"The Passion of the Christ" Without the Passion

Paper Summary:

This paper explains that some film critics point out some glaring historical and scriptural inaccuracies in "The Passion of the Christ"; using Latin might have been an impressive and unusual screenwriting technique, but it lent only a false sense of historical accuracy to the film. The author points out that part of why "The Passion of the Christ" is passionless is because Gibson does not endeavor to explain the teachings of Jesus or invoke any real sympathy for the man. The paper concludes that the film does deliver a poignantly visceral rendition of the Passion of Christ, even if it does not amount to filmmaking genius and reveals the mind of Mel more than the mind of God.

From the Paper:

"The cinematography of "The Passion of Christ" is stunning, and along with the acting, offers the film some saving grace. For instance, at the end of the film, after Jesus has been crucified, Mary holds the body of her dead son with Mary Magdalene at her side in a modern amalgamation of Pieta representations in painting and sculpture. The shot is one of the film's most memorable and expertly composed, as if it were a study for a Michelangelo painting. Moreover, after the crucifixion, some brilliant camera work depicts the event as it would be viewed from heaven, in a swirling mass of color. This scene precedes a supposedly cosmic-inspired earthquake that destroys the Jewish Temple. Whether or not the earthquake actually did occur is irrelevant because Gibson was going for meaning and effect."

More papers on "The Passion of the Christ" Without the Passion:

• Comparison Essay # 96596 : "The Death of Ivan llyitch" and "The Metamorphosis"
• Article Review # 97523 : "The Trial of Jesus Christ"--An Article Review"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: