Other Voices, Other Rooms Monday, March 01, 2004

Two intriguing reviews of Passion. One thumbs-up (with reservations) from our Straussian friends at the Claremont Institute:

People will respond differently to this unique film. I believe that Gibson could have taken, at times, a somewhat more restrained, subtle, poetic approach, to move the imagination. For example, at the end of the crucifixion, Mary embraces Jesus's nailed feet and we see her face smeared with His blood. This shot might have made a greater impact—as a representation of the entire horrible scene, much like the figure of the Crucifix or the role of the cross in the Good Friday service—had Gibson not been so direct, detailed and lengthy in showing Jesus's torment on the cross. As a result, the shot comes as one in a succession of awful pictures that, for this viewer at least, overwhelmed the senses. Aristotle wrote that poetry is universal; here a poetic treatment could have tempered the film and enhanced its impact.

Gibson does not appear to have a strong poetic sensibility; his blunt, indeed, pounding direction here basically has the same sensibility he demonstrated in "Braveheart" (1995). His unyielding tempo as a director might have benefited from some inflection: for example, when Jesus utters his fatal words before the Sanhedrin inquisitors—"I am: and you shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven"—the direction does not give the famous words any special distinction as the climax of the scene. This could have been done, say, with a pause by Jesus, or by changing the camera angle, as a director like John Ford might have done; in fact, Gibson could have made the impact stronger by not breaking the lines into two shots, as he does. Second, the direct visualization of Satan as a sort of Gothic temptress (although the precise sexuality is a bit ambiguous), and its recurring appearance in the film, can be seen as rather heavy-handed; an allusive, symbolic treatment might have been more effective. Third, the one scene where Gibson's approach is weakest is the Resurrection; obviously, this calls for some poetic suggestion because it goes beyond the reality we know. But, from an aesthetic viewpoint, it is a bit earthbound.

And a deeply spiritual take from columnist David Warren:

But the Gospel has its own deep "irony" -- for the mob was Jewish, and could only be Jewish, not only for its place and time, but for its liturgical purpose in a Passion drama choreographed not by Mel Gibson, but by God. In this drama of dramas, the Man who is the director is the same who is hanging on the cross. God had sent himself as Messiah, not randomly to wherever, but to his own chosen people, the Jews, and in the fullest possible knowledge that He would be rejected and crucified, even by them. He then rose from the dead, opening the portals of salvation for all men.

It is hard even to begin to understand an event that happened in "real time" , which also stands outside time, and which redeems time itself. The Jews were chosen and will always be chosen; and the redeemed are redeemed not only since Christ. "The Jews" were them, but are also us, for that Jewish mob is Adam, and all men, including all Christians. St. Peter, "the rock", denied Christ thrice; and we ourselves have denied him, in every act of infidelity since the world began.

Has this turned into a Catholic blog? Oy vey.

@ 4:11:00 PM,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home