Sunday, October 10, 2004
So I watched The Torture Garden of Gethsemane. I found it... interesting initially, fading to dull about a third of the way through, at about the point where the story ends and Mel Gibson starts abusing his inner Messiah. Of course, it didn't help to have people going around planting stories before it's cinema release that it was in some way a faithful telling of events as they happened. I don't know what source text Gibson used but it wasn't the bible most of us know. It was really the film of the book in the same way as the Lord of the Rings films were adaptations of the book, the basic essence the same but distilled, changed and percolated, in this case through the mind of a Catholic with enhanced self-pain issues. If you've ever been to a BDSM party in LA and had Mr. Gibson ask if he can whip you, please let me know.
The film starts off promisingly with some lovely shots, especially the first initial swoop from the heavens into the Garden of Gethsemane. However, such great camera work quickly fades into the pedestrian, while a similar idea that nature is all out of whack with the capture of Jesus (Gibson ripping of Macbeth) similarly fades into the night with some strange CGI wolf-bear thing. Jesus, when we first meet him, seems half-constipated, half-nauseous, Gibson's idea seems to be that Jesus is literally taking on the responsibility for all the world's sin, he has indigestion from being a sin-eater on a global scale. But again, nothing really comes of this, the ridiculous amount of bloodshed might have been in some way artistically justifiable if some deliberate link was made between this punishment and our sin, but just because practically everyone watching this film will know the Bible story doesn't mean Gibson doesn't have to put in these parallels. The Gibson Christ isn't dying for our sins, he's dying because the Jewish spiritual leaders find him objectionable. And I'll address that in a minute.
Whilst in the Garden, Jesus spends his time choking on the ground while being watched by the devil, an interesting performance by Rosalinda Celentano. She was by far the most interesting thing in the film, James Caviezel as Jesus being rather hampered by the fact that most of his performance involves whimpering with pain after being hit, gasping with pain or falling over. But while Satan spends a lot of time drifting through crowds as though she's walked off the set of Braveheart again her appearance has no real purpose. Ze gives no reason for why ze is there. It's a welcome touch of ambiguity in a rather plain script from Gibson, but he seems at a loss for why the devil should be there, just a strong moral conviction that ze should be. And it's a very Book of Job-like devil, where the devil is a rank or job title, rather than an entity's name. I can imagine that just before hirs first appearance ze was discussing with God about what faced Jesus and whether ze could pull it off, obviously some serious money has been put down that he couldn't. Hir anger at the end seems a little baffling unless you consider the idea that ze lost the bet and now has to mow God's infinite lawn for an aeon or two.
At one point during the whipping Satan is walking around carrying a large demonic child, who is enjoying the show. Now, Judas is driven to suicide by children he sees as demons, it's implied these are sent by Satan, rather odd unless ze is doing a favour for God by getting rid of the traitor. So it might be one of them. But there is no reason given for why Satan is suddenly carrying it in hirs arms, why hir isn't carrying it in any of hirs preceding or subsequent scenes or where it went. It's more like an extremely blatant continuity error, initially Satan is carrying the baby around all the time, then Gibson changes his mind and shoots new scenes without the baby, then forgets and leaves this one in. But that can't be the case, surely?
Is the film anti-Semitic? Can any film about the death of Jesus not be? No matter what Gibson and his Dad's religious views are, Mel starts from a baseline of Catholicism, so it's little surprise that the film is a recruiting tool for the Roman Church. Here we have the myths of authenticity, the Romans are Italian, the Jews are Jews, but the Christ family, Jesus, Mum, brother(?) and Mary Magdalene are suspiciously European for people who are also, let us not forget, Jews. Alright, so it's not as bad as Robert Powell but still there. And although Mel might not have the blood libel line subtitled (and the subtitles on my DVD were pretty bad, there were whole scenes where nothing was translated at all, like most of the courtyard torture scene) the fact that he didn't see anything wrong with putting it in says something. His defenders might argue that it's in the bible so it has to go in the film, no matter how unpleasant and unfortunate, but he buggers around with so much else, take the Last Supper scene for example, "You are my friends. There is no greater love for a man to lay down his life for his friends" That's not what the Bible I read actually says, so a line which 'justifies' Christian persecution of Jews has to stay? Sounds fishy to me. Even more so when Gibson crowbars in the creation of the Turin Shroud by a woman giving a bloodied Jesus a dishcloth to wipe his face with. This isn't even apocrypha, this is a recently created myth which Gibson nonetheless takes as gospel truth.
With this film, the thing you want to know is, at which exact point did the over the top blood and gore get too much? Very quickly actually, about fifty-four minutes in when Jesus is being brutally caned and scourged by Roman guards and has forgotten the safe word. Not being a Christian I need some dramatic intent to engage with, something Gibson resolutely refuses to provide, it makes one wince the first few times, then it just goes overboard into overhearty grand guignol panto and gets in the way of the telling of the story. One of the earliest unpleasant things the guards do to Jesus is toss him over a wall. The chains they put on him arrest his fall about twenty feet down just above the ground. When he suffers no ill-effects from this you realise what you're dealing with here. We're in a Lethal Weapon film where people can get shot in the belly a few times and, so long as they're good, walk away fine, albeit with a tendency to stagger for a bit to show how injured they are. Gibson brings no psychological insight into Jesus to the table, indeed seems afraid to even attempt it, so tries to cover it up with blood. If he can't show you Jesus' heart, he's going to have a damn good go at showing you his other internal organs. We see almost nothing of Jesus the man, Mary Magdalene isn't there because of trendy modern notions that she was the wife of a Rabbi Jesus, she's just there when he arrives at the gates of Jerusalem, looking in a bit of a bad way. She then spends the rest of the film crying about him with his Mum. The weirdest scene in the film is a brief glance of life at Chez Christ before Jesus decided to become a prophet, he's working as a carpenter, and invents the chair. Now Gibson has the entire Bible and a wealth of other material to draw upon, yet for some reason his one stab at making Jesus human, he invents the idea that Jesus invents a thing for sitting on. Still, it must be a success because in the present day everyone, the Rabbis, the Romans, they're all using them. I would have thought the royalties would do very nicely.
And roughly one hour ten minutes they set off to Jesus' crucifixion. Now there's not much more that can be done to Jesus for a bit, he already looks like Tom Cruise in Interview With the Vampire when he's a malnourished mess at the end. So we basically have about thirty minutes of Jesus staggering along, then falling down. Still no character development or insight, just lots of tripping over. More often than not in glorious slo-mo. After the fourth time I was thinking it would be better if they dragged the cross themselves and just strapped him on to the top of it. As it is the story descends into farce at this point. At one hour thirty-five they're nailing Jesus to the cross. Then, when they've done that they flip the cross over, just to bend the nails they've just driven through his flesh. I'm then surprised that they get the cross up and in it's hole first time, I was genuinely expecting they'd drop it first time, Jesus-side down.
The thing that always concerned me, learning about this stuff while growing up, was the exact nature of Jesus when he's on the cross. Son of God or Son of Man? There's arguments both ways and I suspect it depends on whether you believe or not, but to me if it's the Son of God on the cross then the sacrifice is less, you're killing something non-human and you might as well nail a horse to the cross and say that humanity's sins are washed away. A human son of God however, someone who could be any of us, would be a genuine sacrifice because it would remind us that we could, if we play our cards right, do alright by God. Gibson takes the opposite view. But by subjecting his Jesus to ridiculous amounts of pain and torture where it's made pretty explicit that it's only his superhero status that keeps him going long enough to be nailed to a cross for me robs the film of it's relevance.
But then, Gibson's not making a film for Godless atheist fence-sitters like me is he?
Oh, by the way, I hope I'm not spoiling it for anyone if I say that Jesus dies at the end. And it's nice to see Har Mar Superstar in another acting role as Dancin' Herod.
The film starts off promisingly with some lovely shots, especially the first initial swoop from the heavens into the Garden of Gethsemane. However, such great camera work quickly fades into the pedestrian, while a similar idea that nature is all out of whack with the capture of Jesus (Gibson ripping of Macbeth) similarly fades into the night with some strange CGI wolf-bear thing. Jesus, when we first meet him, seems half-constipated, half-nauseous, Gibson's idea seems to be that Jesus is literally taking on the responsibility for all the world's sin, he has indigestion from being a sin-eater on a global scale. But again, nothing really comes of this, the ridiculous amount of bloodshed might have been in some way artistically justifiable if some deliberate link was made between this punishment and our sin, but just because practically everyone watching this film will know the Bible story doesn't mean Gibson doesn't have to put in these parallels. The Gibson Christ isn't dying for our sins, he's dying because the Jewish spiritual leaders find him objectionable. And I'll address that in a minute.
Whilst in the Garden, Jesus spends his time choking on the ground while being watched by the devil, an interesting performance by Rosalinda Celentano. She was by far the most interesting thing in the film, James Caviezel as Jesus being rather hampered by the fact that most of his performance involves whimpering with pain after being hit, gasping with pain or falling over. But while Satan spends a lot of time drifting through crowds as though she's walked off the set of Braveheart again her appearance has no real purpose. Ze gives no reason for why ze is there. It's a welcome touch of ambiguity in a rather plain script from Gibson, but he seems at a loss for why the devil should be there, just a strong moral conviction that ze should be. And it's a very Book of Job-like devil, where the devil is a rank or job title, rather than an entity's name. I can imagine that just before hirs first appearance ze was discussing with God about what faced Jesus and whether ze could pull it off, obviously some serious money has been put down that he couldn't. Hir anger at the end seems a little baffling unless you consider the idea that ze lost the bet and now has to mow God's infinite lawn for an aeon or two.
At one point during the whipping Satan is walking around carrying a large demonic child, who is enjoying the show. Now, Judas is driven to suicide by children he sees as demons, it's implied these are sent by Satan, rather odd unless ze is doing a favour for God by getting rid of the traitor. So it might be one of them. But there is no reason given for why Satan is suddenly carrying it in hirs arms, why hir isn't carrying it in any of hirs preceding or subsequent scenes or where it went. It's more like an extremely blatant continuity error, initially Satan is carrying the baby around all the time, then Gibson changes his mind and shoots new scenes without the baby, then forgets and leaves this one in. But that can't be the case, surely?
Is the film anti-Semitic? Can any film about the death of Jesus not be? No matter what Gibson and his Dad's religious views are, Mel starts from a baseline of Catholicism, so it's little surprise that the film is a recruiting tool for the Roman Church. Here we have the myths of authenticity, the Romans are Italian, the Jews are Jews, but the Christ family, Jesus, Mum, brother(?) and Mary Magdalene are suspiciously European for people who are also, let us not forget, Jews. Alright, so it's not as bad as Robert Powell but still there. And although Mel might not have the blood libel line subtitled (and the subtitles on my DVD were pretty bad, there were whole scenes where nothing was translated at all, like most of the courtyard torture scene) the fact that he didn't see anything wrong with putting it in says something. His defenders might argue that it's in the bible so it has to go in the film, no matter how unpleasant and unfortunate, but he buggers around with so much else, take the Last Supper scene for example, "You are my friends. There is no greater love for a man to lay down his life for his friends" That's not what the Bible I read actually says, so a line which 'justifies' Christian persecution of Jews has to stay? Sounds fishy to me. Even more so when Gibson crowbars in the creation of the Turin Shroud by a woman giving a bloodied Jesus a dishcloth to wipe his face with. This isn't even apocrypha, this is a recently created myth which Gibson nonetheless takes as gospel truth.
With this film, the thing you want to know is, at which exact point did the over the top blood and gore get too much? Very quickly actually, about fifty-four minutes in when Jesus is being brutally caned and scourged by Roman guards and has forgotten the safe word. Not being a Christian I need some dramatic intent to engage with, something Gibson resolutely refuses to provide, it makes one wince the first few times, then it just goes overboard into overhearty grand guignol panto and gets in the way of the telling of the story. One of the earliest unpleasant things the guards do to Jesus is toss him over a wall. The chains they put on him arrest his fall about twenty feet down just above the ground. When he suffers no ill-effects from this you realise what you're dealing with here. We're in a Lethal Weapon film where people can get shot in the belly a few times and, so long as they're good, walk away fine, albeit with a tendency to stagger for a bit to show how injured they are. Gibson brings no psychological insight into Jesus to the table, indeed seems afraid to even attempt it, so tries to cover it up with blood. If he can't show you Jesus' heart, he's going to have a damn good go at showing you his other internal organs. We see almost nothing of Jesus the man, Mary Magdalene isn't there because of trendy modern notions that she was the wife of a Rabbi Jesus, she's just there when he arrives at the gates of Jerusalem, looking in a bit of a bad way. She then spends the rest of the film crying about him with his Mum. The weirdest scene in the film is a brief glance of life at Chez Christ before Jesus decided to become a prophet, he's working as a carpenter, and invents the chair. Now Gibson has the entire Bible and a wealth of other material to draw upon, yet for some reason his one stab at making Jesus human, he invents the idea that Jesus invents a thing for sitting on. Still, it must be a success because in the present day everyone, the Rabbis, the Romans, they're all using them. I would have thought the royalties would do very nicely.
And roughly one hour ten minutes they set off to Jesus' crucifixion. Now there's not much more that can be done to Jesus for a bit, he already looks like Tom Cruise in Interview With the Vampire when he's a malnourished mess at the end. So we basically have about thirty minutes of Jesus staggering along, then falling down. Still no character development or insight, just lots of tripping over. More often than not in glorious slo-mo. After the fourth time I was thinking it would be better if they dragged the cross themselves and just strapped him on to the top of it. As it is the story descends into farce at this point. At one hour thirty-five they're nailing Jesus to the cross. Then, when they've done that they flip the cross over, just to bend the nails they've just driven through his flesh. I'm then surprised that they get the cross up and in it's hole first time, I was genuinely expecting they'd drop it first time, Jesus-side down.
The thing that always concerned me, learning about this stuff while growing up, was the exact nature of Jesus when he's on the cross. Son of God or Son of Man? There's arguments both ways and I suspect it depends on whether you believe or not, but to me if it's the Son of God on the cross then the sacrifice is less, you're killing something non-human and you might as well nail a horse to the cross and say that humanity's sins are washed away. A human son of God however, someone who could be any of us, would be a genuine sacrifice because it would remind us that we could, if we play our cards right, do alright by God. Gibson takes the opposite view. But by subjecting his Jesus to ridiculous amounts of pain and torture where it's made pretty explicit that it's only his superhero status that keeps him going long enough to be nailed to a cross for me robs the film of it's relevance.
But then, Gibson's not making a film for Godless atheist fence-sitters like me is he?
Oh, by the way, I hope I'm not spoiling it for anyone if I say that Jesus dies at the end. And it's nice to see Har Mar Superstar in another acting role as Dancin' Herod.
