RART 10,3_f9_431-440 10/6/06 11:00 AM Page 431

Book Reviews

Beal, Timothy K., and Tod Linafelt, eds. Mel Gibson’s Bible: Religion, Popular Culture, and The Passion of the Christ. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press, 2005. Pp. xii + 208 + 9 illustrations. $42.00 cloth, $16.00 paper.

el Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ (2004) has been the most Minfluential and controversial religious film since Martin Scorsese’s 1988 The Last Temptation of Christ. The Passion of the Christ is an interesting representation of the last twelve hours of Christ’s life. Unlike Scorsese, Gibson was able to succeed commercially due largely to a grass-roots social marketing campaign, which ignored typical outlets for film pro- motion. Although popular reviews of the film were mixed and it was snubbed in major categories at the Academy Awards, scholarly interest in the film has been great. Timothy K. Beal and Tod Linafelt edited this volume of essays by mostly academic contributors, who offer a number of interpretations of Gibson’s epic. The book contains twenty-one chapters divided into three sections. Section 1’s eight chapters offer interpretations of Gibson’s film in the context of the sources it was derived from. Section 2 is composed of six chapters that examine the ethical implications of The Passion of the Christ, in particular with reference to certain character representations and the use of violence. Section 3 is made up of seven chapters that look at the film in terms of popular culture and as a religious event. Jack Miles’s “The Art of the Passion,” the opening essay in section 1, explores the most obvious and under-studied aspect of Gibson’s film, the use of Aramaic and Latin. Miles finds that Gibson’s use of these lan- guages may not be accurate. There is no proof, for instance, that Pontius Pilate learned to speak Aramaic, the language of the common man in Jesus’s day. It is also unlikely that Jesus would have spoken Latin. However, the essay concludes that the filmmakers were well within their rights to take these minor artistic liberties. In addition, Miles explores Gibson’s artistic representation of the Satan character. This asexual figure is the most frightening and memorable cinematic portrayal of Satan to date. Gibson’s Satan is perfect as the villain, so there is little need to place a Jew in the specific role of demonic tempter. Gibson vilifies Caiaphas instead, stretching the Gospels to do so. Many have praised the aesthetics of The Passion of the Christ; however, Miles’s essay states that the film continues the tradition of iconography

RELIGION and the ARTS 10:3 (2006): 431–440. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden RART 10,3_f9_431-440 10/6/06 11:00 AM Page 432

RELIGION and the ARTS

at the expense of realism by attempting to be both a documentary and a pictorial assertion of classic Christian faith claims. Although Miles’s essay is an enlightening look at Gibson’s film, it closes with a weak jux- taposition of arguments that stereotypes the film’s core audience in an attempt to show hypocrisy in the current political climate. A second essay by George M. Smiga balances Jack Miles’s view of the film. This piece takes the stance that America is open and listening when it comes to God and faith. Inconsistencies between the film and the Gospels and artistic license aside, this is why the movie has generated such discussion and renewed interest in Jesus Christ. It has also been praised for its human portrayal of Jesus, something that generated criticism in Scorsese’s Last Temptation. This renewed interest is Gibson’s biggest contribution to reli- gion and popular culture. In addition to pieces questioning the ethics of certain character and theological representations, section 2 contains one particularly practi- cal essay. Mark Douglas’s “The Passions of the Reviewers; Or, Why Liberals Are Right for the Wrong Reasons and Conservatives Are Wrong for the Right Ones” illuminates the political divisiveness of the film. It does at times seem that the surest way to determine a person’s politi- cal leanings is to mention The Passion of the Christ, which is gener- ally despised by liberals and loved by conservatives. An essay that exposes the weakness in conflicting opinion over the film has the poten- tial to move discussion forward and break down the divisive nature of this work. Section 3 continues to look at the exclusionary elements of Gibson’s film as a media event creating two separate groups: the insiders and the outsiders. The final essay by editor Timothy K. Beal, titled “They Know Not What They Watch,” is a proper summation of the whole section. Beginning with the clear divide in audience reaction, Beal describes the gaps in narrative and cinematic devices used by Gibson that account for the split in audience opinion. The essay concludes that the film has given the Christian audience regardless of denomination a reason to come together. The tone of this finding has a certain pity for Christians because they have nothing else but a film to bind them. Even if this is true, a common ground even for only Christians to come together is something to be celebrated, not pitied. This edited volume contains much of the same interpretation and dis- cussion that previous books and articles have chronicled. Like most work published on The Passion of the Christ, the issues of anti-Semitism, accu- racy, graphic violence, and character portrayal dominate the bulk of this work. However, many essays offer new and unique perspectives with the advantage of retrospect. The value of this book therefore extends

432