So I get the sense that what I'm about to write might be more appropriately posted in a religious forum, but honestly, I don't have membership in religious forums and I figured that maybe some people here might be interested on what I have to say on the matter.
Whether you're religious or not, I think we can all agree that the portrayal of cherished individuals in movies is a hot button issue, whether the individuals are religious or historical or even fictional. With historical figures, you run the risk of demonizing or whitewashing complex personalities for the sake of a narrative. Since movies can leave such a profound impact on people, the irresponsible portrayal of people in movies can lead to serious misinformation for huge swathes of society, for example how 300 lauds the proto-eugenicist, slaving, hyper-violent Spartans and portrays history as a struggle between its idealized historical European superman and the evil, shameful "ethnic other."
Likewise, the portrayal of religious figures in film is crucial and must be handled delicately. Whether you're religious or not, I believe this issue is important and affects all of us. I will obviously be writing this thread from a Christian perspective, but please understand that in my reflections and arguments, I'm only trying to explain and not convert or challenge anyone. This is really an intellectual exercise only.
Jesus Christ: Superstar (1973), which I'll refer to here on out as JCS, and The Passion of the Christ (2004), which I'll refer to now as Passion, represent the polar opposites of portrayals of Jesus Christ in the media. The former movie focuses in on the human aspect of the Christ and his interactions with Judas Iscariot and Mary Magdalene; it downplays the role of Christ's divinity, relegating that aspect to a kind of special foreknowledge of fate rather than the capacity to perform miracles. The latter film goes the opposite route and not at all for the better. Rather than focusing on Christ's humanity, Passion zeroes in on grisly suffering; God is invoked in abstracts and the looming specter of Satan is presented with the cinematographic language of horror movies.
First, an in depth look at JCS. Adapted from a broadway musical, JCS was directed by Norman Jewison, who also directed such famous musicals as Fiddler on the Roof. The film, like Passion, focuses on the final hours of Jesus Christ. Though the story is ostensibly about Jesus, the other major characters are given full and complete arcs. Judas Iscariot struggles with his love of Jesus and his concern for Him, how Jesus' focus on divinity has distracted Him from their original goals of helping the poor and fighting the injustice of the Roman regime. Mary Magdalene, who has henceforth lived a life in practice of erotic love, must come to understand the kind of spiritual love Jesus asks of her. Even the antagonists in the story are portrayed sympathetically. Caiaphas and Pontius Pilate both sing of their anxieties: both men are frightened and dominated by the looming specter of Roman power and the threat of rebellion among the Israelites. Caiaphas fears for the priesthood and the Israelite culture, knowing that if Jesus' followers rebel, he and his people will be destroyed. Likewise, Pilate grapples with his internal comprehension of truth and justice and how adhering to those principles and saving Jesus would cost him his position of power and likely his life.
In the portrayal of these Biblical figures, JCS underscores the humanity at the center of the Passion. What matters is how the characters think and feel and how those thoughts and feelings led to the Crucifixion. While Caiaphas and Pilate are ultimately responsible for Jesus' great suffering, the writers of JCS are sure to pin the blame on the conditions and the times rather than paint these individuals as evil or cruel.
If JCS is fraught with human emotion and love, then Passion of the Christ is utterly devoid of love. It is a cold movie, one that relishes in the suffering of the Christ without revering His humanity or venerating His divinity. God and Satan are nebulous, abstract forces in the film and though Passion does have a sense of mysticism, it's neither interested in the humanity of Christ nor His ministry, nor his Divinity. Judas is a stereotypical and flat character in the movie. Whereas Bob Bingham's Caiaphas in JCS was a conflicted figure, the Caiaphas of Passion is a disgusting, evil man. His pronounced beard, haggard features, and rabbinical clothing are furthermore indications to the audience that Gibson intended the High Priest's Jewishness to be a principal factor in why the audience should hate him.
And let's talk about Gibson, for that matter. The action star-turned-director was responsible for Apocalypto, a film that characterized pre-Columbian South America as an evil place full of violence and pagan ritualism, a place that was "improved" by the arrival of the Spanish. Gibson, of course, started off in action movies like Mad Max and Lethal Weapon and to his credit, both these movies and his roles in these movies are exceptionally well done: they remain some of my favorites to this day. Still, these early films of his acting career and the staple of his directing career paint the picture of a man obsessed with violence.
It is the contrast between Jewison, the quiet and emotive director of musicals and Gibson the star of brash actioners that defines the fault lines between Jesus Christ: Superstar and Passion of the Christ. The Trial Before Pilate is one of the best indications of where these films differ and why JCS portrays the more appropriate rendition of the famous Biblical account.
Particularly, it's the portrayal of the 40 Lashes. The lines leading up to this scene in Passion make it clear that it's Caiaphas' cruelty and the viciousness of the mob that lead Pilate to order Jesus to be scourged. When Jesus is whipped, the focus is on the sociopathic behavior of the Roman soldiers and the wounds inflicted on Jesus: the camera luxuriates on the anguish, the spilled blood and the torn skin. In JCS, conversely, as Jesus is whipped the camera focuses on the emotions and reactions of the onlookers : Mary is anguished, Caiaphas is disgusted, Herod's amusement turns to horror, and Pilate struggles to go through with his decision.
These portrayals are all-telling about how to and how to not portray the Passion. In Jesus Christ Superstar, the point of showing Jesus' suffering is to demonstrate how it affected those whom he touched; the point is to show Jesus' resolve and His will to sacrifice. In Passion, the point is to show the audience grisly violence. Whether that violence is shown to disgust, to incite guilt, or to enthuse perversely is anyone's guess; however, that's not the point of the story and focusing on the violence is missing the point of the Biblical Passion entirely.
The Take Away
The point isn't to show us how gross or entertaining violence is, but to show us how Jesus suffered for the sake of everyone. The reactions of both Jesus' supporters and His adversaries show us a wide range of human emotions and let us know what the right and wrong ways to react to the suffering of another are. JCS taps into that deep humanity and leaves its audience emotionally engaged, if somewhat traumatized, whereas Passion simply leaves its audience disgusted. The former movie invites reflection on Christianity, whereas the latter polarizes and sets up Christians as a group apart.
Though it's not a theologically accurate movie, I consider JCS the more reverent and appropriate depiction of the Christ because it doesn't foster hatred towards individuals or groups. The story and the songs explore in depth the motivations of the characters and the reasons for which they act. It is in this more holistic consideration of the humanity behind Biblical stories that people can learn from the Bible, not in ostentatious displays of grisly violence and self-righteous self-superiority.
Thank you for reading!
