The Last Candle

If people were talking more about more film aspects in The Passion of the Christ and less on the violence and other controversial topics (the talk of supposed anti-Semetism, of which I will not utter here), I’d be more willing to see the film. As it is now, to those uneducated in The History of the Christ (that’s me), the idea aggregated from reading reviews and impressions is that it’s a tremendous gob of violence and little else if you’re not familiar with the environment. Not for me, thanks. I’d like to hear more about the acting, cinematography, soundtrack, symbolism, and visual design before I make my move. If I was a devote Christian or knew more about the life and times of Jesus Christ, they’d be a different sway. But I’m just a guy who goes to films rarely, so I’m darned particular about my choices. <p/> Read these impressions set down by Sgt. Stryker. The impressions rely on knowing what actually happened compared to the film’s viewpoint (reimagining, just like Planet of the Apes and Tim Burton!), but there were a couple of ideas that stimulated my noodle, both regarding the violence and comparison to other films that “glorified” the violence. Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down, namely. I’ve only seen Saving Private Ryan out of the two, and there’s an interesting question posed by Sgt. Stryker in the second paragraph:

For what purpose, I ask, would someone pay money to watch American servicemen and innocent Jews [from Schindler’s List] mocked, beaten, broken, and murdered? And why are those films rightly praised, while The Passion of the Christ seems to be judged by a different standard?

He answers it shortly after that with a reference from The Empire Strikes Back. Paraphrased, Stryker says that the film will be viewed very differently depend on what you intend to see. “Duh,” right? But I think in the context of especially The Passion of the Christ, it’s far more pronounced than, say, going to see a Jerry Bruckheimer film and looking for amazing acting or historical accuracy. And if a particular viewer didn’t get what they wanted (which is likely in the case of Bruckheimer considering the two aspects mentioned), then they might have a very different opinion of the films based on inaccurate or aesthetic values. In in the case of The Passion, it has to transcend aesthetics and typical theatrical judgements. The point is to instead differentiate on a ideological and spiritual level. If you know and understand the mayhem Jesus endured during his final days and why he did it, then the violence will be transfigured into one of the most important portrayals ever displayed on film. Or, if you’re like me, who doesn’t “get it,” then the power is wasted. Not to be offensive by putting it into these terms, but I feel like I’m missing out on a massive inside joke.