by Horatius Piscinus on Sun May 09, 2004 4:57 pm
Salve Tergeste
I think I may have already posted about the film. Anyway. I went mainly to see how Romans were portrayed. The film was produced in Italy, so it should not be a surprise that the Latin was pronounced more like Italian. [Radio Bremen's Latin news still sounds more like German to me, too.] My son, who is a Arabic translator in military intelligence, said he was surprised to find he could understand the Aramaic. I thought the scene of Jesus replying to Pilot in Latin was a little odd, odder still though was the lack of any Greek.
If you are into details, there are all kinds of criticism to be made. Classicists and reenactors will have a field day, but remember that this is a myth, not history. And Christians will find some things odd, as the film does not strictly follow any of the Gospels. I understand, too, that the English subtitles do not match the Aramaic. Mel left in the controversial lines regarding Jews being cursed, but took out the transliteration. The one scene with Mary mopping up the blood of Jesus is not from the Bible but from a vision that a mystic had in 1823. And I am sure Jews will have their own criticisms to make. I found it odd that Caiphus was portrayed in public wearing his sacremental robes.
But about the film's portrayal of the Romans, in general I thought it showed the Romans as sympathetic towards Jesus. Sure they torture him, but Pilot and more especially his wife, and then the guards during the march to Cavalry and at the crucifixion were generally sympathetic. There is a kind of unstated sentiment that the Romans will eventually convert to Christianity. I don't recall any portrayal of the Religio Romana. As for the big controversy, imo the film did retain an antisemetic perspective.
As a film, the first scene is great, pulls you right in. And then the film goes flat. Some have complained about all the blood. If they had done the film realistically, considering what is portrayed, I thought there would be more blood. It's amazing what reserves of blood were in this Jesus, but then there is that whole thing about the Blood of Christ catachism. And where did they come up with that title, "The Passion of THE Christ," as though Mel and his cohorts have some exclusive interpretation of the story, with only their version being true, whether you wish to argue about other anointed saviors, or other Christian versions of Jesus. I thought it an interesting experience to see the audience's reaction, but it is not a good film. And my wife, who is a Catholic, would never have watched such a violent film except that it was about Jesus. She was disturbed by seeing it, but not, I think, in the way the producers intended.
M Horatius Piscinus
Sapere aude!