My review of The Passion of the Christ was remarkably positive considering the important misgivings of a large number of critics from both religious and secular media outlets. The detailed level of gore that occupies the attention of the film is so severe that it would be hard for all but those intimately familiar with the details of Christ’s life to wade through it and come in contact with the person Gibson is intent on helping us discover. This violence is distracting enough even for those of us who are.


But I think there are enough positive things about the film to not simply toss it on the scrap heap of outmoded religious artifacts that secularized criticism has proudly built up over the years. Right on cue, mainstream Christian audiences have by and large appropriated the film as a masterpiece of faith. In some circles, criticizing this film is pretty much criticizing the person of Christ. At times, when a work of art is tied in so closely with our identity, this seems like the only appropriate response. And movie theater pre-screenings were packed to the gills with anxious ticket holders piling in to see The Passion.


Keep in mind that these are the same theaters that are stocked daily with movies that are either agonized over by more conservative Christian critics, cautiously enjoyed by the more adventurous average church-goer, or discerningly appreciated by others who have “by reason of use” exercised the great Christian ability to discover truth in unique places. In one of the many brief monologues about the film that have attended worship services and sermons in the past few weeks across the country, I actually heard (true story) someone instruct the congregation: “As you leave the theater after seeing The Passion of the Christ, let it sink in. Don’t just walk out and then mix in with all those people who are coming out of something like Starsky and Hutch.”


I don’t want to imply that this somewhat misguided instruction is representative of the Church’s reaction to the film. But it is an important attitude to address; a statement like this can misdirect our attention from a more discerning perception of these recent events. I would like to suggest two points that put The Passion of the Christ into a more reasonable perspective.


1. There are other good Jesus films out there
The Passion of the Christ is one film in a family that has a lot of interesting members. Above and beyond Zeffirelli’s classic treatment of Jesus of Nazareth, the recent adaptation of The Gospel of John, and Pasolini’s reading of The Gospel According to St. Matthew there are a number of films that ask much different questions about Jesus than Gibson does. Life of Brian, Jesus Christ Superstar, and The Last Temptation of Christ just to name an important few. But there is also the rare film like Jesus of Montreal that does such a great job of describing Christ’s odd social significance that has mostly flown under the radar of the mainstream Christian audience over the decades.


Not only are there other good Jesus films out there, but at the risk of sounding heretical, there may even be a few that are better than the one Gibson has offered us. If you are interested in seeing the words and works of Christ written in film, then don’t limit yourself to The Passion of the Christ. Pasolini’s The Gospel According to St. Matthew is not only a masterpiece of contemplative spirituality, it also takes full advantage of the tremendous capacity of film to show us things we may not have considered about such well-worn narratives. In terms of context, Pasolini’s film works very well where Gibson’s falls flat, and does so with an uncanny visual sensitivity.


2. There are other good films out there
What is probably most egregious about the “exit instructions” I quipped about above is that they assume that film has nothing nearly as meaningful to offer us than The Passion of the Christ. As if there is never a reason for the Christian church to become involved with a raging pop culture discussion unless it has something explicitly to do with the core symbols of our faith.


It is easy for us to assume The Passion of the Christ is so meaningful simply because of its subject matter. But it is hard to imagine a church whose followers are so keen on being engaged by the sufferings of Christ that is not also keen on participating in the exploration of the human condition so cogently expressed in his ministry. Film is the closest point of contact we have to the key spiritual and philosophical issues of our day, and in many ways embodies and initiates these issues. This is true on a global scale; they don’t call it “the Great Conversation” for no reason. The Passion of the Christ doesn’t exist in vacuum, but will stand as simply one of many cultural documents that will engage society over the next year of film. It is interesting to see the Church en masse only tuning in to this key discussion when it hears its name in the middle of it.


To be absolutely blunt, The Passion of the Christ is not the best film I will see this year. Already there are a number of films I caught at festivals last year that are sure to beat it out on my top ten list for 2004. Time of the Wolf, Distant, and Dogville are all a much bigger bang for the buck. Especially when it comes to judging a work by its ability to either expose or create realities in a way marked by the ability of film to peek around dark corners of truth or chance upon inexplicable moments of beauty. To assume that a film about the author of the gospel is more meaningful than one about its subject is to undercut the purpose of the message in the first place. Sure, the subject matter of Starksy and Hutch doesn’t even compare to that of The Passion, but the human face of international cinema certainly does.