OASIS is pleased to be able to commend the following:

"The Passion of The Christ"

Mel Gibson's amazing film

To see Iain Archibald's reflections after seeing The Passion of the Christ click here.

We have picked up the following from the USA:-

The majority of the media are complaining about this movie. Now Paul Harvey tells "the rest of the story" and David Limbaugh praises Gibson.

Paul Harvey's words:

I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have been invited to a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion", but I had also read all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a Jewish town and owe much of my own faith journey to the influence. I have a life-long, deeply held aversion to anything that might even indirectly encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought, language or action.

I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion", held in Washington DC and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words. The film was very briefly introduced, without fanfare, and then the room darkened. From the gripping opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way of the cross, the encounter with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until the final scene in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an encounter, unlike anything I have ever experienced.

In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an artistic triumph, "The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film concluded, this "invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers" in Washington, DC were shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were woefully inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth.

One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A brutalised, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the weight of the cross. His mother had made her way along the Via Della Rosa. As she ran to him, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the dirt road outside of their home. Just as she reached to protect him from the fall, she was now reaching to touch his wounded adult face. Jesus looked at her with intensely probing and passionately loving eyes (and at all of us through the screen) and said "Behold I make all things new". These are words taken from the last book of the New Testament, the book of Revelations. Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was so clear and the wounds, that earlier in the film had been so difficult to see in his face, his back, indeed all over his body, became intensely beautiful. They had been borne voluntarily for love.

At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to recover, a question and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise for the film, from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments were effusive. The questions included the one question that seems to follow this film, even though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this film considered by some to be 'anti-Semitic'?" Frankly, having now experienced (you do not "view" this film) "The Passion" it is a question that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his hand and responded, "After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued, "It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus." I agree. There is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there were, I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging way.

Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have another agenda behind their protestations. This is not a "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human, beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a profound work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no longer acceptable behavior then we are all in trouble. History demands that we remain faithful to the story and Christians have a right to tell it. After all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever told and that its message is for all men and women. The greatest right is the right to hear the truth.

We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to which "The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the history of the world. The problem is not the message but those who have distorted it and used it for hate rather than love. The solution is not to censor the message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love that is shown in Mel Gibson's filmmaking masterpiece, "The Passion".

It should be seen by as many people as possible. I intend to do everything I can to make sure that is the case. I am passionate about "The Passion". You will be as well. Don't miss it!

David Limbaugh's words:

How ironic that when a movie producer takes artistic license with historical events, he is lionized as artistic, creative and brilliant, but when another takes special care to be true to the real-life story, he is vilified. Actor-producer Mel Gibson is discovering these truths the hard way, as he is having difficulty finding a United States studio or distributor for his upcoming film, "The Passion", which depicts the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ.

Gibson co-wrote the script and financed, directed and produced the movie. For the script, he and his co-author relied on the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as well as the diaries of St. Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) and Mary of Agreda's "The City of God."

Gibson doesn't want this to be like other sterilized religious epics. "I'm trying to access the story on a very personal level and trying to be very real about it." So committed to realistically portraying what many would consider the most important half-day in the history of the universe, Gibson even shot the film in the Aramaic language of the period. In response to objections that viewers will not be able to understand that language, Gibson said, "Hopefully, I'll be able to transcend the language barriers with my visual storytelling; if I fail, I fail, but at least it'll be a monumental failure."

To further insure the accuracy of the work, Gibson has enlisted the counsel of pastors and theologians, and has received rave reviews. Don Hodel, president of Focus on the Family, said, "I was very impressed. The movie is historically and theologically accurate." Ted Haggard, pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo., and president of the National Evangelical Association, glowed: "It conveys, more accurately than any other film, who Jesus was."

During the filming, Gibson, a devout Catholic, attended Mass every morning because "we had to be squeaky clean just working on this". From Gibson's perspective, this movie is not about Mel Gibson. It's bigger than he is. "I'm not a preacher, and I'm not a pastor," he said, "but I really feel my career was leading me to make this. The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film, and I was just directing traffic. I hope the film has the power to evangelize."

Even before the release of the movie, scheduled for March 2004, Gibson is getting his wish. "Everyone who worked on this movie was changed. There were agnostics and Muslims on set converting to Christianity...[and] people being healed of diseases." Gibson wants people to understand through the movie, if they don't already, the incalculable influence Christ has had on the world. And he grasps that Christ is controversial precisely because of WHO HE IS - GOD incarnate. "And that's the point of my film really, to show all that turmoil around him politically and with religious leaders and the people, all because He is who He is."

Gibson is beginning to experience first hand just how controversial Christ is. Critics have not only speciously challenged the movie's authenticity, but have charged that it is disparaging to Jews, which Gibson vehemently denies. "This is not a Christian versus Jewish thing. '[Jesus] came into the world, and it knew him not.' Looking at Christ's crucifixion, I look first at my own culpability in that." Jesuit Father William J. Fulco, who translated the script into Aramaic and Latin, said he saw no hint of anti-Semitism in the movie. Fulco added, "I would be aghast at any suggestion that Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic." Nevertheless, certain groups and some in the mainstream press have been very critical of Gibson's "Passion".

The New York Post's Andrea Peyser chided him: "There is still time, Mel, to tell the truth." Boston Globe columnist James Carroll denounced Gibson's literal reading of the biblical accounts. "Even a faithful repetition of the Gospel stories of the death of Jesus can do damage exactly because those sacred texts themselves carry the virus of Jew hatred", wrote Carroll. A group of Jewish and Christian academics has issued an 18-page report slamming all aspects of the film, including its undue emphasis on Christ's passion rather than "a broader vision". The report disapproves of the movie's treatment of Christ's passion as historical fact.

The moral is that if you want the popular culture to laud your work on Christ, make sure it either depicts him as a homosexual or as an everyday sinner with no particular redeeming value (literally). In our anti-Christian culture, the blasphemous "The Last Temptation of Christ" is celebrated and "The Passion" is condemned. But if this movie continues to affect people the way it is now, no amount of cultural opposition will suppress its force and its positive impact on lives everywhere. Mel Gibson is a model of faith and courage.

Now Iain Archibald's reflections after seeing The Passion of the Christ:

First of all, I ask myself if it is a film in the general sense of the word. It is certainly unlike any other film I have seen. For a start, it does not try to entertain and it does not entertain.

Second, I have been wondering if it is to be classified more as a work of art? Remember those discussions at school or in further studies about: What is art? What is beauty? What is truth?

Speaking of which… this film depicts as far as I know the first man who came out with just that question: "Truth! What is truth?" (If you aren't familiar with the detail of the account of Jesus' trial and crucifixion, it was Pilate who said those words; he was the Governor of Judea at the time.)

The overwhelming thought I have as I look back on the film is that it was gripping - it didn't lose my attention for a second in all the 2 hours and 6 minutes. It was also draining. The film is, after all, about "the passion" of the Lord Jesus Christ, i.e. his suffering. The film begins with a scene in the Garden of Gethsemane and ends with his body being taken down from the cross (with a short coda just afterwards which you can see for yourself).

Here is what made a big impression on me:

• the sheer brutality meted out on Jesus
• the depravity and violence heaped on him
• I got a more vivid impression of what he may have gone through both in his mind and in his body
• one particular aspect of the actual crucifixion shocked me, as I had never imagined it before (I'll leave you to judge for yourself)
• here was rough justice indeed, first at the hands of one of the most developed people groups of all time, if not the most developed; and then at the hands of possibly the greatest empire of all time
• the dangerous dynamics that can take place in crowds; for people can be sucked into the crowd dynamic and say and do things they might never dream of on their own (I have since thought about the crowd in our own time who meted out rough justice on two soldiers who stumbled on a funeral in West Belfast)
• the fickleness of human nature
• the worst aspects of human nature
• the person who plays Judas
• the person who plays Pilate
• the person who plays Herod
• but also:
• the person who plays Jesus
• the person who plays the man who carried the cross for Jesus
• the many and sometimes stark references to the long-term significance to Jesus' body and blood, including the flashback to the Last Supper.

Here is what I found debateable:

• I missed any portrayal of Joseph, Jesus' earthly father
• Mary seemed to be in too much control of herself and her emotions. (On the other hand, she had been prepared from the first week of Jesus' life for a sword one day piercing her own heart - though this is not referred to in the film; so she knew something awful was going to happen - it was only a question of when, where and how…)
• the likely technical inaccuracy of Jesus having a crown / "diadem" of thorns placed on his head, just like we see in the paintings; it is possible he had instead a punched-out ball of thorns forced onto his whole head, a bit like a tea cosy (if you'll pardon the triteness of the simile)
• the certain technical inaccuracy of Jesus having nails driven through his hands, again something we see in the paintings down the centuries. Modern research has shown that a body nailed to a cross by its hands would fall off the cross in minutes if not in seconds; no, Jesus will have been crucified through the wrists
• I wasn't sure about the various portrayals of Satan, though it was helpful to be reminded that there was in this whole, shocking episode a titanic struggle going on between forces for good and forces determined to distract and undermine any good, i.e. a spiritual battle, indeed of gigantic and eternal significance: would Jesus go through with what he came into the world to do, or wouldn't he? Would he make it to the end goal of his life without compromising himself or his mission, or wouldn't he?...
• Is the film anti-semitic?" was a question planted in my mind well before the film flickered into life before me. My answer, during the opening scenes, was: "Maybe". But then Jesus meets the juggernaut of the mighty Roman Empire, representing every tribal and linguistic grouping in the known world at that time - from sophisticated people native to the Mediterranean area, to once barbarian folk from "beyond the pale", maybe even from what we know today as Scotland (and I thought of the old legend that says Pontius Pilate came from Fortingall in Perthshire…). As I saw what these various representatives of the Roman Empire did to Jesus, I realised the film could be more aptly described as anti-Roman, and so in a sense "anti" all of us…

I later reflected that one or two of the disciples were shown in a favourable light, also the man who carried Jesus' cross (Simon of Cyrene in the Gospel accounts) and the "good" thief on the cross next to Jesus' cross. I guess all these were Jewish. The central person is portrayed as being Jewish and one is certainly drawn to admire him. As for redeeming features among the motley assortment of Roman Empire representatives, Pilate's wife stands out as someone who does not go along with the crowds or with notions of political expediency.

So what message did the film have for me?

First, that here indeed was the fulfilment of the strange prophecy uttered 700 years before Christ's appearance and with which the film opens: "He was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities" (from Isaiah chapter 53).

Second, that this terrible death for some kind of stupendous if still mysterious result had to happen: there was a tragic, awesome inevitability to it.

Third, that after agonising in the Garden of Gethsemane about the awfulness that lay before him, Jesus positively embraced that cross and was determined to make it to the hill of crucifixion, whatever it took…

Fourth, on his way there he momentarily meets Mary, his mother, and says "Mother, I'm making all things new". Now this is not in the Gospel accounts but its import is nonetheless consistent with the message of the New Testament, for in the last book of the Bible, Revelation, there comes from the throne of God this saying: "Behold, I make all things new" (Chapter 21).

Fifth, I have been thinking about the man who was drafted in to help Jesus carry his cross. At first the man wants nothing to do with this pitiful, bloody, "failed Messiah" figure and protests that he himself is just an innocent member of the public who doesn't deserve to be dragged into this squalid, messy spectacle. But Simon of Cyrene, the name we know him by, ends up carrying the cross, and indeed carrying / supporting Jesus. But, wait a minute, did he in fact carry Jesus or was not Jesus carrying him?... At the top of the hill of crucifixion, the "helper", having been in some way touched, nay deeply affected, by Jesus, tries to defend the tiny amount of dignity Jesus may have left. He defends him, even "owns" him and perhaps identifies with him? There is certainly a mystery here that the Director wants us to glimpse - maybe with an application to ourselves. Could we be like that helper? At first we might say: "I have got nothing to do with this Jesus!" But we might in due course, upon more personal acquaintance, manage to say something like: "Leave this Jesus alone! He hasn't done anything to deserve this humiliating treatment and death sentence. He is a good person. I probably deserve it more than he does..."

Sixth, did this Simon of Cyrene then in fact witness the crucifixion of the Messiah and Son of God, as it were in his place?...

Finally, why did Jesus have to die in this way? That is the fundamental question.

A point of information about a video you can acquire: some years ago a remarkable Academy Award winning documentary was made in this country about the Turin Shroud. This item, many people, including many scientists, think was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. The title of the film is The Silent Witness and OASIS / St Cuthbert's have a stock of videos of it. The quality is not the best, so you can have a copy for free (or donate £5 if you must!). The documentary is riveting, especially in what it reveals about the suffering that a person went through when subjected to crucifixion. It amplifies one's understanding of the suffering that Jesus will have endured. Just phone or email us at OASIS for a copy.

Also available from OASIS is a booklet: A Guide to the Passion. Subtitle is: 100 questions about the film. Price £3.49, but our stock was donated by a benefactor so the copies are free. Written from a Catholic perspective, this is unputdownable by anyone who has seen the film. Especially useful for those who are not familiar with all the lines and symbolism. A great book to pass on to any friend who has seen the film and is wondering what to make of it.

Back to top