jesus of Montreal.” Religion and Literature 33, No.1 (Spring 2001): 75-90.
One of Scalia’s main arguments is the difference between Christ-figures and characters that perform Christ-like acts. Christ figures signify both the acts of Jesus along with the life of Jesus where as Christ-like figures only seems to emphasize the actions. Many movies seem to put more emphasis on Christ-like acts rather than Christ figures. Scalia states some of these aspects in relation to Jesus of Montreal. Scalia believes that in towards the end of the movie, when the main character falls from the cross, it, “determines his transformation from a ‘Christ-like’ figure to a ‘Christ-figure’.” Because the main character actually dies at the end of the film, the main character becomes a sort of martyr for the cause. This would support what Scalia is trying to say when he compares the two figures.
Scham, Sandra. “The Archeology of The Passion.” Near Eastern Archeology 66 No. 3 (September 2003): 143
Scham notes some of the accuracy of various aspects of the movie such as language used, costumes, and set layout and how they are used in the film. Scham says that the location where the movie was filmed was chosen to represent middle-eastern cities such as Bethlehem, Jerusalem, and Nazareth. Although the common viewer may find the depiction of the cities as realistic, historians and archaeologists believe it to be rather inaccurate. Because Gibson wanted his film to be a more “accurate” representation of the story, he seems to be more accurate in some aspects while not in others. Scham concludes with the realization that books and movies are made to sell, not necessarily to depict historical accuracy. By Gibson being a prior filmmaker, he would be conscious of the requirements to get a movie to sell.
Walsh, Richard. “The Passion as Horror Film.” Journal of Religion and Popular Culture. 20 (Fall 2008), http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art20-passionashorror.html (accessed 27 April 2012).
In the article The Passion as Horror Film, Walsh describes the relationship between Gibson’s Passion of the Christ and horror films. Walsh states that because the gospels do not focus on Jesus’ suffering, by Gibson exemplifying the act, he is merely stretching reality into a horrific story. Gibson states that the majority of Christians are used to viewing a “pretty cross on a wall.” Walsh’s response to Gibson is Gibson’s film makes any passion movie prior look like a pretty cross on a wall. Gibson’s film is so gory that it stands alone when compared to and makes other films seem mundane. Walsh also compares the Passion film to Gibson’s Braveheart film. Walsh states, “Gibson’s Jesus is a death-wish hero—like Martin Ritt in Lethal Weapon (Burnett) or John Coffey in The Green Mile—who sees death as good, because life is nothing but pain, suffering, and evil.” Walsh believes that the movie is an extremist view of reality that has been stretched to prove a point.