The Passion of the Christ (Widescreen Edition)
by Mel Gibson
List Price:
Our Price: $4.52
You Save: $10.46 (70%)
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Buy Used: from $0.15 (click here)
Category: DVD
See more DVD details
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
DVD details
Actor: Christo Jivkov, Francesco De Vito, Jim Caviezel, Maia Morgenstern, Monica BellucciDirector: Mel Gibson
Brand: FOX Home Entertainment
Cinematographer: Caleb Deschanel
Producer: Mel Gibson
Writer: Mel Gibson
Producer: Bruce Davey
Producer: Enzo Sisti
Producer: Stephen McEveety
Writer: Benedict Fitzgerald
DVD: Region Code 1
Audio: English (Unknown); English (Subtitled); Spanish (Subtitled); Hebrew (Original Language)
Format: AC-3, Anamorphic, Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, DTS Surround Sound, DVD, NTSC, Subtitled, Widescreen
Picture Format: 2.35:1
Running Time: 127 minutes
DVD Release Date: 2004-08-31
Audience Rating: R (Restricted)
Studio: 20th Century Fox
Product features:
- New
DVD Reviews of The Passion of the Christ (Widescreen Edition)
DVD Review: Trying to Look at the Passion Dispassionately
Summary: 4 Stars
After about 1/4 or 1/3 of the way into this movie, one begins to wonder hard what the fuss was about. The fact is, unlike Gibson's previous two major historical outings (Braveheart & The Patriot) this movie is about 80 % historical sources (in this case the broad outline of Matthew and other synoptics, with dialogue therefrom), 20 % the director. The other 2 movies had a less than 50% historicism & were well over 50% personally interpretive -- and at very critical points. In my view these last two directorial attempts by Gibson were flawed for such reasons -- given very questionable historical interpretations in both. These were the trepidations I had before viewing this movie, rather than the rest of the unbelievable hoopla.
The fact is, lacking either Roman or Jewish sources for Christ's passion (although both the Roman Tacitus and the Jewish Talmud admit Christ was actually put to death during Pilate's tenure) there is no detailed historical source other than the gospels for this story, like it or not. Coldly viewed, the film is thus no different than several other films which more or less rigorously follow some pre-existing text -- putting aside the question whether the text is fact or fiction, ie. Kubrick's Barry Lyndon ( historical novel), Fellini's Satyricon (ancient book that may or may not be historically based), The Bounty (mixed fact and fiction). It is virtually impossible to imagine a filmic treatment of any text that does not have at least a 10 to 15% dose of interpretation from the maker. So the criticism that has followed is necessarily not based on the Gibson interpretation, but against the gospel itself. The argument, necessarily then, must be that the gospel should no longer be represented filmically, for some reason. This is a political question, since such censorship could only be enforced by political means. Despite many expressed fears, such a result -- outright censorship -- is hardly likely in the United States, now or in the forseeable future.
In brief, if didacticism is properly understood as the artist's overlay of personal vision and interpretation -- and not what the artist's personal creed (religious or political) happens to be -- the film is much less didactic than Gibson's other ventures into historical presentation, and for that matter much less didactic than the vast majority of other film. The current criticism, again, necessarily is with Gibson's own doctrine; rationally speaking it could not be with the fact he has one (since any honest person will admit that every adult has some sort of a belief system in the broad sense of the word).
The historicism of Passion is visually obvious to any rational viewer, believer or unbeliever. To a disinterested viewer, ie., one without any particular religious axe to grind, the movie resembles nothing so much as an attempt to portray the confusion and cruelty of the ancient world in a highly realistic and authentic manner. Why this should not be a valid enterprise for an American realist would be hard for critics to say; they avoid the issue. Research on the institution of Roman crucifixion and scourging demonstrates that this sort of scholarship much more informs the making of Passion than, say, Gibson's use of the Catholic mystic Anne Catherine Emmerich, which while it has been much vaunted is really only window dressing here. The long and short of it is that the scourging (the truly new element in this passion film presentation, never previously so fully rendered in other films about Christ) is highly informed realism consistent with scholarship and with the reason for this scourging, in Christ's case. See Zugibe, "Forensic and Clinical Knowledge of the Practice of Crucifixion" (Turin 2000); Zaninotto, "The Shroud and Roman Crucifixion: A Historical Overview" (Turin 2000).
The realism and subtlety of the portrayal of Roman leaders and the Roman system in this film far outdistances the best of similar recent ventures, ie. Gladiator. It matches the highest standard I know of in this area, Kubrick's Spartacus. I doubt Gibson's Pilate will ever be improved upon; it is worth the price of admission. You may like this or that disciple in the film more, but take a close look at Pilate if you can stand it; this guy is really us.
I would also frankly admit that the Jewish authority figures are not presented with the same subtlety. It would be a better film if they had been. But their milieu in this film is not presented as malicious in any sense, rather highly confused (which Pilate points out). In any event the figure who is quite obviously the hero of the film, in the full classical sense, Jesus, not only reinforces Pilate's verdict on their behavior -- "they know not what they do" -- but also explicitly forgives them. A person attempting to pin an anti-Semetic didacticism onto this film therefore ignores the most pointed statements on the subject by the story's focus and hero -- a most dubious venture. Of course, it is well known that the anti-Passion campaign has only been successful by innuendo, guilt by association (Gibson's father), and other tactics unworthy of serious discourse.
If one is reduced to keeping count of such things as an indicator, the subtlety of the psychological realism of the characters portrayed, and their corresponding sympathy, switches polarity at the street level (unlike Caiphas, most ordinary Jews at street level are remarkably "round," in E. M. Forster's sense, as compared to the rank and file Romans who, unlike Pilate, are somewhat cartoonish). Such an effect is not possible, of course, if the director or text is anti-Semetic. Before using such terms regarding film, one ought to know the real thing by having viewed a couple "educational" films from Nazi Germany about the science of eugenics. In any event, true racism is objectively presented in the movie -- of certain Romans against Jews.
Beyond the authentic/realistic context, our hypothetical viewer without a particular credal axe to grind, knowing nothing of the new testament (like a man from Mars) would most likely just legitimately wonder -- why are they doing this to this man? The film's explanation (based on Matthew) is Jesus' apparent claim to be part of a deity, by a certain formula of words. Focusing on the passion, the film does not fully explain this -- the man from Mars would basically come away with an impression of some sort of great taboo that was broken, causing frenzy and confusion among the Jewish authorities. But again, malice would not be the conclusion. Indeed Caiphas is portrayed as not wanting to kill Christ before the taboo words are spoken. An objective atheist or our man from Mars could not then come away holding that any sort of assumed racial defect or malignancy was the cause. If anything, it is the sheer power of the taboo that is the cause. A true atheist or confident rationalist would not fear this critical focus of the movie, then, since he would reject the taboo ipso facto as a religious belief system. Indeed he might well yet be interested in the film, very interested in it indeed, as a modern attempt to authentically portray the consequences of breaking a powerful taboo in the ancient world.
The fact is, I have heard no criticism based on the fact that the movie justifies the breaking of the taboo against saying "I am." Yet a truly principled attack on the movie would not only have to start there, but grapple with that centrally, and then say something in favor of continuing that taboo in conclusion, ie, censorship of texts or artworks that include that verbal formula. Of course, none of us have heard such a thing.
Regarding the use of Anne Catherine Emmerich, the Marian and/or "stations of the cross" images, etc.: this is nothing more than Gibson's signature, the 20% quotient of interpretivism. It is mainly visual, and neither adds nor subtracts any major element not in the source, Matthew. It is a question of emphasis. And it serves to give artistic unity to the whole. Yes, it does also admit that Gibson is a believer -- such an unambiguous admission to the audience actually being an honest, and therefore praiseworthy virtue, even from the perspective of an ethical pagan. Only certain modern pagans, cut loose from Aristotle, Homer, and the roots of Western culture, advocate the creation of subversive artwork that fools or tricks its audience into beliefs or attitudes cleverly disquised or contra-indicated. While a prime tool of Marxists, such tactics were considered unworthy in the ancient world and indeed there are no known texts from that world which employ such a strategy.
Actually, the real subject of this movie is conversion. Gibson conveys Christ's gaze as the operative machine of this process, with some analogy to the fine use of Christ's shadow by director Nicholas Ray in King of Kings (1961). Comparing and contrasting to this and other filmic precedents would be more interesting than much of what we have been hearing, not only from foes but also from some purported friends of Passion.
I have been trying to write this in a manner to avoid taking a lot away from a fresh first viewing, which I certainly urge. But I cannot help adding one last comparison -- of the Simon scene to John Paul II's poem, "Portait of a Cyrenean" a/k/a "Simon of Cyrene." One cannot claim that Gibson read the late pope's poem, but the visual parallels are remarkable.
Actually, your best prep for this movie might be to rent out a good silent movie, like Abel Gance's Napoleon or anything featuring Chaplin. The subject appears to have pushed Gibson back to the roots of cinema: gestures and faces. Thankfully not everything is subtitled.
My overall conclusion: 3.85 stars out of 5. I don't hold with those that think this is the greatest movie ever made. The Christian Word -- which includes the dogma of a personal Savior and all the eccentricity that may go with it --is inherently incapable of a 5 star movie, or a 5 star artwork of any kind. The closest post-Biblical Christian literature came to 5 stars was Dante, who admitted his failure in his Divine Comedy's last line, and that was a supreme admission from a very proud man and ought to set us all to fear and trembling. Rembrandt for the most part gave us a lot of 3.75 star Jesus paintings, and to borrow from Hemingway, he probably had the best shot at the title. Well, there is a fine Rembrandt etching of the Crucifixion that clocks in at about 4.1. As for the movies, every sincere effort gives you a facet of the Christ -- Jeff Hunter in King of Kings, teamed up with Nicholas Ray behind camera, was heading for a 4.3 maybe, but as we say in Indy town, he "kissed the wall." See it again anyway and ignore a lot of the script (based on the top "scholarship" of its day, by the way).
Saint Bernard, a.d. 1200, saw the West taking a questionable turn before the Renaissance, as far as religious art is concerned: a return to sheer classic realism is a gain, of course, but also a loss because the room for the personal vision is thereby limited. If you have seen Michelangelo's Pieta you cannot imagine that scene ever another way. I thus don't grant any Michelangelo, DaVinci, Raphael, Bernini etc more than a 3.7 when it comes to Jesus Christ. Mel gains not because he's more talented than those guys, but because those guys are his school and he builds on them. Many justifiably still prefer icons in this particular competition.
John the Apostle even threw in the towel on this one, you know: "He said many other things but not all the books in the world ...." & etcetera. So as our famous dean of American realism might have put it, "Don't get into the ring with John the Apostle."
Of course, Mel did get into the ring, didn't he? Of his hubris there is no doubt -- its just not very apparent in this movie, though, scene by scene -- or at least on the surface. As for even undertaking the project -- sure, that's some hubris, all right. But Gibson's stepping into this ring only proves that in the realm of art, certain rules can be broken if counter-balancing compensations are made. Here, as in much of the best art of this country, the bow was to the aesthetic of realism with both feet. The movie has much more in common with Clint Eastwood's unflinching look at the old west in The Unforgiven than with any filmed version of any didactic tract or religious text. If you want your didacticism plain, go see a Star Trek movie and may be the wind be at your back.
As for this film, there's enough going on in it -- including much not mentioned here -- that you should avoid as much of the debate as possible, even or especially from Mel's friends, and just go see it with an open mind as to what will hit you from a talented believer shrewdly aware of both his own limitations and those of film generally.
Description of The Passion of the Christ (Widescreen Edition)
The Passion of the Christ focuses on the last twelve hours of Jesus of Nazareth's life. The film begins in the Garden of Olives where Jesus has gone to pray after the Last Supper. Jesus must resist the temptations of Satan. Betrayed by Judas Iscariot, Jesus is then arrested and taken within the city walls of Jerusalem where leaders of the Pharisees confront him with accusations of blasphemy and his trial results in a condemnation to death.After all the controversy and rigorous debate has subsided, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ will remain a force to be reckoned with. In the final analysis, "Gibson's Folly" is an act of personal bravery and commitment on the part of its director, who self-financed this $25-30 million production to preserve his artistic goal of creating the Passion of Christ ("Passion" in this context meaning "suffering") as a quite literal, in-your-face interpretation of the final 12 hours in the life of Jesus, scripted almost directly from the gospels (and spoken in Aramaic and Latin with a relative minimum of subtitles) and presented as a relentless, 126-minute ordeal of torture and crucifixion. For Christians and non-Christians alike, this film does not "entertain," and it's not a film that one can "like" or "dislike" in any conventional sense. (It is also emphatically not a film for children or the weak of heart.) Rather, The Passion is a cinematic experience that serves an almost singular purpose: to show the scourging and death of Jesus Christ in such horrifically graphic detail (with Gibson's own hand pounding the nails in the cross) that even non-believers may feel a twinge of sorrow and culpability in witnessing the final moments of the Son of God, played by Jim Caviezel in a performance that's not so much acting as a willful act of submission, so intense that some will weep not only for Christ, but for Caviezel's unparalleled test of endurance.
Leave it to the intelligentsia to debate the film's alleged anti-Semitic slant; if one judges what is on the screen (so gloriously served by John Debney's score and Caleb Deschanel's cinematography), there is fuel for debate but no obvious malice aforethought; the Jews under Caiaphas are just as guilty as the barbaric Romans who carry out the execution, especially after Gibson excised (from the subtitles, if not the soundtrack) the film's most controversial line of dialogue. If one accepts that Gibson's intentions are sincere, The Passion can be accepted for what it is: a grueling, straightforward (some might say unimaginative) and extremely violent depiction of the Passion, guaranteed to render devout Christians speechless while it intensifies their faith. Non-believers are likely to take a more dispassionate view, and some may resort to ridicule. But one thing remains undebatable: with The Passion of the Christ, Gibson put his money where his mouth is. You can praise or damn him all you want, but you've got to admire his chutzpah. --Jeff Shannon
Bestsellers in DVD
![The Story of Jeremiah [VHS] Image](/images/noimg.gif)
The Story of Jeremiah [VHS]Vision Video; VHS Tape; VHS Video
Wresting With God [VHS]by Vision Video
Vision Video; Published: 1990-10-01; VHS Tape; VHS Video
Price in other shops:
Study Bible Video with Workbook [VHS]Spring Arbor Distributors; VHS Tape; VHS Video
Best price: $7.95
Price in other shops:
Tempo:Childrens TV Favourites Video [VHS]HarperCollins Audio; VHS Tape; VHS Video
Best price: $9.17
Price in other shops:
Tempo.Herbs:Parseley'Sb/ Party Video [VHS]HarperCollins Audio; VHS Tape; VHS Video
![Strike the Original Match [VHS] Image](/images/Strike-the-Original-Match-VHS-0001374079-X.jpg)
Strike the Original Match [VHS]New Liberty Films; VHS Tape; VHS Video
Price in other shops:
![Medjugorje The Miracles and the Message [VHS] Image](/images/Medjugorje-The-Miracles-and-the-Message-VHS-0001373293-X.jpg)
Medjugorje The Miracles and the Message [VHS]JPN Film Production; Release date: 1995-12-15; VHS Tape; VHS Video
Best price: $29.99
Mayo Clinic Echocardiography Review Course for Boards and Recertification DVD 2008by Mayo
DVD
Price in other shops:
Pediatric Diagnostic Imaging DVD: Single Userby Oakstone
DVD
Price in other shops:
Cost Accounting [VHS]by Charles T. Horngren, George Foster, Srikant M. Datar, Howard Teall
Pearson Canada, Toronto; VHS Tape; VHS Video
Similar DVDs, VHS Video, Audio CDs
David: The Bible CollectionNEW Line Home Video; Release date: 2005-09-06; DVD
Best price: $11.80
Price in other shops:
The Patriot (Special Edition)Sony; Release date: 2000-10-24; DVD
Best price: $6.78
Price in other shops:
FireproofSony; Release date: 2009-01-27; DVD
Best price: $5.45
Price in other shops:
Left Behind - The MovieKoch International; Release date: 2008-04-29; Published: 2000; DVD
Best price: $3.86
Price in other shops:
Abraham (The Bible Collection)GASSMAN,VITTORIO; Release date: 2005-09-06; DVD
Best price: $12.88
Price in other shops:
Mel Gibson's Apocalypto (Widescreen Edition)Buena Vista Home Video; Release date: 2007-05-22; DVD
Best price: $5.98
Price in other shops:
Peter & Paul DVDRelease date: 2002-12-01; DVD
Best price: $12.46
Price in other shops:
The Nativity StoryNEW Line Home Video; Release date: 2007-03-20; Published: 2007-03-01; DVD
Best price: $3.25
Price in other shops:
The Gospel of JohnBuena Vista Home Video; Release date: 2005-03-15; DVD
Best price: $5.91
Price in other shops:
Jesus of NazarethLions Gate; Release date: 2002-03-01; DVD
Best price: $7.99
Price in other shops: