I AM DAVID

US, 2003, 90 minutes, Colour.
Ben Tibber, Jim Caviezel, Joan Plowright.
Directed by Paul Feig.

During the 1960s, Anne Holm’s novel sold millions of copies and was read widely by children. The producers of this film remembered it and wanted to bring it to the screen forty years later. It has received a number of awards at festivals and has been screened for a number of NGOs, especially those concerned with refugees.

This is a refugee story for children, a blend of optimism as well as wariness about trusting people. The treatment is very straightforward, rather unsophisticated and easy to damn with faint praise by saying that it worthy. Accepting this worthiness, one must say that at times it is quite a moving little film.

The setting is 1952 in a Bulgarian gulag. David has been separated from his politically active parents and interned in the hard labour camp. The film opens with his escape from the prison. It then continues his journey to Greece, by boat to Italy, through Italy to Switzerland on his way to Denmark with a sealed envelope which will reveal the truth about him.

There are flashbacks to the harshness of the camp, working in the quarries, executions for stealing soap. David’s friend in the camp, a bespectacled, self-sacrificing prisoner, Johannes, is played by Jim Caviezel. Joan Plowright plays a familiar role as an elderly artist who befriends and saves David. David himself is played with grim determination to survive by young British actor, Ben Tibber.

Because he meets with success, it could seem that the world is full of kind people eager to help this mysterious young refugee. However, it is not always easy. In fact, there are a lot of unfriendly people out there. But, this is a picture of the indomitable human spirit, aimed at a younger audience and their parents.

1. The appeal of the film? Internationally? American production, British and American cast? The scenes and the story on the continent of Europe? Different sensibilities and sentiment?

2. The popularity of the original novel, the sixties? The memories, the 21st century and wars, persecutions, internment camps? Audience response to these themes?

3. World War Two, the aftermath, the rise of communism, the prison camps and gulags behind the Iron Curtain, the hard labour for the prisoners, men, women, children? The suffering? The harsh administration? The desire for escape and freedom?

4. The structure of the film: David, his friend in the camp, life in the camp, the voice-over giving him advice about his escape and his journey, the details of the escape, the letter to keep safe, his mission, on the road, the cumulative effect of all the incidents, his memory of his mother, the memory of the death of his friend, the revelation of who was his patron and his motives?

5. The portrait of the friend in the camp, his help, the flashbacks, in the dormitory, working, audiences assuming that he was the man helping David? The search, his protecting David, dying for him?

6. The commander, his presence, seeming sternness? The irony that he was helping David? His love for David’s mother, giving him the documents, giving him the plan, sending him to freedom?

7. David, his age, internment, the memory of his mother, the dim awareness of his parents and his life before the camp? The hard labour in the camp, in the dormitories, with the commander?

8. The escape, the details of the lights going out, getting through the fence, getting the bag, going through the fields? The continued danger? The satchel, the compass, the trucks – and their being searched? On the boat, getting to Greece? Italy, the man on the boat, the support, friendship, swimming to land? The effect of these events on David and his determination to persevere?

9. The sailor, discovering David on the ship, their friendship – and the irony of meeting him later in the truck? In Italy, walking, finding jobs, the shops, people for and against him?

10. The chance encounter with the children, the barn fire, his saving the girl, going to the wealthy family, the comfortable bed, the meals, the friendship of the family? Finding the book?

11. His determination to get to Switzerland, the journey, meeting Sophie in northern Italy, the talk, the help, her getting him across the border? Finding the book again, Sophie and her explanations about his mother? Sophie as a character, age, kindness?

12. His being able to get to Denmark, meeting his mother, the happy reconciliation? The revelation that the commander had helped him to freedom?

13. A film of deep feeling, the enterprise of the human spirit, resilience after brutality?

THE INCREDIBLES

US, 2004, 120 minutes, Colour.
Voices of Craig T. Nelson, Holly Hunter, Samuel L. Jackson, Brad Bird.
Directed by Brad Bird.

It’s almost too late to say that Pixar Studios have done it again. Every reviewer seems to have said it. Of course, they are right. Who thought it was impossible to top the Toy Story movies or A Bug’s Life or Monsters Inc or Finding Nemo? Probably Finding Nemo reaches a wider audience, especially of littlies, but there is no denying that The Incredibles is an extraordinary tour-de-force of animation genius and wizardry.

There is obviously an audience for this type of heroic action adventure that involves the whole family. The Spy Kids stories proved that. Thunderbirds (which this story resembles) tried to do it.

The Incredibles, despite the fact that it runs for two hours, seems to keep the attention of the young audience. After all, they are watching a family, not just any old family, but a family of superheroes who are trying to blend in, to be normal, but then have to rescue the world from a young mad scientist (voiced by Jason Lee but looking and sounding like a more manic Jack Black). There is plenty for adults to enjoy. Not just the action, which animation has enabled to be more flexible and derring-do than Spiderman), but also the parody of ordinary living, the satire on science fiction and a good deal of humour.

Speaking of humour, actor Craig T. Nelson has never given the impression of being a comedian. He is usually a reliable hero (TV’s Coach) or a solid leader or a solid villain. But he voices Mr Incredible with fine comic timing, pride and modesty and some nice romantic touches. Mr Indcredible is extremely likable. Holly Hunter is recognizably welcome as Mrs Incredible (nee Elastogirl). Samuel L.Jackson voices their superhero friend.

One can only say again just how fluid, colourful, fast-paced and seemingly effortless the animation is that has created such an action-packed and amusing entertainment. It is a tribute to writer-director, Brad Bird.

1. The film’s acclaim, awards? The success of Pixar Studio films? The sense of what audiences like, subjects and treatment?

2. The title, the tradition of images of heroes? The irony of the couple being heroes, their solving cases, service to the city, the mistakes, the disasters? Their being in a protection program? The transition to ordinary life, their children with their gifts – and the yen for the heroic? The public response to the Incredibles?

3. The quality of the animation style, widescreen and colour, design, characters, real/parody? Action types, the action sequences, editing and pace, computer graphic effects, the skills and catching the audiences up in the atmosphere?

4. The parents, the children? The voices – and the rendition of the comic lines?

5. Mr Incredible and his look, Chesty Bond? Seeing him in action, in the city, responding to needs, thwarting evil? Elastagirl and her look, her arms, stretching, her feats? Frozone and his character, appearance, skills in action, the freeze?

6. The world of ordinary people, the criminals, the success of the Incredibles, the victims, suing, the public? Government decisions, retirement? The effect on the family and their having to go into ordinary life, the relocation, the jobs, home life, ordinariness for fifteen years?

7. The family, the bonds between them, Bob as a good father, Helen as a good mother? Violet and her skills, the petulance of the young girl, Dash and his energy? The baby? Living in the suburbs, ordinariness – and the importance not being special?

8. Bob at work, its dullness, at the desk, the clients, his giving help to the clients with interpreting the law, the boss, his threats?

9. Helen, home life, the domestic style, the children and their going to school, frustrated at having to be ordinary at school and control and conceal their gifts? Their eagerness to use them? Their not understanding their parents?

10. Bob and Frozone, the Wednesday night out, not telling the truth to Helen, their motives, talking about the situation, listening in to the calls, going into action – and seeing them in action saving people? The heroism at the house?

11. Helen, her finding out, the consequences?

12. The character of Bud, Incrediboy? His wanting to help Mr Incredible, his presence, the inventions, his being a nuisance, Bob stopping him helping?

13. Bud and his growing to be Incrediboy, his resentment of the past, his dislike of Bob, his becoming a mad inventor, a kind of Dr No on his island, controls, sending Mirage on her mission?

14. Mirage, appearance and style, her mission? The unleashing of the rogue robot, Omnidroid? The devastation?

15. Bob, the confrontation with Omnidroid, his victory, his being sacked from his firm, the satire on bosses and bureaucrats?

16. Bob, a new chance in life, reforming, not fitting into his uniform, getting slimmer, the design – and the designer and her comments about the uniform, fitting him out?

17. Syndrome, the power, the devastation of the Omnidroid and its wreaking its destruction in the city?

18. Helen, going to Edna, the uniforms, with the children, wanting to rescue Bob, their all being captured?

19. The continued havoc of the Omnidroid, the destruction of Metroville? The need for saviours?

20. Mirage, the Incredibles, Frozone – and the battle, the overcoming of Incrediboy?

21. Syndrome, the baby, the fiery talent of the baby? Violet and her being invisible, Dash and his speed? Their using their skills with flair?

22. The continued dangers – and the continual need for heroes?

REQUIEM


23rd February 2006

During 2005, a surprise box-office success around the world was Scott Derrickson’s The Exorcism of Emily Rose, around $80,000,000 in the US alone.
There was a SIGNIS statement sent out in October 2005about the film and its treatment of demonic possession and exorcism, giving the background to the film, events which occurred in Bavaria in the mid-1970s. The screenplay for Emily Rose adapted some of these events and characters to the United States and fictionalised them.

At the 2006 Berlinale, a new German film, Requiem, was screened in the main Competition, winning a Silver Bear for the performance of Sandra Hueller as well as the award from the international federation of film critics (FIPRESCI). Critics at the festival tended to praise Requiem at the expense of The Exorcism of Emily Rose, sometimes indulging in the perennial critical pastime, the putdown of the Hollywood movie. They praised Requiem for its more direct storytelling and more straightforward in dealing with the psychological and religious issues of possession.

However, it needs to be said that Emily Rose is an American genre film, a psychological and religious thriller, and needs to be critiqued accordingly, appreciating the conventions it relies on and uses. Requiem is not a genre film. Rather, it is a serious-minded European-style drama.

Since the original events took place in Germany, with Catholic characters and raising Catholic issues, it is appropriate to offer comments made by Dr Peter Hasenberg from the German Catholic Bishops Conference to give a German response. Some comments on the issues will follow.

'Hans- Christian Schmid, who has been called ‘the most serious among German directors’, has approached the theme of demonic obsession form a point of view diametrically opposed to that of Scott Derrickson in ‘The Exorcism of Emily Rose’.

The title of the film indicates that it is not a thriller about exorcism, but rather a film about a tragic death brought about by complex influences. Set in a small town in Germany in the 1970s, the film tells the story of a young woman who seems to be at the brink of a new life when she goes to the university in Tübingen to become a teacher. She is disturbed by the fact that her already well-known malady – she has suffered from epilepsy since childhood – is coming back. She regards this as God’s punishment and begins to see visions of demons.

She turns for help to her parish priest who refuses to accept the interpretation that she may be posessed by demons but draws in a younger colleague who is more willing to accept the possibility of a demonic possession.

There is not the slightest trace of sensationalism in the film. The director’s aim is not to accuse but to understand. The documentary style reminds us that Schmid studied documentary film-making and that he is interested in the truth behind a well-known case. He depicts this tragedy of a young woman with a very sensitive approach to all the characters involved. Even though some of them may be guilty to some extent – e.g. the stern mother or the young priest – they are not depicted as evil influences. The tragedy lies in the fact that all the people involved are basically good-willed and would like to help but are unable to reach the young woman who cannot resolve the conflicts inside herself except by embracing her suffering as sent from God and accepting her death as a martyr suffering for a higher good.'

The director and screenwriter have both stated that they do not believe in demonic possession. They see the experience of the central character, here called Michaela, as a physical and mental health condition. It is shown that Michaela has suffered from epilepsy since childhood. However, they wanted to present the possession of Michaela in as detached a way as they could. They respect the beliefs of Michaela and her family and want to tell the story so that audiences will be able to assess the different opinions on possession They want to present the story without bias. They have.

One of the difficulties for audiences watching films like Emily Rose and Requiem is that they have largely been pre-conditioned to expect rather sensational visualisations of possession as well as reactions to exorcism. William Friedkin’s The Exorcist (1973) has set a benchmark: physical contortions, bile spewing, levitation, gross language and abuse. Sequels and prequels and imitations over the decades have reinforced this. Emily Rose is quite restrained in its presentation of possession phenomena, relying on performance rather than special effects. This is even truer of Requiem. The possession does affect Michaela’s physical condition but not so grotesquely. There are some manifestations of loss of control (spitting at her mother) and some abusive language. There is only one exorcism sequence and, unlike the other films, where this always happens at night, it takes place in daylight.

The parish priest in Emily Rose is accused of negligent homicide because he supported Emily Rose in her decision to stop taking her medication. Most of the film takes place in the court. There are two priests in Requiem. The elderly parish priest who has known Michaela for a long time is wary of too supernatural an explanation. He asks a younger, more educated priest to help. This priest is more inclined to believe Michaela and is in favour of prayer to confront the demons. Both priests perform the exorcism in a rather low-key manner. (A postscript to the film informs audiences that Michaela experienced several more exorcisms and finally weakened and died.)

Most viewers, including Christians, will be more prone to accept the psychological explanation. This is certainly the ‘secular’ opinion. The screenplay of Emily Rose, however, reminds us that anthropological information gives evidence of demonic possession in many cultures other than Christian. That needs to be seriously considered.

However, there are two Catholic comments that can be made and they apply both to Emily Rose and to Requiem. Theologically speaking, the two films take similar stances. The two films can be seen as complementary.

The first point is that there is a long Christian tradition that chosen individuals, men and women, seem to have been singled out, with a ‘vocation’, to be tempted and tested, to suffer, to experience personal physical and mental torment. They witness to evil in the world. They witness to the need for repentance, reconciliation, reparation and atonement. Paul himself writes to the Romans about the torment of doing what he does not want to do and not being able to do what he wants. Stories, sometimes of rather lurid temptations, are ascribed to the early desert hermits and fathers and this tradition of victim saints has continued over the centuries. More recent saints who have had such experiences include St John Vianney of Ars and the Italian St Gemma Galgani. In Requiem, towards the beginning of the film, Michaela goes on a parish pilgrimage to an Italian shrine of St Katharine, a recluse who suffered great pain and died at the age of 33. Michaela is impressed by this saint and begins to understand her life and death as a parallel.

This is not a comfortable spirituality and the immediate reaction of most people is to reject it or even ridicule it. This was part of a reaction to Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. However, it is one of the key points of Kaszantsakis’s novel and Martin Scorsese’s film The Last Temptation of Christ. Giving up on one’s vocation is the last temptation. Jesus himself experienced all human temptation, as the letter to the Hebrews states, but in no way turned away from God. It is very clearly this spirituality that Michaela accepts, seeing herself as a suffering witness for God, a martyr.

The second point concerns what seems to be a clash between religion and science. Developments in the theology of miracles throw light on this issue. In the earlier centuries of the church, events which were proclaimed as miracles could well have been explained by natural causes, or were the product of suggestion or superstition. In the 18th century, in the Age of Enlightenment, Pope Benedict XIV drew up stringent criteria for assessing the truth of miracles of healing. To move away from piety and from superstition, it was decreed that miracles were cures beyond what was naturally possible. For the next centuries, there was rigorous examination of miracles (as in Lourdes) or those accepted for the processes of beatification and canonization of saints.

This, however, can relegate the context of faith to a lesser consideration. The important aspect of miracles (as in the Gospel narratives) is that the healing takes place in a context of prayer and belief. In that sense, the physical possibility of healing or self-healing is less important and can be acknowledged. It is the faith context which is all important.

A parallel can be used for possession and exorcism. While there may be medical, psychological and physical explanations for the condition and for the cure, the exorcism, it is the context of faith that is most important. There should not be any logical dichotomy between faith and science.

Emily Rose raises these issues of faith and science, prayer and psychology for the wide, multiplex, audiences so that they can reflect on the popular film they have seen. Requiem is a mainstream drama for many audiences, especially Europeans, but less likely to be popular in the movie complexes. But, it also raises many questions of faith. While the film-makers of Requiem do not profess faith, they have shown respect for faith and for those who believe. There is a key scene and line in Requiem when Michaela first arrives for lectures and is late. The professor asks her what she believes in. She simply says, ‘in God’. There is some general laughter in disbelief and mockery among the students. The professor remarks that that is where the trouble is. In scepticism.

THE OMEN

6-6-06

It is the 6th of the 6th 06 – and, in fact, the screening of The Omen this afternoon finished at 6.06 pm – so it seems a suitable moment for a statement on the film.

A preliminary observation. It has been amazing and irritating that in recent weeks we have been approached by newspapers and radio programs not so much about the film but about seemingly trivial matters. It was not for clarification of issues or the position of the Church. Rather, journalists were asking about women who allegedly don’t want to give birth on the 6th of June because of what they have heard about the number of the devil, 666. And they don’t want to call their sons Damien because that is the name of the devil.

People who declare that they are not religious, who are sceptical about the teachings of Christianity suddenly give credence to superstitions from who knows where or seemingly religious gossip. As regards the name Damien for the devil, that was invented by writer David Seltzer in the 1970s for the screenplay of the original Omen. Nothing to do with the Bible. And there are all kinds of discussion about the symbolism of 666 (not a date, let alone a date in our times) for the early Church and the Roman Empire.

So, in the immediate wake of The Da Vinci Code comes the remake of the 1976 film, The Omen. This present version is more respectful of the Church than Code’s blatant criticisms and implications, even if it opens with a bizarre-looking cleric at the Vatican observatory noting strange comets in the skies (echoes of stars over Bethlehem). The cleric hurries to inform a cardinal in Rome. The cardinal then explains recent events (Sept 11th, wars in the Middle East, hurricanes) to the Pope and the Curia along ultra-literal lines of interpretation of selected texts from the Apocalypse. (Actually, some very evangelical groups, especially in the US might not think them so far-fetched). One cannot imagine Benedict XVI listening to this kind of biblical hokum!

As regards the official church, there is nothing more, except a dying scene for the Pope where the Cardinal rushes to kneel by his bedside, presumably to tell him the bad news that Damien lives. And the Pope dies. There are two demented priests who have been caught up in the birth of the antichrist and have participated in having the baby adopted by an American diplomat who is the godson of the American president. Those who know the two Omen sequels are aware how significant this is for Damien’s easy entrée into world politics and business. (The riff given to the beast arising from the eternal sea is that this is not meant to be taken literally – while everything else is – and means the turmoil of the sea of politics).

Novelists and screenwriters as we realise, particularly at this Da Vinci hypothesis and conspiracy time, invent scenarios that rely on a medley of historical facts, legends and religious images. They are fascinated by apocalyptic texts, sometimes inventing them as in Omen 3, and eager to apply them to the present. They can be imaginative ‘what ifs…?’. The Omen is clearly one of these scenarios.

However. While non-Christians and non-believers can watch The Omen or dismiss it as a piece of imaginative nonsense, it is not so easy for believers to dismiss it.

One of the intriguing features of both Roman Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby (1968), the first of the incarnation of evil films, and Richard Donner’s The Omen (1976) is that they postulate the incarnation of the devil. This came as something of a shock to us in the 1960s. We had not quite imagined this scenario. But it made Catholics reflect that, if the incarnation of God was possible, then so was the incarnation of evil. With the cultural and religious questioning of the 1960s, especially with Time Magazine’s take on the movements and opinions of say, Bishop John Robinson in the UK, ‘Honest to God’ and Paul Tillich and others suggesting in the US that there should be a moratorium on the word, ‘God’, with alternates like ‘Ground of our being’, the question was ‘Is God Dead?’. This was the black-baground, red-letter cover of Time at Easter 1966 (which Polanski actually used in his film, the magazine that Rosemary read in the doctor’s waiting room). In the early 1970s came possession films, The Exorcist (1973) and its sequel and many derivatives. Audiences were invited to raise issues of the devil, incarnation and possession, that both fascinated and frightened people.

Is it the same today? Are we so apprehensive now with terrorist attacks, wars, earthquakes and tsunamis that we wonder about God’s presence and the presence of evil, of the demonic? Does the modern fascination with religious conspiracies add its influence? Has western culture lost its knowledge of Christian roots, symbols, images and teaching that audiences are prone to believe anything without checking it critically? These are questions that the Church today has to come to grips with.

In the meantime, The Omen itself?

David Seltzer has again written the screenplay, putting the events in a 21st century context. He has also made the parents of Damien (Liev Schreiber and Julia Styles) much younger than Gregory Peck and Lee Remick. Otherwise, it is very close to the original, relying on atmosphere and eerie suspense rather than horror (although the three upsetting deaths from 1976 are repeated in the same upsetting way here and the menacing dogs are present again). A footnote of interest is that the nanny this time is a fey Mia Farrow, looking surprisingly like Rosemary of 1968 rather than her sixty years. David Thewliss is the photographer and Pete Postlethwaite has melodramatic moments as the disturbing priest, Fr Brennan.

Dramatically and thematically, the film is quite pessimistic. It looks as though evil triumphs. After destroying his family and others who helped them, Damien survives and, as in the original, he stands at the graveside of his father, hand in hand with the president, turns to the audience with his perpetual malevolent expression – and then smiles. Obviously, it is all open to a sequel. For believers, fortunately, the sequel is optimistic, a sequel of grace.

For those who don’t know the original, The Omen may come as a surprise. For those who appreciated the original, the surprise element is long gone, so it is a matter of looking at the plot and questions more closely.

The Omen is a reminder to those who believe in God that there is evil in our world, that it is malicious and destructive. It is alarming to see it embodied in a five year old child who appears more and more sinister and ruthless. A diabolical passive-aggressive.

THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST - RECUT

March 23rd 2005

Mel Gibson has responded to comments during 2004 that The Passion of the Christ was too brutal and bloodthirsty for some audiences and many potential viewers decided that the reports of the visual violence influenced their decision not to see the film. He has recut the film so that it is now six minutes shorter. More accurately, he has ‘trimmed’ his film with the hope that it will find the audience who did not see it originally and that it will receive a lower age classification this time, making it accessible to younger audiences. In fact, the British Board of Censors which gave the film an 18+ rating in 2004 has given the recut version a 15+ certificate (whereas this was the classification given to the original version in Ireland).

The release and marketing of The Passion Recut was left until the end of Lent (in Britain, Good Friday) whereas Christian audiences would have considered going to see during Lent. From Easter Sunday, the liturgical and spirituality mood of the churches is that of the Resurrection rather than the Passion.

In fact, the recut version seems very little different from the original cut. The alternate images of Mary during the scourging and the lessening of the loud impact of the whips means that this sequence, though still very strong, does not seem quite so much ‘over the top’. The way of the cross seems unchanged – except for a lessening of the impact of the crow’s attack on the unrepentant thief.

The comments offered on The Passion of the Christ in the SIGNIS statement of November 2003 on its biblical basis and its theology still pertain to the recut.

Reviewing The Passion Recut

One of the interesting features of re-viewing the film a year and more after the initial controversy is that the film seems stronger. Sensitive to the criticisms that the film was anti-Semitic, many thought that the appearances, especially of Annas and some of the Sanhedrin, seemed like caricature villains. This does not seem to be the case this time. Trying to hear whether the ‘blood curse’ of Matthew’s Gospel was spoken by the leaders and the crowd, we hear only a murmur, no distinct words.

It is surprising to read the passion account in Matthew’s Gospel and note how much detail of the screenplay is taken from that text. Dramatically, many sequences are just as effective: Peter and his protestations, his drawing of his sword, his denials in the jostle of the courtyard and his weeping and confession to Mary; the significance of Judas, his going to the authorities, Gethsemane, his bewilderment in the courtyard, his torment by the children and the rotting corpse of the donkey as he hanged himself; the support of Simon of Cyrene who is taunted as being a Jew.

Jim Caviezel’s screen presence is strong, a well-built man who could endure so much suffering. His quiet gentleness, smiles and humour in the flashbacks are a welcome counterbalance to the suffering. Maya Morgenstern’s performance and presence as Mary made a great impact originally and retain their power, both her strength in grief and the moment when she weeps.

Practically everyone who saw The Passion in 2004 felt compelled to mention the scourging and its brutality whether they admired the film or not. In retrospect, it seems somewhat strange that so much comment was made on what people saw in those nine minutes and comparatively little on the flashbacks which were so well placed to give a wider perspective on Jesus’ personality as well as his ministry and which, in dramatic terms, relieved the intensity of the torment.

The comments of 2004 in retrospect

What may be of interest, however, is a report on some information gathered by SIGNIS during 2004 on responses to the film from around the world. This includes comments on how the film was released, criticisms made at the time and reflections on the kinds of spirituality that favoured the film and that were hostile to the film.

Differing responses in different places

The Passion of the Christ was made principally for American audiences and, by extension, for English-language audiences. However, since the film was spoken in Aramaic and Latin, it lent itself for sub-titling everywhere.

Asia

The film was screened in many Asian countries. As might be expected, it was very popular in the Philippines, the Catholic country of Asia, a country with a Hispanic religious tradition which has followed the devotional aspects of Catholicism with great emotion, even passion. In some areas, there are vividly physical re-enactments of Christ’s passion. This audience has very little difficulty in responding straightforwardly to the strong presentation of Jesus’ suffering.

However, The Passion was successful in unexpected areas. It broke box-office records in Dubai where the population is 85% expatriate, many from the Philippines but also from Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan. Lebanon was another country where it drew large audiences.

In Hong Kong, where the Catholic Audiovisual Office, prepared the Chinese sub-titles, it was showing on 27 screens during Easter weekend, 2004. The distributors limited the screenings in Bangkok to six (with the Catholic office again preparing the sub-titles) but they were immediately booked out and so another four performances (with discussion following) were permitted.

The situation was different in neighbouring Malaysia where the religious and legal climate did not permit public screenings. Audiences watched the film on pirated copies – pirating is something of an industry in this part of the world.

Issues of anti-Semitism are not prevalent in most countries of Asia.

Africa

It is more difficult to get information about The Passion in Africa. While South Africa has American-like distribution and exhibition, especially in city complexes, other countries do not have such movie outlets and rely on cassettes and a growing popularity of DVD.

The Pacific

Australia, New Zealand and Fiji are part of worldwide cinema complex trends. The Passion had wide and multiplex release with reviews for and against, as exemplified by both viewpoints being published in Sydney’s Catholic Weekly. The film received strong public support from Cardinal Pell of Sydney. However, the debate about Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitism was strong, Jewish reviewers feeling that the film was indeed anti-Semitic. However, The Passion was number one at the Australian box-office for two weeks in succession, echoing the patterns of the American release.

Latin America

The film, as might be expected, was very popular in Latin America. It was very strong in Brazil with its population near to that of the United States. Once again, the Hispanic and Iberian religious traditions and sensibility mean that audiences are immediately ‘on the wavelength’ of this kind of film. The violent sequences do not seem out of place as they do in more reserved European cultures. Rather, audiences identify with the experiences of Jesus and his suffering. It was said in the 1970s that South America was the region where Zeffirelli’s Jesus of Nazareth was most popular. Many Church leaders were supportive of the film.

Europe

Europe was the region of the world where there was the greatest diversity in response to The Passion.

It was well received in Eastern European countries, especially Poland. Perhaps it was a heritage of religious persecution in the 20th century which meant that audiences were identifying more with the sufferings of Jesus.

Opinion differed in Western European countries. Italy, Spain and Portugal saw strong audiences. However, in France, there was a mood of hostility towards the film: American, religious, violent. In Germany and Benelux, the violence was considered far too much for its audiences and the film was disliked by critics and some religious leaders, although many popular audiences went to see it. It was more successful in Ireland and, despite generally hostile criticism in Britain, The Passion was top of the box office chart for two weeks. Release was spread out through Europe, earlier in Lent in Italy, capitalising on fervour, later in Lent in Britain where it caught religious interest as Holy Week approached. A sign of the differing sensibilities is the classification in Ireland for 15 and over whereas in Britain The Passion was restricted to 18 and over. The Passion Recut has received a 15 and over certificate.

Different Christian groups in Europe contributed to an appreciation of the film from a religious standpoint. A German Protestant group prepared a book of reviews reflecting the wide range of opinion. In England, a group prepared a booklet of questions and answers about the film and about the Gospels. It was distributed at many of the cinemas screening The Passion.

North America

Nobody expected The Passion of the Christ to have the box-office success that it did.

In the United States alone, it made almost $400,000,000 in cinemas (a little below such blockbusters as Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King). In the first few days of its VHS and DVD release in August 2004, it sold at least 9,000,000 copies. Christian groups hired cinemas for special screenings as well as making block bookings.

During 2003 when there were test screenings, especially for church leaders, the focus of controversy was the potential for anti-Semitism. Many American Jewish leaders spoke out strongly on the issue, critical of the film and of Gibson himself. However, other Jewish leaders pointed out anti-Semitism is the deliberate and malicious maligning of Jewish people. This was not Gibson’s intention. However, given the 20th century history of persecution and the reality of the Holocaust, it was thought that Gibson showed himself somewhat insensitive to Jewish feeling. Gibson tried to explain that he was not anti-Semitic. He gave a thirty minute interview (as did Jim Caviezel) to Raymond Arroyo of the US Eternal Word Network while the film was in production which is a useful source for gauging his intentions before the onrush of criticism.

(In March 2005, I was invited to do a series of interviews on The Passion Recut for BBC regional radio (sitting in a London studio for two hours with 12 successive interviews every ten minutes). Only one of the interviewers raised the issue of anti-Semitism.)

One of the other features of the debate was the reviewing of Mel Gibson’s religious stances and those of his father, Hatton Gibson, and the implication that these pervaded the film: anti-Semitism, staunch conservatism, anti-Vaticanism. Britain’s Channel 4 screened an hour-long documentary on the Sunday night of the opening weekend. It discussed Gibson’s stances and showed scenes (rather alarming) of his father’s outspokenness (for example, referring to John Paul II as the Koran-quoting pope). While Gibson comes from this background and the documentary contains some of his snide remarks about the contemporary church, his film is quite mainstream.

Some religious leaders endorsed the film, especially for Lent. For instance, the bishop of Wilmington, Delaware, issued a pastoral letter for Lent on the religious meaning of movies, exploring the themes of The Passion and Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King and suggesting ways in which parishes and schools might discuss these films.

The reviews in the United States were very mixed. There are 170 listings for reviews from around the world in the IMDb file for external reviews of The Passion. Two very differing reviews, those of Roger Ebert from Chicago (thoughtfully in favour) and James Carroll of the Boston Globe (highly emotional and aggressive) illustrate the two poles. For many critics, the artistic commentary is important, the links with horror films, comparisons with Braveheart, censorship for violence; but it is usually not considered in the light of intrinsic links between theme and presentation. British critics were much more hostile to the film, generally disliking what they see as heart on sleeve emotionalism in many American films, whether it be sentimentality or violence: ‘foolish and shallow film’, ‘obscenely extended violence’, ‘no spirituality whatever’.

Perceptions

The issue of the violence of the film and the brutality depicted has caused a great deal of media debate and prevented a number of people seeing the film, fearing they would not be able to watch and bear the violence. Had the film been about any other person but Jesus, would the film have been made like this and allowed to be shown?

The sight of blood has varying effects on different people. There are some robust sensibilities which are not so disturbed by it. Blood has been part of their history. There are other sensibilities which are more fastidious about the sight of blood. This seems to be the case in Western Europe where there has been a tradition for some decades to enforce tighter controls on depictions of violence (in contrast with a more liberal attitude towards the depiction of sexual behaviour). Mel Gibson’s career came into focus in this regard, his action shows, the Lethal Weapon series and others, as well as his depiction of the battles and death of William Wallace as Braveheart. He was considered as too bloodthirsty. Some reviewers referred to his ‘zealot’s rapture’ for the Passion and as indulging in sado-masochism.

This is what many saw: because they felt that the violence was over the top, it seems to have prevented them from seeing so much more that was in the film.

The caption at the opening of the film is a quotation from Isaiah 53, the suffering servant of Yahweh. The servant songs of the book of Isaiah are the peak of redemptive theology in the Jewish scriptures: the innocent servant who is prepared to be the innocent lamb led to the slaughter bearing the sins of others, vicarious suffering. Vicarious suffering has always been acknowledged and admired as complete self-sacrifice. The Jerusalem Bible translation includes the phrase to describe the impact of the suffering servant on those who witnessed his suffering: ‘they were appalled on seeing him’.

Appalled is the biblical word and that is what Gibson wanted in his audience. Jesus’ suffering and death is shocking. Perhaps too long an easy spirituality and sanitised art has prevented us from being appalled.

This highlights how the response to the film reflected the religious experience of the viewers.

What was surprising in 2004 was not only how many people who normally don’t go to see a film actually went to a cinema (and later bought the cassette or DVD) and were able to sit through the film, especially the older audiences and members of religious orders. They seem to have been appalled in the best sense. After years of contemplation of the sufferings of Jesus, using the decades of the Rosary, the Stations of the Cross and other devotions, they found that the film corresponded to their prayer. Focussing less on the idea of suffering (which is what theologians professionally have to do), they were attentive (in the way that Ignatius Loyola advocated in his Spiritual Exercises) to immersing themselves in the experience of Jesus. There was a meeting of what was on screen with experience that clicked.

This is very difficult to explain to someone who has not experienced it – although, if we were to speak about our favourite films and why they mean so much to us, the conversation would probably parallel the way these audiences spoke about watching The Passion.

Because of the rediscovery of a spirituality of the Resurrection in recent decades, many spiritual writers and spiritual directors have felt that many people have not developed this aspect of spirituality, that they are stuck in the Passion. There must always be the challenge of the Resurrection for spiritual growth, but it sounded during discussions in 2004 and seemed reflected in much religious writing that those who have had the benefit of a deeper education in biblical theology took a superior and sometimes intolerant stance over those who were less religiously sophisticated and who relied on a very personal faith, whatever its limitations. Some of the articles and comments sounded elitist – that this Passion spirituality was for the less spiritually developed. Some of the comments also sounded intolerant: that their more comprehensive spirituality was what people should follow, that they should not have a Passion of the Christ spirituality.

Listening to callers on phone-in radio, one realised that it was a wide range of people who were responding well to the film. One educator made the point that, with the emphasis on the gentle humanity of Jesus in recent decades to counterbalance a sometimes exclusive emphasis on his divinity, younger people were looking for a more transcendent Jesus and that Mel Gibson’s insight was to portray this transcendence in someone who was clearly both divine and human. This appreciation, according to popular hearsay, led some audiences to re-think their faith stance and some to ‘conversion’.

This was especially true in the more Evangelical church congregations who combined the film with their Good Friday ceremonies in both 2004 and, with their DVD copy, in 2005.

For some non-Christians – and I rely on a Bangladeshi Muslim friend who attested to this – the impact of the film was to help them realise for the first time the reality of what Jesus suffered. Critics referred to the visceral experience – and this is what made the impact on my friend. He had never realised the reality of the suffering of Jesus before.

Some of the religious writing on the film would repay re-reading and re-assessment.

For many who do not have Christian faith and, especially, those who have lost it or who resent it, the comments on the film were bitter. Once again, looking through user comments and reviews on the IMDb site, one finds outpourings of hatred of Christianity, of particular churches, especially of the Catholic church. It is a sobering reminder that the community that Jesus established has not lived up to what he taught and what he did.

Whether The Passion Recut will have the hoped for results at the box office with those who intimidated the first time round going to see it remains to be seen. However, watching it again a year after the controversy gave an opportunity to bypass the arguments and see the film more on its own terms.

THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST

10th November 2003

The Passion of Christ is a considerable cinematic achievement.

BACKGROUND

For over a year before the release of The Passion, scheduled for Ash Wednesday, February 25th 2004, there was worldwide discussion and quite some controversy about the film. This was based on apprehensions about how the film would be made as well as on sensitivities about Jewish- Christian history, anti-Semitism and current dialogue between Judaism and the Churches, especially in the United States. Some of the discussion, held on a high level, especially among theologians, biblical scholars and religious leaders was based on reports of initial drafts of the film.

The Passion of Christ has been a long-cherished project of actor-director, Mel Gibson. Gibson's Catholic affiliation and his support of traditional Catholicism was another controversial factor in the discussions.

Early screenings of The Passion as a work in process offered opportunities for Church leaders and Christians involved in media to see the actual film, offer their opinions and dialogue with Mel Gibson. There seemed to be a general consensus that the film was not anti-Semitic. Some Jewish leaders and reviewers like Michael Medved spoke positively about the film. Several heads of Vatican offices saw a show-reel of the film and spoke in favour of the film, including Archbishop John Foley, head of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications and Cardinal Dario Castrillon of the Congregation for the Clergy who issued a statement urging all priests to see the film. Cardinal Walter Kasper received comments from Jewish leaders and issued a statement that the Vatican at large was not recommending the film and that any recommendation would depend on people seeing the completed film. This was the stance of many religious leaders in the United States including the American Bishops Catholic Conference.

As regards the Jewish-Christian? issues and the explicit language about the Jews in the Gospels, especially that of St John, it is important to realise that the more formal, 'official' antagonism between Christians and Jews emerged in the early decades of the second century. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John emerged from Jewish communities. Luke's Gospel draws strongly on the Jewish scriptures interweaving biblical references and motifs throughout the text. The clash between Jesus and the religious leaders of his time was a clash within Judaism, a religious controversy about the Messiah (of which there were a number in this period) and Jesus' claims. Disciples who became Christians accepted his claims. Many religious leaders amongst the priests and the pharisees did not. There were other converts like Paul, who was proud of his Jewish heritage and who took a strong stance about disciples of Jesus not being bound by details of Jewish law. It has been difficult, given the centuries of antagonism and the experience of repression and persecution of Jews by Christian, and Catholic, communities to enter into the context of Jesus' time and the mentality of the period.

The long traditions of Christians accusing Jews of being 'Christ-killers' also played their part in the debate. While the Catholic Church apologised for the long persecutions and the frequent anti-Semitism of the past in a Second Vatican Council document (1965) and Pope John Paul II visited the wailing wall in 2000 and inserted his own prayer in a crevice, questions about Jesus' death as being part of God's plan and how the Jewish religious leaders of the time and the Romans, with Pontius Pilate, fitted into this plan, continue to be raised.

I received an invitation to see the film at the Icon offices in Santa Monica (Mel Gibson's Los Angeles production headquarters) on October 24th, 2003. The version we saw was still a work in progress. More work had to be done on special effects and on the sound track. Mel Gibson met with me briefly after the screening and I was able to have some discussion with him about the film. My attitude towards the film was very positive.

BIBLICAL BACKGROUND

The Passion draws its narrative from each of the four Gospels, for instance, the quake and the rending of the temple from Matthew, the fleeing young man from Mark, the women of Jerusalem (here, Veronica and her daughter) from Luke, the Pilate sequences on truth from John. This linking of incidents in one narrative is the way in which the Gospel stories were remembered and written down. There is some material drawn from the later legendary stories and apocryphal gospels (Veronica and her veil, Desmes the 'bad' thief).

One of the difficulties that films of the life of Jesus encounter, especially from scholars and theologians who are not versed in the techniques and conventions of cinematic storytelling, is that they sometimes tend to be crititiqued and judged as if they were actual Gospels. They are found wanting at this level and dismissed or condemned. This is a danger for The Passion. It needs to be reiterated that this is a film and that the screenplay is a 'version' of the Gospel stories with no claim to be a Gospel.

This use of the four Gospels means that there are different perspectives on the Jews of the time in each Gospel. Matthew's Gospel presupposes detailed knowledge of the Jewish scriptures and sees Jesus as the fulfilment of prophecy. Hence the more 'apocalyptic' scenes at his death. Mark and Luke look on from the outside, Luke writing for readers familiar with Greek and Roman ways of storytelling. John's Gospel from the end of the first century echoes the roots of Christianity in Judaism but acknowledges the growing rift.

The screenplay is able to combine Gospel incidents into a coherent narrative of the passion with selected flashbacks to Jesus' infancy and life at Nazareth (his fall as a child, his making a table in the carpenter's shop, his relationship with his mother and his playful sprinkling her with water as he washes his hands) which are inventions in the spirit of the Gospels, to Mary Magdalene's past where she is combined with the woman taken in adultery of John 8, to Peter and his protests of loyalty, to the Last Supper. There is a flashback to the palm welcome of Jesus to Jerusalem during the heckling of the crowd on the way to Calvary. There is dramatic development of characters like Pilate and his wife, Simon of Cyrene, the centurion, the good thief and the thief who reviles Jesus (with retribution seen in the form of a vicious crow attacking him). Of interest is the portrait of the Satan, the Tempter, who appears early as an androgynous character, visual suggestions of female but male voice, growing more obviously feminine as the film progresses and finally appearing at the crucifixion (with a visual technique reminiscent of William Wallace seeing his loved one at his execution) carrying a child. Once again, this is imaginative license in interpreting Jesus' being tempted and tested.

As with most Jesus' films, much attention is given to Judas. His motivations are not made explicit in the film. It relies on audience knowledge of Judas. The film portrays his action in Gethsemane and subsequent dismay and return of his thirty pieces of silver. It introduces a theme of children meeting Judas and taunting him as he goes to his death.

THEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

The principal theological issues that concern viewers of Jesus-films are:
1. The humanity and divinity of Jesus,
2. The resurrection of Jesus

The humanity and divinity of Jesus.

The Passion of Christ generally follows the approach to the person of Jesus used by the Synoptic Gospels, a 'low' Christology, a focus first on the humanity of Jesus and moving towards an awareness of his divinity. When the film uses John as a source, it reflects that Gospel's 'high' Christology, the presupposition in the narrative that Jesus is divine and expresses this divinity in word and action. The Synoptic approach is seen in the flashbacks of incidents before the Passion as well as in the main events of the Passion, the Agony in Gethsemane, the treatment of Jesus by the Sanhedrin and Herod, the scourging and crowning with thorns, the way of the Cross and the Crucifixion itself. The Joannine approach is found in Jesus' declaration of his being the Son of Man at his trial (which is also in the Synoptics) and the discussions with Pilate about truth and about his kingdom.

This means that, theologically, the film presents the perennial teaching that Jesus, in his person, was both human and divine in nature.

The humanity of Jesus is often presented in a striking manner: Jesus working in Nazareth, the experience of deep human pain in his agony, scourging, falling on the way to Calvary, the nailing and his experience on the cross. It is there in his dignity at his trial, his composure with Pilate and Herod. The film also highlights Jesus' human anguish of soul and sense of abandonment in his agony and on the cross, along with his profound surrender to the Father.

While the Jesus of cinema is usually slight and slender in build, Jim Caviezel is a big and strong man, with some girth, a credible carpenter and a solid man. This makes the film's Jesus more real than usual.

The Resurrection

Some commentators criticise a film which focuses on the Passion for its meagre treatment of Jesus' resurrection. (This was a criticism in the 1960s and 1970s of Jesus Christ Superstar.) Theologically, the Passion makes sense only in the light of the resurrection.

While Mel Gibson's film wants to immerse its audience in the experience of the Passion, the final sequence has the stone rolled over the tomb. The stone is rolled away, the cloths wound around Jesus' body are seen collapsing and the camera tracks to Jesus in profile, sitting in the tomb as a prelude to his risen life. These are the images with which the audience leaves the theatre. The resurrection, presented briefly, is still the climax of the Passion.

The Eucharist

There are flashbacks to the Last Supper during the Passion, especially to Peter protesting that he would not deny Jesus and to Jesus washing the disciples' feet.

One of the major theological strengths of the film is the insertion of the Eucharistic scenes of the Last Supper during the nailing and the lifting up of Jesus on the cross. As Jesus offers the bread as his body, we see the body which is painfully broken and given for us. As he offers the wine as his blood, we are only too conscious of the bloodletting, blood poured out for us. Jesus tells his disciples that there is no greater love than laying down one's life for friends - and we see it in its fulness. He tells them to celebrate the Eucharist so that his passion and death will be present to them.

In this way, the screenplay highlights both aspects of the Eucharist, the celebration of the meal, the communion and the sacrifice of Jesus.

Mary

Mary has a strong presence in The Passion. She appears as a woman in her 40s, striking rather than beautiful. She appears in two flashbacks. Her demeanour is serious. She says very little. With Mary Magdalene and John, she follows the passion and the way of the Cross without any of the histrionics that characterise a number of portraits of Mary, especially Pasolini's mother in The Gospel According to Matthew. At one stage, she wipes the blood of Jesus on the praetorium floor after his scourging. She kisses his bloody nailed feet. The bond between mother and son is suggested several times by significant eye contact rather than words. The request for John to take care of Mary is included. After Jesus is taken down from the cross, she holds him in a Pieta tableau.

Most audiences should be satisfied with the portrayal of Mary. Those who find some of the cinema representations of the past too much like holy cards or plaster statues will appreciate a more biblically-grounded Mary.

Cinema background

The Passion of Christ comes after more than a century's old tradition of Jesus' films. The silent era produced short instructional films as well as features like From the Manger to the Cross, the Italian Christus and the Gospel section of D.W.Griffith's Intolerance. The major films of the 20s were Ben Hur and The King of Kings, Cecil B. de Mille's epic.

For thirty-five years, 1927-1961, Jesus was not seen face-on as a character in American studio Gospel films. He was seen in a number of features made by American Protestant companies. He was glimpsed in part (a hand, an arm, his legs on the cross or was seen from a distance) in films as The Robe and Ben Hur in the 1950s.

After the gap, Jeffrey Hunter appeared as the King of Kings, Max Von Sydow in The Greatest Story Ever Told. When Jeffrey Hunter spoke in King of Kings, it was the first time audiences had heard an actor speak the words of Jesus. Pasolini made a powerful black and white version in the 1960s, The Gospel According to Matthew, and Rosselini made The Messiah in the early 1970s. Brian Deacon appeared as Jesus, a more evangelical approach in the film, Jesus (which was distributed in an edited version to pilgrims visiting Rome for the millennial Jubilee). This trend reached its peak with Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth in the late 1970s.

Popular musical movements of the late 60s produced Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell which were both filmed in 1973.

Most of the films aimed at presenting a 'realistic' Jesus but many of them (including Pasolini) used the straight Gospel texts (which were intended to be read) as a substantial part of their screenplays, an over-literal use of the Gospels. Zeffirelli, on the other hand, employed the same method as was used in the forming of the Gospels, taking incidents in Jesus' life and combining them dramatically to make an impact on the audience. Nevertheless, with the use of western actors, European or American locations, these films were not as realistic as intended.

The musicals highlighted how screen Gospel storytelling is more 'stylised' than 'realistic'.

Since 1988, there have been a number of screen portrayals of Jesus: The Last Temptation of Christ (1988), which was a 'novelised' version of the Gospels, Jesus of Montreal (1988) and Man Dancin' (2003) which were stories of putting on a passion play in a modern city, the animated Jesus in The Miracle Maker (2000) and Jeremy Sisto's engaging blend of the human and divine in the American telemovie, Jesus (1999). More recently, there has been the rather American picture of Jesus in Paulist Film Production's telemovie, Jesus (2001, due for screening in 2004) and a more traditional Jesus in Philip Saville's The Gospel of John.

It is in this tradition that The Passion comes to the screen. Mel Gibson had indicated his skills in directing with Man Without a Face (1993) and his Oscar-winning, Braveheart (1995).

One of the principal intentions of the director and his co-screenwriter, Ben Fitzgerald, is to immerse audiences in the realism of the passion of Jesus. Actor Jim Caviezel was chosen to play Jesus (the only other name performer is Italy's Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene). Caviezel was the same age as Jesus when the film was shot. As mentioned earlier, he is a believable human Jesus, a big, solid workingman who was able to stand up to the terrible sufferings of the passion before he died.

One of the controversial aspects of the film was the early decision to have the film's dialogue in Aramaic and Latin but to have no subtitles. The language decision was followed through and works well. We needed the subtitles, many of which are quotations from scripture. There is no distraction in hearing anachronistic American or British voices and accents. Rather the audience hears what conversation was like in those days. It is helpful to be reminded that Jesus spoke Aramaic and not English!

A useful distinction to be made is that between 'realism' and 'naturalism'. The latter refers to film-making that portrays action as it is, home movies being a popular example, as is footage shot for newscasts. 'Realism' is film-making that helps audience have a genuine feel for what is going on on the screen, as if it were real. A number of cinematic devices, such as the style of different compositions for the screen, the types of shots and the pace of the editing can be used to give this impression of realism.

Mel Gibson has opted for much of his film to be 'naturalistic'. He has plenty of time available and is in no hurry to take us away from the picture of Jesus' suffering. Perhaps a number of people in the audience will find the scourging (in two grim parts) too much to watch. With most of the characters being portrayed in a naturalistic way, the action seems authentic. However, Gibson is able to use cinematic devices which alter perceptions, helping us to realise that we are seeing a particular version of the Passion, as all of us do when we listen to the Passion narratives and use our imaginations. He frequently uses moments of slow-motion filming to make us dwell on a particular moment.

This naturalism is seen in the confrontation in Gethsemane, at Jesus' trial, with the scourging and the crowning with thorns and, especially, the way of the cross as Jesus struggles with the cross, falls with thudding impact, is nailed and the cross raised. The stylisation is seen in the close-ups, with the differences in lighting (Gethsemane blue, the confined space of the High Priest's court lamplit, the broad daylight of the way of the cross), the framing of the characters with memories of the traditions of Christian painting, the lighting and some of the tableaux, the passing of time as Jesus hangs on the cross, his death and the apocalyptic aftermath, the intimations of the resurrection.

This offers a credible picture and understanding of Jesus. Gibson has introduced some effective elements to reinforce this. For instance, in the garden, Jesus is hit in the eye and from then on and during the trial, he has the use only of one eye; when he is able to open his injured eye, Gibson makes a great deal of his ability with eye-contact, with Pilate, with his mother and with John at the foot of the cross, simply looking at Jesus and nodding as he agrees to care for Mary.

Comment has already been made on the use and insertion of flashbacks.

Dramatically, familiar Gospel characters are briefly developed which helps the narrative: Peter, Judas, Pilate, Pilate's wife, Simon of Cyrene, Herod, the two thieves crucified with Jesus. Veronica is introduced as she watches Jesus pass and wipes his face with her cloth - but Gibson shows restraint by letting us see her holding the cloth and, if we look closely, suggestions of the outline of Jesus' face can be glimpsed. The Roman soldiers are also vividly dramatised: the brutes at the scourging with their sadistic commander, the drunken soldiery mocking and brutalising Jesus along the way and on Calvary, the more sympathetic centurion. The key figure who has powerful dramatic impact in every Jesus' film is Judas. The taunting of the tormented Judas and the children pursuing him to his death is dramatically effective.

The Passion of Christ offers a credible, naturalistic Jesus whose sufferings of body and spirit are real. What impact it will have on those who are not believers is very difficult to predict. For those who believe, there is the challenge of seeing pain and torture which are easier to read about than to see, but there is also the satisfaction of experiencing familiar Gospel stories in a different way.

LOVE + HATE

UK, 2004, 83 minutes, Colour.
Samina Awan, Tom Hudson, Nichola Burley, Wasim Zakir, Dean Andrews, Peter O’ Connor.
Directed by Dominic Savage.

Love + Hate was written and directed by Dominic Savage. It is a BBC Films production. Savage has made quite a number of documentaries as well as music videos. His main work prior to this film was for television and this is clearly seen in the style of Love + Hate.

The film, produced in 2004, is completely relevant to events in the United Kingdom in 2005. It highlights racial tension in the north of England where the British National Party has a number of members in local administration. It also provides some background to the kind of interracial hatred and clashes with Muslim cultures in English cities. This was to culminate in the Underground and bus bombings in July 2005. (Another film which gives almost prophetic background to the kinds of clashes, to the indoctrination of young Muslims that leads them to be terrorists is given in Red Mercury. Kenny Lagaan’s Yasmin is another powerful story on this subject.)

The setting is Preston in Lancashire. The film takes advantage of local photography, giving an authentic atmosphere of life in the town. The centre of attention, besides the homes of a Pakistani British family as well as a traditional English family, is a shop where representatives of each family work. Tensions are already seen in the shop where a young assistant, Adam, is hostile to the new recruit for the shop, Naseema.

The complication is that Adam is really attracted to Naseema, she to him. Meanwhile, Michelle, who has made her welcome and who is clashing at home with her father, is having a relationship unbeknown to Naseema, with Naseema’s brother. However, the brother has double standards, carries on his affair in secret but is extremely condemnatory when he finds out about Naseema herself.

The film highlights the double standards, the implicit racial attitudes. This is especially seen in the group of young white racists in the town, their acts of violence, ultimately the bashing of Naseema’s brother. Ironically, the screenplay has the brother working with Michelle’s father.

In a short running time, the film is able to recreate the atmosphere in Preston, give insights into the life and styles of a sincere Pakistani family, the pressures on the young women, the double standards of the men. It also highlights the need for breakthrough in understanding these tensions (which, ultimately, can lead to the kind of violence that was seen in the bombings). Love has to overcome the hate.

1. A BBC production, small budget, local, in the town of Blackburn? The impact for UK audiences, at the beginning of the 21st century? Worldwide audiences?

2. The Blackburn settings, the neighbourhood, the shops, the bars, public places, carparks, factories, shops? Authentic?

3. The UK, the British National Party, the inherent racism, Britain for the Britons? The antagonism towards Asian migrants, towards British Asians? The slogans, the presuppositions, the attitude towards sex, the protectiveness of Asian men for their women?

4. The Pakistanis in England, the British Pakistanis, their traditions, the religion, Muslim culture? The narrow attitudes, prejudices, sexuality, men and women? Permissiveness for men?

5. The antagonism between the two groups, the British and their sense of ownership, dominance, exclusion of others? The love and hate in each of the characters, the need for some kind of resolution – a future for the UK from love versus hate?

6. Naseema, in the context of her family, getting ready to go to work on her first day? Peter and his kindliness in introducing her to the shop? Adam and his surliness, Michelle and her friendship? Adam and his prejudice? Michelle and Naseema talking, the building of a friendship? Her continually going to Adam? His change, the kiss, going out, the secret, his running away? Her puzzle, being reconciled? The clash and the bashing, her grief for her father? His being accused? Her relenting? The action of the family, Yousif, her plan? Her discussions with her older sister, whether to go or not, the decision to leave, meeting Adam on the station, the train and a future?

7. Adam, working in the shop, taciturn, Peter and his condemnation of his racist attitudes? His discussions with his brother, his mother? Their bigotry? Laughing at the injury done to Pakistanis? With the group of young men, their talk, their ousting Shane? Adam later going to Shane for advice and support? The continued attention to Naseema, his shock at finding he was attracted? Going out, the kiss, running away, his coming back? The bashing and his not wanting to be involved, Yousif and the Pakistanis chasing him? The phone calls to Naseema? Peter and his advice? His knowing that he loved Naseema? Getting Shane to go with him, the reconciliation, the railway station – and a future?

8. Michelle at work at work, at home, the clashes with her father, the irony of his working with Yousif and his comments to Yousif about race? Her going out, her girlfriends, being picked up by Yousif? A sexual liaison? The arguments with her father, her growing infatuation with Yousif, finally telling Naseema? Wanting advice, the truth? Yousif and his blunt breaking with her, her being hurt? Her father and his bashing of Yousif?

9. Yousif, at work, with Michelle’s father, the discussions? Out on the town, picking up white girls, the sexual relationship, the continued meetings, his growing confusion, his strictness with Naseema, the group going with baseball bats to avenge their father’s bashing? The discussions with Naseema, his being bashed after breaking with Michelle?

10. Naseema, the family, her father and his taxi driving, her mother and the cooking, a welcome household, her older sister? The surly brother? Her leaving this? The traditions, religion?

11. Peter, the shop, his understanding, rebuking Adam, helping Naseema, finally giving Adam advice?

12. The background of Blackburn, the rise of racist politicians in that part of the UK in the early 21st century? Reflecting attitudes, prejudices? The humiliation of the Asians – even after decades in the UK? The blend of love and hate – and hope for some kind of reconciliation for the future?

BAB EL MAKAM (PASSION)

Syria/France, 2005, 98 minutes, Colour.
Salwa Jamil.
Directed by Mohammad Malas.

This is a French- Tunisian- Syrian production. The director, Mohammed Malas, has an interesting background: philosophy studies in Damascus, teaching, film studies in Moscow and fifteen years working in Syrian television making many documentaries. This feature film is very much a Syrian perspective but a critical Syrian perspective on the role of women in Muslim society.

The film focuses on a thirty-year-old woman with her husband and three children in the city of Aleppo. Time has passed, her life is humdrum, working devotedly for her husband and children. He is a civil worker, diligent, but who moonlights as a taxi driver.

The woman listens to the songs of a Muslim singer Oum Kalsoum, an Egyptian. She tries singing herself, and gradually becomes more confident in her abilities. She goes through the bazaars looking for cassettes of her favourite singer and this transforms her – with good effect for her husband and family. In the meantime, in the very patriarchal society, her father-in-law becomes suspicious of her, suspicious of her singing. Her husband’s brothers also spy on her and come to the conclusion that she is having an affair. This hits at the family pride and the decision is made that she should be killed.

The film shows the brutality of the patriarchal system, the brutality of the confrontations, the influence of the patriarchal leaders on susceptible young men who carry out their violent commands. The film is a strong drama, a portrait of woman – set in a tragic situation which is governed by long tradition which needs to be challenged.

1. A Syrian perspective on life, on Islam, Islamic culture, the place of women?

2. The film based on a true story, the final information, the tribute to the dead woman?

3. The image of Islam, extremism? The impact for Syrian audiences, Arab and Muslim audiences, for the West?

4. The city of Aleppo, fast, the panoramas, the citadel, the ancient beauty, modern life, life Syrian style?

5. The importance of the music, the range of songs? The joy in singing, Imene coming to life, her husband filled with joy, leading to suspicions and tragedy?

6. The focus on family, the patriarch, laws, customs and expectations?

7. Imene and his father, old, his prayer, his ultimate despair, his comment on gangrene having to be cut off? His wife and her subservience? His son in prison? The other sons, acting on their father’s words? Violence? The cousins and the militaristic leader, assuming control? The abduction of the little girl? Their suspicions of Imene because of her singing? Expectations for family, reputation? Imene’s husband, the children, his work in the civil service, taxi-driving? The closeness of extended family?

8. Imene in herself, her age, marriage, love for her husband, remembering the old days? Her love for the singer, looking for records? Her own singing, tentative, her husband’s support, the little girl joining with her? Going to see the classic singer and the joy of the visit? The tapes? The detail of life at home, caring for the children, cooking? The abduction of the girl, her going to the family to plead? The sinister visits? Her brother and his seriousness? The brother in jail, the family going to see him, the gift and her delight? The consequences for her singing?

9. Imene’s husband, his civil service work, driving the taxi, always wanting to listen to the news? His delight in her singing?

10. The brother in prison, the family going to see him, the sending of the gifts? The photos continually present? The continued references to him? His crime – and politics?

11. The militaristic leader, his nephews acting as thugs, the abduction, the visit to Imene, the sternness? The old man looking in the mirror, his military uniform, regretting democracy? His audience with his brother, explaining the situation, his suspicions – without grounds? The image of gangrene and cutting off? The son having overheard the father and his being commissioned to act?

12. The young girl, going to visit her father in prison, her delight with Imene, growing up with the other children, the abduction, her not wanting to be in the house, her running away, the joy of her return? The other children?

13. The young men, their being influenced by their elders, the extremism, the protective attitudes of men, their own lives? The brother killing his sister?

14. The film not making specific references to Islam or the Koran?

15. The background of the invasion of Iraq, President Bush, the interpretation of imperialism and the geopolitics of the Middle East?

CUORE SACRO (SACRED HEART)

Italy, 2005, 116 minutes, Colour.
Barbara Bobulova, Camille Comencini, Andrea di Stefano.
Directed by Ferzan Ozpetek.

Cuore Sacro is another impressive film from Turkish-born director, but resident of Italy, Ferzan Ozpetek. Moving from his native Turkey, he studied film in Rome and continued to make films there. He was assistant director to many celebrated directors before his own film debut, Hamam, The Turkish Bath, 1998. He also made an interesting film about another enclosed society, homosexuals in Rome, Le Fate Ignoranti. He then followed this with a wider-based drama about relationships, The Window Opposite, La Fenestre di Fronte.

With Cuore Sacro he explores Italian society, the world of business, the poorer Rome. Eventually he moves into religious themes as indicated by the title of the film. However, Sacred Heart does not refer to the pictures of Jesus and his heart. Rather, one of the characters in the film writes a letter about people having two hearts, the normal physical heart and a more genuine hidden heart which is sacred. If they were to follow that heart, their lives would be different.

The film stars Barbara Bobuloba (Where Are You?). She portrays a very successful businesswoman, supported by her aunt. She is an award winner, an achiever. When she goes to the palazzo where her parents lived, she discovers more about her mother who spent her life in an enclosed room. She also plans to tear down the palace to make apartments. When she encounters a cheeky young girl, and is the victim of a con that the girl perpetrates pretending to be assaulted in the street, she becomes attached to her. The little girl is involved in distributing food to the poor, working for a priest in the area. The girl is suddenly killed, the businesswoman goes to see the priest, goes to visit the hospital, meets the mother – and then decides to continue the work of food distribution.

The film changes from realism to fantasy in the middle – especially where the young woman is in her mother’s room, trying to decipher the writing that is on the wall, reflecting on the meaning of her mother’s life. She descends from the room and goes into the basement of the building which is now a soup kitchen. The film shows her involvement in works of charity, the support of the priest, his taking her to the authorities in the Vicariate of Rome and her going to a railway station after being pressed by the poor and stripping herself of everything, something like St Francis of Assisi.

The film is very interesting as a social drama. However, in its imaginative exploration of matters of justice and holiness, it is quite a striking drama.

1. A portrait of contemporary religion, holiness, the needs of the poor and their being met by church, holy people?

2. The opening, the glimpse of the Vatican, the Rome settings? The affluent world, business world? The contrast with the world of the poor near the Colosseum, the soup kitchens? The settlements of the poor in the ruins of Rome?

3. The musical score, the songs, the sacred music, the dramatic music?

4. The title, the explanation, the mother saying that everybody had two hearts, that the good heart should overcome the lesser heart and the world would be good?

5. The blend of reality and illusion? Sanity and madness? The madness of wealth and power, the madness of giving everything to the poor?

6. The parallel with the gospel story of the rich young man and his giving everything away? The railway station and the parallel with St Francis and his stripping himself, literally, of everything? The taking of everybody else’s burdens and the Christ figure?

7. The structure of the film: starting in reality, the encounter with Benny, the effect on Irene, Benny’s death, the encounter with Father Karres? The transition to the swinging scene, Irene’s sense of Benny’s presence, referring to Benny as Mother? The transition to the soup kitchen, her going in her dressing-gown? The story following this, everything for the poor, the soup kitchen, the St Francis parallel? Turning the empty mansion into a soup kitchen? The final presence in the hospital, the institution, the interview with the doctor?

8. The Marchetti couple, the preparation for the dinner, their clothes, the beautiful meal, dismissing the maid? Their sudden suicide? Intercut with Irene’s success, the award, her responding to the media? The support of her aunt? The aunt dealing with the news about the suicide, handling everything, the press, the business? Irene at the meetings, Francesca’s arrival and her spurning her money, the effect on Irene – and later, in the hospital, seeing the kindly ghosts of her parents?

9. The apartments project, changing the old into the modern, profit? The back-story of Irene’s family, her father in business, his sisters? The visit to the aunt in the institution, wanting her to sign the papers, her pleasure in defying her sister? The mother, her singing, her madness? Irene’s speech of thanks, to her influential aunt? Going to the palazzo, meeting Aurelio, opening up the windows, seeing the writing on the wall, their being no mirror, the light and air opening up the place? The mystery, what her aunt told her about her mother, her desire to know?

10. The scene outside, Benny, the couple quarrelling, the stealing of the wallet, the chauffeur chasing, bringing it back?

11. Benny, her personality, age twelve, her stories about her family, her life? The set-ups? Her stealing, the mobile phones, the diary as a gift for Irene? Her return, the dinner in the café? The phone calls from the owners of the mobiles? Her wanting to distribute the bags, getting Irene to help, the old lady, Giancarlo? Giancarlo calling her Sarah and her being afraid? Benny in the house, the chase, the rooms, accusing her of wanting to steal? Their looking in the cupboards, the clothes? Benny’s observation about her mother?

12. Irene continuing to distribute the bags, her wanting to meet Father Karres, going to the church, going to the hospital, the sadness of Benny’s death? Meeting her mother? The ghosts encouraging her? Her visit to Benny’s mother, the visit to Father Karres, the discussions about faith, the influence of Benny?

13. Irene in her business world, activity, her changing, the French deal and the pressure from her aunt, the speech and her collapse, the emphasis on creating unnecessary needs in developing countries?

14. The swim sequence, the sense of eeriness, her sensing a presence in the house?

15. Benny’s coming to her, her reference to her mother? Going into the soup kitchen, her being a saint in her work, doing all the cooking, cleaning, serving? The crowds of people? The proud woman with her own cutlery? Her aunt’s assistant helping her? Giancarlo coming to her, his pathos, her tending to him, a Pieta sequence?

16. Her aunt coming to confront, pushing through the crowds, the issue of the French deal? Telling her about her mother, her mother’s madness in thinking she had given birth to a saint, her trying to drown her daughter so that she would come alive? Aurelio saying she died in her sleep? The significance of the writing on the wall – and Benny’s ability to read it? The truths about life?

17. Father Karres, his personality, hard work, with Benny, with Benny’s parents, helping in the soup kitchen? His going to the Vicariate of Rome, Irene accusing him of having sold out, his explanation of the need for organisation, a tour of the ruins and the life of the poor? The effect on Irene, going into the station, taking off her clothes, the dramatic music, like St Francis?

18. In the hospital, the rational discussion with the doctor, commenting on the care of the plant? The doctor’s recommendation about her being relieased?

19. The empty house, no photos of her mother, the finale and the picture on the wall – and her mother’s picture with Benny’s face? Benny as the influence on her life, her mother through Benny – as a person, delight, mischief, initiative? Death? The theme of the film of coming

ITINERAIRES

France, 2005, 87 minutes, Colour.
Yann Tregowet, Celine Cuignet, Jacques Bonnaffe, Helene Vincent.
Directed by Christophe Otzenberger.

Itineraires is the feature debut of Christophe Otzenberger who had previously made documentaries. His skill in documentary making is evident in his re-creation of life in small towns in France, attention to detail and atmosphere.

The film focuses on a young man who has been in trouble as a youth. He becomes involved in crime
and a killing, though he is not responsible. He is imprisoned. When his grandmother dies, the grandmother who brought him up, he refuses to go to the funeral. However, when he gets out of jail, he is still followed by the police who suspect him of murder. The lieutenant, Amado, is particularly intent on making sure he is apprehended.

The film shows the life of the young man, his feelings of victimhood, his escaping to another town, being befriended by the owner of a café – another father figure instead of the father who has rejected him. It seems possible that he will have a new life, could possibly inherit the café. He also falls in love with a young woman – whose specialty is tantalising the men of the town by pretending to have vociferous sexual experiences which they all listen to. The two misfits get to know one another well – and there is a possibility of a future together. However, he is recognised in the town and the police come to get him. His dilemma is whether to succumb to police custody with the possibility of a fair trial or to escape. He feels that he will not have a chance for true justice – he is always an itinerant in this world.

The film is well acted, is modest and low key in its style – but draws the audience into the personality of the young man, his plight, his relationships and makes the audience sympathise with him and hope for justice for him.

1. The title of the film, journeys, maps, timetables – or the lack of itineraries, endless journeys?

2. North-western France, the countryside around Calais and Lille, the towns, the inhabitants and their settling in or wanting to get away? The details of the towns, apartments, bars etc? The musical score, songs?

3. The motif of Thierry, his staring at the audience – and his final fun?

4. Thierry’s grandmother, waking him up in the morning, his going to work the hard work in the fields, going out with friends, the racket and the stealing, the deliveries, his fooling around with the pigs, the man refusing to pay the money – and his colleague shooting him? His arrest?

5. The years in prison, being taken to his grandmother’s funeral, his refusing to go because he was still wearing the handcuffs?

6. Parole, the explanation of his parole, living with his parents? The lawyer Vincent Campion and his continued support? Believing in him? At home with his parents, his father and his talking about the humiliation, his drinking? His mother and her glad to have her son home? The bar, going to bring his father home? Watching the television, the confrontation with his father, burning his arm instead of his father’s? His decision to go?

7. The CB radio, his friends, interest and contact, identity, driving, the mission to find the driver, the blood, the dead man, his running?

8. His decision to give himself up, explaining the situation to the police, their discovery of his record, their not believing him? No other suspect? In the cell, Detective Amado and his interrogations? The situation, his escape?

9. On the run, hungry, going into the bar, his meeting with Gerard Fontaine, Fontaine not wanting any stories, having compassion on him, his later explanation of his marriage, his wife not wanting children, a substitute son? The hard work, the washing-up, the bond between the two men? In the streets, the men listening to Sandrine’s performance, the mother chasing them away? His return, her attraction towards him? Love, his anger on her behalf when she was insulted? The possibilities for a future? Phoning his mother, the discussions with Campion and whether he should give himself up or not? The photo in the paper and his having to go on the run again?

10. On the run, the meetings with Campion, the possibilities of giving himself up or not, their not believing him, going to jail for twenty years? His returning home, the detective in the house, his going to the cemetery, praying to his grandmother, his being advised to go?

11. The police, Amado and his detective work, keeping the case open, the friendship with Campion? His attitudes, questions, the pursuit, being in the house? Seeing the photos of Thierry as a child?

12. The other police, the judge and his severity, Amado being taken off the case, his continuing to pursue it?

13. Sandrine, at the baker’s shop, the sex performance and her leading the men on? Her mother? Her attraction towards Thierry, love for him, their time together, lyrical romance? The news, the photographer and his insult? Her being taken in for questioning by Amado? Her finally saying that she could not go on the run with Thierry?

14. The character of Fontaine, the gruff old man, kind, the father figure, the talk, Thierry helping him when drunk, the possibility of his giving his bar to Thierry?

15. The sketch of Thierry’s parents, the cruel and vicious father, the loving mother, his return and wave to her? His not having lived with them, but with his grandmother?

16. A contemporary working-class Les Miserables?