Storm of passion surrounds Gospel tale (From Western Telegraph)

Storm of passion surrounds Gospel tale

The Passion Of Christ Directed by Mel Gibson Starring James Caviezel, Monica Bellucci, Claudia Gerini, Maia Morgenstern, Sergio Rubini Cert. 18 Dur. 127mins

Making movies about Christ, specifically about the death of Christ, is more precarious today than ever. Two millennia have only increased the religious tensions between cultures of differing beliefs, as recent news events show.

Therefore, when Mel Gibson decided in 1992, he would produce and direct a film about the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ, which he would pay for out of his own pocket, there were plenty of raised eyebrows around Hollywood.

Those Hollywood eyebrows that weren't at their limit, rose even higher when Mel also added that his film, to be titled The Passion, would be shot entirely in Latin and Aramaic. Needless to stay that the only people jumping for joy at this prospect were the out of work actors, who also happened to speak Latin or Aramaic.

Not long after the production got under way, the controversy began. Gibson's movie, with a script credited to Benedict Fitzgerald and himself, is taken strictly from the gospels, and when a copy somehow found it's way to the outside world, a furore began as certain bodies felt the film was anti-Semitic and would fuel racial hatred.

There are obviously many issues within the film regarding this claim, but the most glaring involves the portrayal of how Jesus is 'delivered' to the Romans by the Jews. In other words the fear is that Mel Gibson, a hero to millions, makes a movie in which Jesus Christ is brutally murdered... and it's the Jews fault!

Is this worth worrying about? Is it likely to insight hatred? I don't know, because sadly I haven't seen it yet.

Somewhere in this argument the title of the movie was changed to The Passion of Jesus Christ and is even changed again to the current - The Passion Of Christ.

Whether these title changes are to do with their efforts to lessen offence, or merely for artistic reasons I don't know.

Anyway, in the USA, The Passion Of Christ opened on Ash Wednesday. It's been Gibson's own passion for 12 years (and more) and amazingly it was released in 20,000 different cinemas, making it the second biggest opening of any independent movie.

Many Evangelical church groups bought out whole cinemas in order to take the flock along, while the films detractors lined up to protest about it, or at least have a pot shot at Gibson for making it in the first place.

He said himself "This could be a career killer". So why did he make it?

Gibson is a devout Catholic, so his reasons for finding the subject matter so moving that he would risk his whole life's work to create this 'piece of art that I hope will endure' run very deep.

But perhaps the easiest answer to the question is this. Because he can. He has the money and he has the name.

You have to see this film I think, though I warn you it depicts the suffering of Christ more graphically than you will have seen it before.

You have to see it because the film's existence raises serious questions in our society. Is it offensive?

If it is, should it be shown in front of a paying public? Or is it just as much art as any painting?