Artbrain!

movies society and culture

The Passion of the Christ

click here to buy

The Passion of the Christ (2004) is an independent film about the last twelve hours of the life of Jesus Christ by Mel Gibson

He financed and directed this film adaptation of the traditional Passion play, which is a Christian tradition during the season of Lent.

After months of controversy that led to more pre-release sales than any film in
history, the movie opened in the United States on February 25 (Ash Wednesday, the
beginning of Lent), 2004. It earned $25 million per day in its first five days of release
and in short order became the highest-grossing R-rated film ever made. As of
September 29, The Passion of the Christ had the 9th highest all-time domestic gross
($370 million) [1] (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm) and the
24th highest all-time worldwide gross ($609 million). [2]
(http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/).

On August 31, 2004 the movie was released on DVD and video tape. As with the
original release in theaters, the release of the movie on DVD and VHS also proved to
be very popular. Early reports indicated that over 2.4 million copies of the film were
sold by middle of the day. The film was available on DVD with English and Spanish
subtitles, and on VHS tape with English subtitles.

Mel Gibson said:

"This is a movie about love, hope, faith, and forgiveness. He [Jesus] died for all
mankind, suffered for all of us. It's time to get back to that basic message. The world
has gone nuts. We could all use a little more love, faith, hope, and forgiveness." (from
The Passion: Photography from the Movie "The Passion of the Christ, ISBN
0842373624)
"It was me that put him on the cross. It was my sins [who put him there]." Thus
Gibson took a cameo role in the film: it is literally his hands that nail Jesus to the
cross (seen in close-up only).

Overview
Gibson's film was produced in Italy, on scenic locations that were selected to evoke
Caravaggio's paintings.

In a departure from previous films depicting the life of Jesus, the dialogue is spoken
entirely in Aramaic, Latin and Hebrew. After a lengthy internal debate, Gibson finally
decided to include subtitles, except for one controversial line of crowd dialogue: "His
blood be upon us" (see blood curse) and a few bits of soldiers' dialogue.

In many areas attention was paid to historical detail, such as the traditional clothing of
the period and Jewish dietary customs.

The scourging and crucifixion sequences are exceptionally violent and graphic,
earning the movie an R-rating in the United States. These scenes required Jim
Caviezel, who portrays Jesus, to endure seven hours of makeup sessions daily. He
even had his shoulder dislocated at one point during the filming of the scourging
scene.

Gibson's religious beliefs, which inspired the film, are those of traditional
Catholicism, which rejects most of the pastoral reforms set by the Second Vatican
Council, commonly referred to as Vatican II.

Gibson intended the movie to be faithful not to the New Testament alone, but rather to
the New Testament as viewed through Catholic tradition, which accepts as valid a
number of later sources.

Many religious scholars [3] (http://seethepassion.com/article.php?id=27) state that the
movie often departs from the New Testament in significant ways. It does so by
incorporating material from The Mystical City of God by Mary of Agreda (a 17th
century nun), and the writings of Anne Catherine Emmerich (a 19th century
stigmatic). The latter is a controversial work, as it contains material that is considered
by some to be violent and anti-Semitic. Some scenes are purely Gibson's poetic
license.

Cast and crew
The film's principal cast and crew are as follows:

Cast:

Jim Caviezel - Jesus, the Christ
Maia Morgenstern - Mary, the mother of Jesus
Monica Bellucci - Mary Magdalene
Hristo Naumov Shopov - Pontius Pilate
Mattia Sbragia - Caiphas
Rosalinda Celentano - Satan
Crew:

Mel Gibson - director, co-producer, co-screenwriter
Benedict Fitzgerald - co-screenwriter
Caleb Deschanel - director of photography
Francesco Frigeri - production designer
Rev. William Fulco - translated script into Latin and reconstructed Aramaic
The film was shot at Rome's Cinecitta Studios and various locations in Italy on a
budget of $25 million, financed entirely by Gibson.

Title changes
On October 17, 2003, Gibson's film production company announced the name of the
film had been changed from The Passion to The Passion of Christ, because the title
The Passion had already been trademarked by a different motion picture. This was
then further amended to The Passion of the Christ. The following week Gibson
announced a distribution arrangement had been reached with the independent
Newmarket Films.

Reactions

Columnists who had previewed the film
In Newsweek, David Ansen wrote:

Caviezel gives an eloquent physical performance, but he has little opportunity to show
the Messiah's spiritual charisma; this Jesus' most noteworthy trait is his ability to
absorb pain. [4] (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4338528/)
Sharon Waxman of the New York Times wrote:

The film features agonizing passages as Jesus, played by Jim Caviezel, is mercilessly
beaten by Jewish and then Roman guards, and jeered and hounded by a Jewish mob
on his way to his Crucifixion. It is unclear how close this version is to Mr. Gibson's
final film.
In this version, the Roman leader Pontius Pilate is depicted as being reluctant to harm
Jesus, who Pilate's wife warns is holy. Largely to mollify a restive Jewish mob
outside his window, Pilate agrees to a severe lashing and scourging of Jesus, but the
crowd and the high priest demand more.
Pilate says in Latin: "Ecce homo"—"Behold the man"—displaying the broken and
bleeding Jesus to the crowd. But the high priest insists, in Aramaic, "Crucify him."
Pilate responds, "Isn't this enough?" The mob roars, "No," and only then does the
Roman leader agree to the Crucifixion. [5]
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/04/movies/04PASS.html?ei=5062&en=09c548fda
8db4d05&ex=1076475600&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=)
Peggy Noonan wrote:

It is the story of a Jew who was the Messiah; it is the story of his loving Jewish
mother, his ardent Jewish followers, and his Jewish opponents, who saw him as
heretical and dangerous. He is brutally put to death by non-Jewish Roman soldiers,
who are portrayed as sadistic in a businesslike way, on the acquiescence of a tired,
non-Jewish cynic who then sought to wash his hands of culpability. It is a film that
leaves the viewer indicting not Jews and not Romans and not cynical bureaucrats. It
leaves you indicting yourself: it leaves you wondering about what your part in that
agonizing drama would have been back then, and what your part is today. [6]
(http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110004442)
Mark Savlov wrote in the Austin Chronicle:

...they (those involved with the film) render Jesus’ final hours in a wholly new light,
albeit an almost unbearably horrific one. Historical accuracy was clearly the
directorial watchword throughout, and this is where problems creep in: The Passion of
the Christ trumps The Greatest Story Ever Told but comes perilously close to being
The Greatest Snuff Film Ever Made. Knowing the incendiary passions surrounding
the film and its subject, I do not say that lightly. This film is ultraviolent in the
extreme – beyond the extreme, even – and Gibson, in his own passion for unflinching
realism, almost short-circuits his production through sheer gory bravado. [7]
(http://www.austinchronicle.com/gbase/Calendar/Film?Film=oid%3A197423)

The Roman Catholic Church
The CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONFERENCE OF THE PHILIPPINES (CBCP) gave
full approval for the faithful to view the movie to "further realize and contemplate on
the love and mercy of Christ". Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Rosales lead the clergy
with other bishops and expressed their desire for the Church to appreciate the value
the movie brought about. CBCP President Fernando R. Capalla also gave its fullest
approval for the faithful to view the movie.

Msgr. Kevin McCoy, the rector of the Pontifical North American College, arranged
for the movie to be shown to hundreds of seminarians at the school after attending a
screening by one of the movie's producers, Steve McEveety

Mr. McEveety also succeeded in getting a copy of the movie to Pope John Paul II at
the latter's request. Shortly thereafter, writer Peggy Noonan in a column for The Wall
Street Journal Web site, quoted Mr. McEveety as saying that the Pope had declared to
him regarding the movie that depicted Christ's death, "It is as it was." "Inside the
Vatican" quoted Mr. McEveety the same way. Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz,
secretary to the Pope, denied that the Pope offered a personal endorsement of the
movie: "the Holy Father told no one his opinion." Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, the
Pope's spokesman, neither affirmed nor denied the quote, saying, "After consulting
with the personal secretary of the Holy Father, His Excellency Mons. [sic] Stanislaw
Dziwisz, I confirm that the Holy Father had the chance to view the film 'The Passion
of the Christ'. The film is a cinemagraphic [sic] representation of the historical fact of
the Passion of Jesus Christ according to the Gospel account. It is customary for the
Holy Father not to express public judgments on artistic works, judgments that are
always open to differing valutations [sic] of an esthetic character."

In France, the information Committee of the Roman Catholic bishops' Conference
said in a statement [8]
(http://www.cef.fr/catho/actus/communiques/2004/commu20040330_passionduchrist.
php) that the film "could be used to support anti-Semitic opinions" and that "the face
of Christ shows through less than the obsessions of our times: the dread of evil,
fascination with violence, and the search for the guilty". It also stated that the film
obscures the meaning of the Passion and the Person and message of Christ.

Praise
Those who have seen the film before its official release have responded in different
ways as the film has evolved.

Some evangelical Christians considered the release of the movie to be a crucial
moment for evangelism. Marta Poling-Goldenne, Minister for Outreach of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Grand Canyon Synod said in a 2004 email
to pastors:

Seize this mission moment, friends! God is providing "the best outreach opportunity
in the last 2,000 years" [sic] for us to witness about the gospel story to people for
whom it may be very unfamiliar or unknown.
Also Rabbi Skobac from the antimissionary Jews for Judaism:

For the 75 million evangelical Christians the film is the greatest thing they've had in
2,000 years to convert people to their faith...

Charges of anti-Semitism
As much as a full year before the film's projected release, a heated controversy arose
over whether it would depict Jews as responsible for the death of Jesus in the same
way that previous passion plays have done, which has historically incited anti-
Semitism. Members of the Anti-Defamation League wrote a number of private letters
to Mel Gibson, expressing their concerns that the movie may have unintended
consequences for the Jewish community.

Many rabbis in Orthodox Judaism, Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism
expressed fear that any movie based on traditional passion play forms, and especially
incorporating ideas of Anne Catherine Emmerich, could only be interpreted by the
audience as encouraging anti-Semitism. Similar concerns were raised by leaders in
Jewish communal organizations and in Jewish community newspapers. When the
movie was finally released, the overwhelming reactions from within the Jewish
community was highly negative. The Jewish community was concerned with a
number of issues:

Many Jews, such as the High Priest, are portrayed as physically ugly, perhaps drawing
on stock anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews.
The High Priest is shown as if he a were a member in good-standing of the Jewish
community; historians note that the Jews were not allowed to appoint their own High
Priest according to Biblical law, and that the High Priest at the time was in the service
of the Roman government.
Pontius Pilate is portrayed as a thoughtful, temperate man who ultimately agrees to
crucify Jesus because he does not want to risk a Jewish rebellion on the one hand, and
a Christian rebellion on the other. However, historians hold that Pilate was known by
his rough treatment of Jews in general, and was responsible for crucifying many Jews
during his reign.
When Gibson was asked if his movie would be offensive to Jews today, he responded,
"It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth. I want to be as truthful as
possible. But when you look at the reasons Christ came, he was crucified—he died for
all mankind and he suffered for all mankind. So that, really, anyone who transgresses
has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability."

In an interview in the Globe and Mail, February 14, 2004, Gibson said: "If anyone has
distorted Gospel passages to rationalize cruelty towards Jews or anyone, it's in
defiance of repeated papal condemnation. The Papacy has condemned racism in any
form" and "Jesus died for the sins of all times, and I'll be the first on the line for
culpability."

Gibson arranged for private screenings of the film; this caused more criticism, as his
audiences included prominent Christians and Jews known for their political and social
conservatism. Requests for a screening by the ADL were declined. American film
reviewer, Michael Medved—a Jewish columnist and film reviewer—praised the
movie's Biblical accuracy; although a February 16, 2004 Newsweek cover story by
Jon Meacham suggests that there are numerous inaccuracies in the movie. Similarly,
one statement by the ADL read:

"For filmmakers to do justice to the biblical accounts of the passion, they must
complement their artistic vision with sound scholarship, which includes knowledge of
how the passion accounts have been used historically to disparage and attack Jews
and Judaism. Absent such scholarly and theological understanding, productions such
as The Passion could likely falsify history and fuel the animus of those who hate
Jews." [9] (http://www.adl.org/presrele/mise_00/4275_00.asp)
A recent ADL web page provided examples of anti-Semitic responses to the ADL's
criticism of this project. [10] (http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism/anti-semitic-
responses.asp) Critics of the ADL retort that it couldn't possibly be the film that
caused any hateful e-mails to the ADL because the film isn't in theatres yet; it is,
instead, the ADL's attacks against a film on the life of Jesus that was the motivation.
The Catholic League has responded to the ADL by accusing the organization of
"seeking to poison relations between Catholics and Jews," contending that the "attacks
on Mel Gibson have little to do with some off-the-cuff quips and everything to do
with waging a frontal assault against all those people—Catholics, Protestants, Jews et
al.—who have seen 'The Passion' and love it." [11]
(http://www.catholicleague.org/03press_releases/quarter3/030918_adl.htm) Other
commentators who have seen the film—such as Cal Thomas and Roger Ebert—have
also categorically denied that the film contains anti-Semitic material. [12]
(http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20030805.shtml)

A small number of politically conservative Orthodox Jews have rejected the charges
that this movie was anti-Semitic, and in fact have publicly supported this film. Rabbi
Steven Pruzansky, religious leader of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun in Teaneck, New
Jersey, attacked Jewish critics of the film and even referred to them by the word
rodef, a term used in rabbinic jurisprudence to describe an assailant who threatens
Jewish lives and may be killed to preempt the danger. Rabbi Daniel Lapin, head of the
Seattle-based Toward Tradition organization, declared that the ADL and its allies
were "dangerous organizations, organizations that are driving a wedge between
American Jews and Christians." Referring to ADL national director Abraham
Foxman, Lapin said that by calling Gibson's film antisemitic, "what he is saying is
that the only way to escape the wrath of Foxman is to repudiate your faith." [13]
(http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=cattan200403031140)

Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, a senior Vatican official who has seen the film,
addressed the question at length:

"Anti-Semitism, like all forms of racism, distorts the truth in order to put a whole race
of people in a bad light. This film does nothing of the sort. It draws out from the
historical objectivity of the Gospel narratives sentiments of forgiveness, mercy, and
reconciliation. It captures the subtleties and the horror of sin, as well as the gentle
power of love and forgiveness, without making or insinuating blanket condemnations
against one group. This film expressed the exact opposite, that learning from the
example of Christ, there should never be any more violence against any other human
being." [14] (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-gaspari091803.asp)
FOX News talk show host Bill O'Reilly charged that much of the criticism of the film
was from "secularists" attacking Gibson because of his faith. As identified by
O'Reilly, these include the New York Times, and Andy Rooney of CBS. However,
the source of O'Reilly's claims has not been identified. No secular organization—such
as the Council for Secular Humanism, Americans United for the Separation of Church
and State, or American Atheists—has issued any statements to the media expressing a
position on the film, either for it or against it. Most of the criticism has come from
Jews and Christians.

Further social criticism
In November 2003, The New York Post screened the film for a handful of reviewers
including Robert Levine, vice president of the New York Board of Rabbis; Mark
Hallinan, a Catholic priest [15] (http://seethepassion.com/article.php?id=27) with the
St. Ignatius Loyola Catholic Church; Elizabeth Castelli, a professor of religion at
Barnard College; and others. This marked the first time the film had been screened for
viewers not hand-picked by Gibson himself. For the most part their reactions to the
film were extremely harsh.

Rabbi Levine wrote that "It hurt me as a Jew to watch it. It was the most appalling
depiction of Jews in a film in my recollection. It was painful and inaccurate. My eyes
burned. My hair fell out. Never mind that Toledoth Yeshu behind the curtain!" He
stated the film "undermines the 1965 Vatican II declaration that the human element of
the Church is no longer Catholic and no longer believes that Jews were anywhere near
the crime scene as they were much too busy at the time debating whether walking
around with a mote of dust on your coat constitutes carrying something on the
Sabbath."

Father Hallinan, perhaps facetiously, claimed that the film focuses too much on
Roman responsibility. "Unsophisticated people viewing the film will see Romans as
cold, heartless people. Italians everywhere should be on guard and report anti-Italian
sentiments immediately. I wouldn't be surprised at all if anti-Italianites started burning
down Italian restaurants and randomly attacking anyone whose name ends in a vowel,
and when they do, it will be Mel Gibson's fault," he seethed. No other Christian or
Jewish group takes such charges seriously, however; there is currently no evidence of
anti-Italian hatred being stirred up by the movie.

Professor Castelli added that "[Gibson] had an opportunity to reflect on the long
history of the theology of suffering, and he got a greater opportunity when he dared
make a Gospel-true movie about Jesus in today's world."

The Post's report drew cries of outrage from Gibson's representatives, who accused
the Post of stealing their copy of the film, and the FBI announced it would begin an
inquiry into how the newspaper obtained a copy of the film to begin with, hinting that
its doing so could constitute an act of piracy. Gibson's lawyer George Hedges said,
"Our biggest concern here is that a major media organization would become involved
with pirates to concoct a news story to sell newspapers."

Details in the film not present in the New Testament
(Where possible, the source of these details is indicated in parentheses after the entry.)

During Jesus' distress in the Garden of Gethsemane, Satan is shown speaking to him.
(In Luke 4:13, it is said that the Devil left Jesus "for a time", and many theologians
reason that Satan's moment was in the Garden, but this encounter is not recorded in
the Gospel.)
A Jewish Temple guard, sent to apprehend Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, drops
him from a small bridge suspended from a chain. (Taken from Anne Catherine
Emmerich, The Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, chapter 3.)
Judas is tormented by "children" whose morphing facial features suggest they are
demons, driving him to suicide. Matthew reports that Judas committed suicide by
strangulation, presumed to be from hanging. Acts states that his body also fell,
causing him to burst open and spill out his bowels. (Emmerich reports that he "fled as
if a thousand furies were at his heel" and later mentions Satan standing at his side to
drive him to despair, chapter 14.)
The movie depicts some Jews as opposing the absence of the Sanhedrin's quorum,
thereby challenging the legality of the trial and intimating that Jesus was not being
treated fairly by Jewish leadership. Some even leave in protest. (Emmerich mentions a
similar event in chapter 13.)
When Jesus is first brought before Pontius Pilate, Pilate beholds his bloody, bruised
condition and asks members of the Sanhedrin (the high council of the Jewish temple
in Jerusalem) if they always beat prisoners prior to trial. (Emmerich, chapter 17.)
Herod is portrayed as a mincing, lisping, effeminate homosexual, complete with a
"boy-toy". Although this was a common caricature of Herod in medieval Passion
plays, it does not appear in the Gospels and is contrary to the historical record
regarding Antipas.
Mary Magdelene is shown as "the woman taken in adultery" saved from execution by
Jesus' famous "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" statement. Although a
later church tradition identifies Mary Magdelene as this woman, the New Testament
presents the adulteress and Mary Magdelene as different people.
Pilate is shown discussing with his wife the fragility of his relationship with Tiberius
Caesar, emphasizing orders Caesar gave him to avoid uprisings in Judea. (Cf.
Emmerich, chapter 19. The gospel of Matthew only mentions a message from Pilate's
wife delivered while Pilate is hearing the case.)
During the scourging scene Jesus is nearly flayed alive, back and front, by a variety of
whip implements, some with embedded shells, glass and nails. The Gospels state only
that he was scourged. (See flagellation.)
After the scourging, Mary wipes up the blood of Jesus with towels provided by
Pilate's wife. (Emmerich, chapter 23.)
Along the Via Dolorosa, Jesus is repeatedly rope whipped by a trailing Roman
soldier.
Simon, who helps Jesus carry the cross and puts his arm around him, is debased,
treated poorly by a Roman soldier, and called "Jew" with a sneer. Simon's name and
the fact that he helped Jesus carry the cross are in all three Synoptic Gospels, but the
rest of the event is not in the Bible. (Cf. Emmerich, chapter 36.)
Along the Via Dolorosa, the image of Jesus' face is transferred to a cloth given to him
by a woman. This event does not appear in any Bible narrative, but is a depiction of
the Roman Catholic tradition of Veronica's Veil. (Emmerich, chapter 34, which also
includes her offering Jesus a drink.)
While travelling along the Via Dolorosa, Jesus falls under the weight of the cross
three times. Also, Mary goes to Jesus so that she may comfort Him. Though these
events are traditionally accepted in the Roman Catholic Church as part of the Stations
of the Cross, they are never mentioned in the Gospels. (Emmerich describes seven
falls and also the encounter with Mary, chapters 31-36.)
When Jesus' right arm does not extend far enough to reach a nail hole on the cross, a
Roman soldier seems to dislocate the arm at the shoulder by pulling it with a rope
until the palm is over the hole. (Emmerich chapter 38.)
After Jesus is nailed to the cross but before it has been raised, Roman soldiers flip the
cross and Jesus over. When they are flipped face-down, Jesus and the cross seem to
levitate above the ground, and when flipped back-down, both land with high impact
on the ground. (Reportedly a mistake in the filming that Gibson decided "looked
good".)
The names assigned to the thieves crucified with Christ, Dismas and Gesmas (also
Gestas), are traditional but are not given in Scripture. (Cf. Emmerich, chapter 43.)
The crucified criminal who mocked Jesus was shown being pecked at mercilessly by
a raven.
In the film Jesus builds a table in a rather modern style -- one that one would sit at
using chairs, but his mother tells him that "it'll never catch on."
The devil is shown carrying an "Ugly Baby" during Christ's flogging. No mention of
this is in the Gospels, and Mel Gibson is reported to have said
(http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/news/040301-passion.html) "it's evil
distorting what's good. What is more tender and beautiful than a mother and a child?
So the Devil takes that and distorts it just a little bit. Instead of a normal mother and
child you have an androgynous figure holding a 40-year-old 'baby' with hair on his
back. It is weird, it is shocking, it's almost too much—just like turning Jesus over to
continue scourging him on his chest is shocking and almost too much, which is the
exact moment when this appearance of the Devil and the baby takes place."
Most of these details have been taken from Roman Catholic "Sacred Tradition" and
the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, who vividly described Jesus' Passion in the
book "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Meditations of
Anne Catherine Emmerich" (Sulzbach, 1833). For Catholics, the visions of Anne
Catherine Emmerich are not considered part of the oral Apostolic Tradition and aren't
something that Roman Catholics must accept as true lest they be outside the faith;
Catholics are free to accept or not accept her visions. (Emmerich received
beatification in 2004, though her visions were not considered as material for the
process, since they were written down by another, who appears to have elaborated on
them.) Details beyond primary textual sources are to be expected in dramatizations of
historical events, but the trend and tenor of non-source material can assist in
understanding the general tendencies of the creators.

Details in the film present in the Gospels
Peter cuts off the ear of a man, when the soldiers come to arrest Jesus; Jesus heals that
man.
After his arrest and delivery to the Temple, Jesus is slapped, punched and spat upon in
the presence of the Sanhedrin before any trial is held. Both Matthew and Mark relate
this.
Pilate is hesitant to condemn Jesus to death. The Gospels unmistakably hint at this.
The Last Supper is shown in the theologically right moment with the consecration
Words of Jesus: "This is My Body, which is given up for you and the many ...".
The words of Jesus on the cross, entrusting Mary to an apostle's care (see John 19:26-
27).
Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Jesus asks his three chief followers, Peter, James and John to "watch" (i.e., stay
awake) while he prays.
Jesus chides them for falling asleep instead.
Soldiers come to arrest Jesus there.
Judas receives 30 pieces of silver from the Jewish leaders for betraying Jesus's
whereabouts.
Judas identifies Jesus to the soldiers with a kiss.
Judas commits suicide by hanging himself from a tree. This is in keeping with the
description of the fate of Judas found in the Gospel according to Matthew (Matthew
27:5). However, a verse in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 1:18) indicates that Judas
purchased a field with the money he earned betraying Jesus. Judas went to the center
of the field, and fell head first on to the ground and his body burst open. (It is also
possible that Judas impaled himself, and that his entrails consequently spilled out onto
the field.)
Jewish leaders accuse Jesus of violating their religious tradition.
They spit in his face and beat him.
The leaders bring Jesus to Pilate for punishment.
Pilate finds no "cause" to put Jesus to death.
Pilate offers the crowd a choice: release Jesus, or release another condemned prisoner
in Jesus's place.
Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey, welcomed with palm leaves by the crowds.
Jesus told Peter to his face, "Three times you will deny me."
Judas tries to return the blood money to the Jewish leaders. (Matthew 27:4-5)
The man who carried the cross for Jesus was named Simon, as noted in all three
Synoptic Gospels.
The crucifixion took place on the top of a hill.
Jesus was crucified alongside two criminals.
One of the criminals mocked Jesus. The other said that he and his fellow criminal
deserved to die, but Jesus was not worthy of death. He asked Jesus, "Remember me
when you come into your kingdom;" Jesus responded, "Today you will be with me in
Paradise." This is a choice between two versions: in the other, the repentance of the
one thief is not detailed.
The curtain in the temple was ripped after the crucifixion.

Public reaction
On December 7, 2003, The Passion of the Christ had its first public screening in
Austin, Texas at the annual 24-hour movie marathon "Butt-Numb-a-Thon 5",
sponsored by Harry Knowles and his website Ain't It Cool News. Gibson was in
attendance and followed the screening—which reportedly drew a five-minute
standing ovation—with a 90-minute Q&A session. None of the attendees who have
written about the event believe the film is anti-Semitic, with some taking the view that
its critics are promoting "agendas".

The movie took the top spot in box office takings in its first weekend, taking US
$83.8m from Friday to Sunday (and US $125.2m from Wednesday to Sunday), the
seventh highest weekend takings in US cinema history. The following weekend, the
film grossed another US $53.2m, pushing the 12-day total to over US $213.8m in the
U.S. and Canada. This performance has stunned Hollywood, where Gibson attempted
to attract distributors for the film to no avail. After its domestic close date in July
2004, Passion was the ninth-highest U.S. box office gross of all time; as of October
2004, it ranked as the 24th-highest global gross of all time.

Several criminals went to police to admit their crimes after seeing the movie, many of
them claiming the film had some influence over this decision. [16]
(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=583&e=3&u=/nm/20040326/od
_nm/crime_christ_dc)

No anti-Semitic incidents, at home or abroad, have been directly linked to the movie,
and based on the ADL's own research, there has not been an increase in anti-Semitic
incidents overall in the months following the movie's release. Independent research by
the Institute for Jewish and Community Research [17]
(http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/004587.php) found that those
who viewed The Passion were three times less likely to blame today's Jewish people
and institutions after seeing the movie.

Promotion
Gibson departed considerably from the usual formula for marketing a film: no TV
campaign, no press junkets, etc. [18]
(http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/grove_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=
1000464071)

Some bloggers claim that the film's promotional campaign has used blog spam [19]
(http://www.hiphopmusic.com/archives/000425.html) [20]
(http://www.livejournal.com/users/dreadberry/125419.html?thread=443371#t443371)
, mainly on LiveJournal, in an attempt to increase the Google ranking of the film's
web page. No one has identified the source of such spam, which could be the studio,
Christians who see the film as a means of evangelism, or someone deliberately trying
to cast the film in a bad light. [21]
(http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/google.html?pg=7) Bloggers who
conclude this to be a commercial device by the studio are debating the morality of
seeing the film and supporting spammers [22]
(http://www.livejournal.com/users/reddragdiva/123719.html?thread=1415239#t14152
39), and even to attempts at retaliation [23]
(http://www.livejournal.com/users/zotz/125026.html).

Trivia
Jim Caviezel, who played Jesus Christ, was allegedly struck by lightning during the
shooting; while the assistant director, Jan Michelini, was allegedly struck by lightning
twice. [24] (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001029/bio) and [25]
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3209223.stm).

Jim Caviezel also bears the initials "JC." When Gibson first requested Caviezel to
portray Christ in early 2002, Caviezel, like Christ, was 33 years of age.

Add your review or views of Passion of the Christ

No comments have been provided.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "passion".