In lieu of writing some more nonsensical writing, I'm going to instead write a brief review of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ."

Sometimes when I have nothing to do, I like to drive to the local movie theater and blindly walk into a movie. What I mean is, I like to go to a theater at any given time, and "see what they have playing." And whatever movie is starting at the time, or closest to the time that I arrive at the theater, that's the movie I see. Luckily, the movie that was starting at that time, was a movie that I had wanted to see since I first heard about it.

Before I get started, I'll state that I'm not up on my Bible trivia. So instead of saying apostle's names, I'll just say "the apostle who hung himself." Or the apostle who denied Jesus (Peter???) I don't know. I'll write it in such a way that those of you who know your biblical trivia will know who I'm talking about.

First impression of the movie: I did not like the movie at all. I found it gratuitously violent, short on meaning, and not styled in a way that suited the story being told.

I'm not going to write a full on review of the movie, but I'd like to hit on some key points of what I thought of the movie.

1. Is there a slow motion shot that Mel Gibson doesn't like??? Man, it seemed like the entire movie was in slow motion at times. Generally speaking, I think slow motion is the most overused tool in a lot of directors arsenal. When slow motion is used correctly, extra emphasis is added to scenes that have a lot of meaning. But when slow motion is overused, scenes that have extra meaning get lost in the shuffle with the hundreds of other slow motions shots in the movie.

-tangent ahead- ;-)
Look at "Terminator 2" as a perfect example of how to use slow motion. James Cameron is a good enough director to know that not every single frame of his movie has the same emotion and weight as other parts of the movie. So during scenes that don't really deserve any additional weight are played out in regular time. So when the Connor family is driving in the desert, or when John is running away from the Terminator, Cameron plays it out in regular time. But when Sarah Connor sees the Arnold Terminator stepping out of the elevator, and her nightmare is returned, James Cameron employs the slow motion to add just that little extra emphasis that the scene warrants.
-tangent over-

But in "The Passion," it seemed like every single damn shot was in slow motion. And I didn't understand why. The council throwing Judas the money--slow mo. The children chasing the apostle--slow mo. About 3/4 of the Jesus carrying the cross scene--slow mo. Mary crying in the desert--slow mo. Pounding the nails through the cross--slow mo. Et cetera. It was overrused, and many time unnecessary.

2. As has been the pattern with movies about Jesus, usually the better acted scenes are the scenes where Jesus is being persecuted, flogged, and crucified. And the scenes where he is preaching to the masses, are the scenes that are ho hum boring. But in this movie, that was completely flipped. Instead of playing "preaching" Jesus in a hippy/mystic type of way, Jim Caviezel played him in a way that was reminiscent of your everyday preacher. Just a man, giving out a message. But it's when Jesus was being questioned by the Jewish council, and being questioned by Pontius Pilate, that Jim Caviezel went the more traditional route of playing him in that breathy, mystic type of way. Maybe that's just my perception, I'm sure many would disagree with that assessment. Why does everyone play Jesus as Jim Morrison?

-tangent again-
Did Jesus have a sense of humor? Seriously! Why can't at least ONE, non-Andrew Lloyd Weber movie about Jesus show him as being a guy who knew how to have a good time? Didn't he ever just cut up, or was he always so graven? I don't know. Now that I think about it, there was one scene in the movie last night that showed young Jesus making a table. And there was a little bit of humor in that I guess. But nearly 99% of all Jesus movies, Jesus is...boring. Is that blasphemous?
-tangent over-

3. Is the Film anti-semitic? In some ways, no. But in many ways, I felt it to be the case. Mel Gibson is about as subtle as a runaway freight train and he really set himself up for a lot of grief. I'm no historical or biblical scholar, so I'll refrain from going TOO deeply into the ins and outs of that time. And there is always the age old debate about history vs. biblical accounts of things. I won't get into it TOO much.

BUT...

If Gibson had been a little more subtle, he could have avoided a lot of the traps he got himself caught in. First and foremost, from everything that I've read (minus the Bible) Pontius Pilate was a ruthless, BRUTAL ruler. And there is source of conention obviously between the Biblical account and the historical accounts, but in this movie, Pontius Pilate was the most passive, wish washy guy. He was indifferent to the entire situation. According to this movie, if not for the raving, frothing at the mouth Jewish council/assembled mob, Pontius Pilate would have just let Jesus go free. I'm not so sure. The Romans were known for their brutal methods of keeping the masses from getting restless. For a movie that many people bill as being "historically and realistic," the Pontius Pilate situation was enough to throw that argument into the wind.

The biggest "anti-semitic" trap that Gibson set for himself was having a "villain" present in the Jewish council. If he had been more subtle, Gibson could have directed the Jewish council as being human friggin beings. But instead, the Jewish council is played as being just this completely unrelenting, conniving group. And I'm not saying that they weren't. Maybe he could have modelled his council more on the senators from Shakespeare's "Julius Ceasar." There were disagreements, there was in-fighting. There was Brutus. But in "The Passion," there was NONE of that. There was no conflict. And no, a Jewish council member turning away in a one second clip, does not count as conflict. It doesn't take a degree in sociology to see that even in the most horrendous mob like situations, there is conflict. And when you add to the fact that they're politicians, there should have been a lot more internal council dialogues happening.

AND

Could they have picked a less stereotypical Jewish cast? They all had the "hook noses," and heavy Jewish accents. The head Jewish council leader was practically a moustache twirling villain for crying out loud.

---to be continued