The Passion of the Christ: Jesus on the Silver Screen

Well, it has been a while, hasn't it? I apologize for my tremendous hiatus; school has been going full blast, and in my spare time other things have taken precedence over blogs. This post may not be especially long, but I hope it provides enough food for thought to make up for the recent ness of this site.

I was pondering today on what to post, and Mel Gibson's recent blockbuster film concerning the final hours of Jesus' earthly life came to mind. I have not seen this movie, and I don't think I intend to, either: I believe it was considered at one point to rate it NC-17 (formerly known as X) for violence. It managed an R. However, I think that I know enough about the events it describes to be in a position to make comments on it, at least from the angle of this post.
Now, I don't think that it would be in any way a sin to watch this , o long as one is mature enough to handle the incredibly intense nature of the material. (Don't take your eight year-old daughter to this one.) My older brother has seen it; I know of other friends who have watched or plan to watch it. That's fine. I wonder, however, about the merits of Mr. Gibson actually producing such a film.

I actually consider it rather presumptious of a man who thinks that he can truly depict the agony of Christ's suffering, or who thinks that it is even necessary to do so. Mr. Gibson is a Catholic, and from the Catholic perspective the crucifixion is somehow relived, day after day, in the mass. Thus, a graphic representation of the Passion, with only a scant touching on the Resurrection afterward, is actually in keeping with his faith. That is why Catholic churches have crucifixes--crosses with the image of Christ still on them--rather than Protestant crosses, which are empty. The Catholic perspective is that the crucifixion is still going on somehow--the Christ if being re-punished every time the mass is said. Protestants believe that the crucifixion was final. Our sins were taken away at a particular point in time around 33 A.D. After that, Jesus arose from the grave! He sits at the right hand of God enthroned in glory, interceding on the behalf of the elect. We don't need to dwell on the Passion. We ought to be thinking more about the glory that came--and is still coming, just as strongly--after it.

But it isn't merely the intent of the movie that bothers me. The most suspect part about it to me is the fact that an actor (James Caviezel--age 33, initials JC) was portraying our Lord and Savior on screen. Is this right? I'm not sure. It is one thing to repeat the words of Jesus in, say, a dramatic reading, but acting in a play or on screen seems different. Actors never pretend to really be the parts they are playing, so Mr. Caviezel was not committing outright blasphemy, but the role of Christ in film seems rather sacrosanct to me. It would sound rather weird to me if someone was taking parts in a play, and said, "Ok, so who wants to play God?" This seems like the same thing.

Does that sound odd to everyone else?

Bye for now! I'll try to make my hiatus a little less--er--extended next time.

~Connor