The Passion Review
Monday, 24. March 2008, 13:56:03
I just watched most of the first three episodes of the BBC/HBO co-production of ‘The Passion’. I had heard a couple of annoyances about it beforehand, like the bit where Jesus and the Disciples haggle for the donkey on which Jesus was to ride on into Jerusalem (check the Book), but I decided to watch it anyway and was quite impressed.
My overall view is still mixed though. There are a lot of places, like the bit about haggling for the donkey, which diverge from the source material and there is a lot of stuff left out. Having seen Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, I didn’t think Jesus’ treatment was sufficiently brutal. Yes, Jesus was whipped, beaten and had half-inch wide nails hammered into him, but they toned down the pre-crucifixion scourging an awful lot compared to Gibson’s portrayal. In Gibson’s opus one could see bits of make up that looked like Caviezel’s rib bones, but in this version, there were just a few red marks on the back. I am not saying, ‘oh that’s too soft for an hard man like me’. I defy anyone not to be moved by ‘The Passion’, but a whipping as an European or American might understand it from films and perhaps from imagination is much different from a Roman scourging. But again, I do not see how any person could not be moved by a crucifixion. It is an horrific punishment.
Further comparison with The Passion of the Christ is warranted. I thought it strayed even further from the Gospels, but I did like the way it was in Aramaic and Latin, though historically speaking the Romans would probably have spoken Greek, if not with each other, at least with other nationalities. Greek to the Middle east back then would have been a bit like English to most Europeans: a second or third language, but an universal language nonetheless. By having all of ‘The Passion’s dialogue in English the viewer could miss some of the significance of what was said. One particular example being Jesus crying on the cross: Eloi, Eloi, lema sabacthani, which doesn’t just mean ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ It is also the start of Psalm 22. Now would be a good time to read Psalm 22. I’ll wait for you.
Casting as well bears comparison. Joseph Mawle I believe was better than James Caviezel and up there with Robert Powell. I also thought Gibson’s Pilate was suitably distanced from the action, but at the same time I thought James Nesbitt played a good performance, showing signs of madness from having to keep the peace among these rebellious Jews. Unfortunately I wasn’t so pleased with Penelope Wilton as Jesus’s mother Mary. Not that she played her part badly, but this raises a wider point about the casting in this production. She is a British actress. Nearly all the speaking parts were cast to British actors. It is true that many Jews in Britain are almost more British than the Anglo-Saxons are (there’s actually a long story about that I referenced before), but without wanting to sound anti-Semitic, Jews in general look different from Caucasoid Europeans. Maybe this was a conscious decision, to show the story through actors Europeans would be familiar with, or perhaps not to offend Jews (there is the bit about them wanting to kill Jesus after all*), but I think it would be useful for a future film about Jesus that the actors not just wear beards, but actually look Middle-Eastern too.
To close though, I will not be too harsh on the production. Frank Deasy, even though he did deviate too much, did a far better job than Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ in showing Jesus before being handed over to the Romans. Though I was annoyed by some of the deviations from the Gospel in the later stages of Episode 3, nonetheless, did not my heart burn as Jesus spoke? Yes it did. Jesus’s teachings in this production are powerfully presented and a challenge to all.
I hope to watch Episode 4 at some point via iPlayer.
* though I do not hold the Jews responsible. You are not responsible for Jesus’s death if you do not believe He is the Son of God, crucified for your sins, yet who rose again (my poor summary of Calvinism).
My overall view is still mixed though. There are a lot of places, like the bit about haggling for the donkey, which diverge from the source material and there is a lot of stuff left out. Having seen Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, I didn’t think Jesus’ treatment was sufficiently brutal. Yes, Jesus was whipped, beaten and had half-inch wide nails hammered into him, but they toned down the pre-crucifixion scourging an awful lot compared to Gibson’s portrayal. In Gibson’s opus one could see bits of make up that looked like Caviezel’s rib bones, but in this version, there were just a few red marks on the back. I am not saying, ‘oh that’s too soft for an hard man like me’. I defy anyone not to be moved by ‘The Passion’, but a whipping as an European or American might understand it from films and perhaps from imagination is much different from a Roman scourging. But again, I do not see how any person could not be moved by a crucifixion. It is an horrific punishment.
Further comparison with The Passion of the Christ is warranted. I thought it strayed even further from the Gospels, but I did like the way it was in Aramaic and Latin, though historically speaking the Romans would probably have spoken Greek, if not with each other, at least with other nationalities. Greek to the Middle east back then would have been a bit like English to most Europeans: a second or third language, but an universal language nonetheless. By having all of ‘The Passion’s dialogue in English the viewer could miss some of the significance of what was said. One particular example being Jesus crying on the cross: Eloi, Eloi, lema sabacthani, which doesn’t just mean ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ It is also the start of Psalm 22. Now would be a good time to read Psalm 22. I’ll wait for you.
Casting as well bears comparison. Joseph Mawle I believe was better than James Caviezel and up there with Robert Powell. I also thought Gibson’s Pilate was suitably distanced from the action, but at the same time I thought James Nesbitt played a good performance, showing signs of madness from having to keep the peace among these rebellious Jews. Unfortunately I wasn’t so pleased with Penelope Wilton as Jesus’s mother Mary. Not that she played her part badly, but this raises a wider point about the casting in this production. She is a British actress. Nearly all the speaking parts were cast to British actors. It is true that many Jews in Britain are almost more British than the Anglo-Saxons are (there’s actually a long story about that I referenced before), but without wanting to sound anti-Semitic, Jews in general look different from Caucasoid Europeans. Maybe this was a conscious decision, to show the story through actors Europeans would be familiar with, or perhaps not to offend Jews (there is the bit about them wanting to kill Jesus after all*), but I think it would be useful for a future film about Jesus that the actors not just wear beards, but actually look Middle-Eastern too.
To close though, I will not be too harsh on the production. Frank Deasy, even though he did deviate too much, did a far better job than Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ in showing Jesus before being handed over to the Romans. Though I was annoyed by some of the deviations from the Gospel in the later stages of Episode 3, nonetheless, did not my heart burn as Jesus spoke? Yes it did. Jesus’s teachings in this production are powerfully presented and a challenge to all.
I hope to watch Episode 4 at some point via iPlayer.
* though I do not hold the Jews responsible. You are not responsible for Jesus’s death if you do not believe He is the Son of God, crucified for your sins, yet who rose again (my poor summary of Calvinism).
