Passionate action

The painting " The Passion of the Christ " - "Passion of Christ" - was published at the beginning of a great post, when Christians traditionally try to reflect more about spiritual life, the Gospel and Christ. The titanium of Hollywood film production Mel Gibson also proposed his feasible help in such thoughts. The superstar of American cinema is the Catholic -Traditionalist (something like the Catholic "Old Believer"), so there is no need to wait for the humanisticly beautiful interpretation of the gospel events. This picture became a sensation. Commercial - for sure, but not only.

The film has to be evaluated in several planes. The viewer, familiar with the work of Gibson, immediately notices the DRIVE -characteristic director and somewhat naturalistic attention to violence. This predetermined one of the lines of strict criticism - "There is a lot of violence in the film." And even like this: “There is too much violence”, “There is nothing at all besides violence, continuous blood ...” We have to compare with the analogues: with the Protestant film “Jesus” (1979), with the “Gospel” of Pasolini, with the picture of F. Dzeffirelli and even with the controversial creation of the M. Skirseze “The Last Temptation of Christ” ... even if you want, with the chapters of the chapters about Yeshua Ga-Notsri in the novel of Bulgakov.

The history of the cinema of the gospel narrative is a Chreda of continuous failures. It will turn out too sweet and tasteless, then in the pursuit of “historicality and reliability” the director goes to dubious experiments and attempts on the religious feelings of the audience, everything is depicted so literally that it is better to read the source ... In the most well -known Protestant film “ Jesus ”, which is contrasted with the picture of Gibson as “Film without violence”, it turned out to be a multiple and multi -multiple variety "Children's Bible". Other authors, as well as Bulgakov, turned out a strange attempt to “explain” and even in a sense to debunk the gospel image ... And behind all this was one problem - the fundamental indescribability of the gospel history in the language of the cinema.

The key word for Gibson was suffering (lat. Passio, English, German, French Passion). All Western directors worked before Gibson as part of a cinematic arrangement, and some kind of parodies were obtained. Gibson went on a different path - chose the basis of the genre structure of the so -called "Passion Action" (Passion Play), characteristic of the Western Christian (primarily Catholic) worldview. Bulgakov went from the Renanovskaya "debunking" tradition, which predetermined the image of Yeshua in "Master and Margarita" as an openly psychologized portrait of a rebellious and uncertain psychic, which has almost nothing to do with the Gospel Christ.

Gibson carried out "Work on the mistakes" and made a choice in favor of three principles: documentary, static and individual, but uncompromising Messid. Documentism is primarily manifested in the approach to the language in which the film is shot. The main luck, the main strong point of the film - everything happens on Aramaic and Latin. Scripture (mainly psalms) - in Hebrew. This gives an amazing sense of reality. In "Jesus" Christ speaks English - and this is somehow doll. Everything is seriously. For the Aramist, somewhere in Aramaic are understandable, although the dialect was unknown to me, and English subtitles were introduced (after some directorial doubts) for all the other spectators. The Latin language was very alive, albeit with Italian pronunciation. Generally speaking, documentaryness also turns out from the lack of discounts on understanding/misunderstanding - as in life, and the notorious "blood and violence" also work in this direction. The spectator of the feature cinema is very accustomed to the fact that all the pink, not seriously. There is exactly so much blood so as not to shock housewives, and the inscription at the end: "Not a single animal was killed or crippled on the set." And then they give him a shock dose: the language is incomprehensible, cruelty “like in life” ... there is something to resume from. And cropped.

Now artistic principles. The subject of the image is the same 12 hours from Gepsimania to the Resurrection, but there is neither the joy of the resurrection, nor the myrrh, nor - the apostles. Even the resurrection is shown only at the insistence of editors and at the end, almost a hint. The action is static, without losing drama - and this is the find of the director. Christ in the picture is also such a static image, not endowed with either wretched psychologism or an attempt to explain how he thought and why. The lack of “arianism” is surprising for the Western man (in the east they would say “Nestorianism” rather): “Here is a person (Ecce homo), and no more ... that is, he is in some unknown sense God, but this will not show it, unknown is unknown.” Gibson refused it. The feeling of the real horror of what is happening before the viewer arises precisely from the fact that Christ is the God -man. This principle is associated with the third - uncompromising.

But back to static. Very carefully - and, I would even say, reverently - interpreted the image of the Mother of God. Maya Morgenstern , a Romanian Jew, creates an almost icon -painting image, practically abandoning the game. Gibson forced her to play an illustration of the famous “Stabat Mater”, in other words, the tragedy of her mother, who is losing her son, but understanding that this loss and his very death is a special order, because of this and the stinginess of colors: the Virgin seems to be waiting ... and conquers. About Jim Kavisel , a leading role, we can only say that he performed what the director wanted from him. This means, as we have already said, the absence of a psychologizing explanation, lowering Christ at the level of a man's clogged. Cavisel shows suffering, but there is an impression that suffering is a prologue to what opens up with this suffering and even - what is committed by it.

The most difficult point for analysis is a message. Catholic Gibson tries to convey to the viewer his personal experience of the Calvary tragedy. Such a personal installation is characteristic more likely for the Protestant, but the director brings it almost to radical appeal to personal feelings "on the verge of foul." You can call it "shock therapy." And many are really shocking, so others even begin to experience an irrational aversion to torment and torture, which is transferred to the whole film. And this means that the method does not always work and gives misfires, however, the number of those who have experienced disgust from the "shock method", statistically insignificantly.

The other side of the Messida is Christian uncompromising. Gibson does not hide that he does not make concessions to "objectivism" and political correctness, but offers the view of a firm believing Catholic Christian. Not the God-player-inteligent, not rebel between the "philosophical reading" and the rationalizing conventions of the intellectual, but the believer of the Christian, and, moreover, the "real man." To start with the fact that Jesus is called in the name a clear “inadvertible” naming Christ, and not as it is customary among the Protestants - just Jesus. This, of course, has a certain challenge. Demons, the devil - full -fledged and real participants in the action. Gibson makes his beliefs diversely.

In the Orthodox responses, both in the USA and Runet and the Russian media, the doubt dominates: the point of view is Catholic, appeal to feelings, and besides, "Christ cannot be portrayed." Theoretically, the Orthodox can ask themselves a control question - what incurred (condemned by the Church) feelings awakens the film of Gibson? As we said, in some cases he can arouse irrational antipathy with those creative principles (naturalism, cruelty) that the author applied. But outside this "error" of the feelings that the picture generally causes are not so bad from a church point of view. Sentimentality? Only insofar as - in the picture there is a balance and the transition to the spiritual conclusion is indicated. Little belief? If you do not get into the number of those who have experienced "irrational antipathy", then rather the film is able to arouse faith - it is not without reason that Protestant pastors lead their parishes in full force on it, buying in bulk in the cinemas. There is no need to talk about entertainment, again due to stiffness and loading with spiritual content. The head and heart are too busy to have fun. We can say that the film shows a person a personal path to Christ - this is what he did for you, now it's your turn.

Now about what will inevitably have to say. With all its advantages, the "Passion of Christ" is still a film, "Made in USA". He carries on himself as general signs of cinema - a flashback, rapids, chambers, and specific features of Hollywood cinema are used - a special drive, spurred by very successful music, elements of the action genre (for example, the apostle Peter in Gepsimania), and European cinema symbols manifests itself in the introduction of a symbolic image The devil is in the form of a terrible bald thin Androggin with a terrible look (Rosalind Celentano). Satan is present at all almost scenes and even tempts Christ in the Gethsemane Garden, during the scourge wears an antihrist in the arms, and after the death of Christ he is terribly howl from the impotent malice, defeated. This is perhaps the only controversial moment, but it is designed in the framework of the language of symbols, partly reminiscent of the figures-capaco or the symbolic figures of Ingmar Bergman, for example, death in the “seventh press”, dwarfs, the devil, etc. In general, between the cinematographic language of Gibson and the language of Bergman, there is much more in common than it might seem at first glance - in particular, the use of the genre frame (in Bergman this is in the "girlish manner").

A separate conversation is apostates. The most famous apostate - Peter - is shown with artistic persuasiveness as a believer who fell into the pride and promised what he could not fulfill. His despair, when screaming a rooster, is sincerely, so that the scale of the event makes an unnecessary and special “excuse”. Judas was very interestingly made - the betrayal leading him through psychosis to suicide is a special case of apostasy from Christ. If desired, you can see in how Judas suited over a rotten corpse of a camel covered with worms, the attitude of Mel Gibson to suicide, the temptation of which he survived several years ago precisely as apostasy and from which, according to his words, he saved Christ.

In the image of Pontius Pilate there is both psychology and a place for a dramatic conflict. For the psychologization of Pilate, Gibson was already in the press - they say, he had no doubt, and Gibson had some kind of intellectual. The prosecutor of the Jews in the picture is a character before a choice, almost like the heroes of Sartre. He is a Roman (although his Bulgarian actor Khrista Naumov Chopov plays), and his tragic choice in favor of "consent", in favor of "world", in favor of a political compromise - this is the choice of the modern world. The hope of this world is expressed in the image of the mournful wife of Pilate - Claudia Shchles (Claudia Jerini), who is developed in a real full, although almost nothing (the film is almost exclusively, the words of the gospel) the image of the last hope of the Western world. The name of this hope is repentance. That is why the “load” of these characters in principle does not cause special objections.

The main leading question is as follows: what, ultimately, is Gibson's film? It is clear that the main object is torment and the godmother death of Christ. Christ, crucified for me (you, him, you ...), that is, about what is called Slavic "co-distribution", the personal participation of everyone in the suffering of Christ, about cleansing suffering. But the film is also about the apostasy, that the modern world crucifies Christ and renounces Him - therefore, almost all the plot development rests on the figures of "apostats". Renounces hope, from path, truth and life. "Quid Est Veritas?" - Before these words of Pilate, gathering to betray the truth that was desired by him, will fade everything else. And here, as it seems to me, the reason for the rigid polarity of opinions about the picture. It seems that Gibson’s film is in a sense a film-exposure. The exposure of the humanistic understanding of Christianity in the distortion of the teachings of Christ, who said that he brought "not the world, but the sword", brought the separation and overcoming of "humanity" in deification. The exposure of a modern person is in unconsciousness, in the substitution of Christ with a political correct and beautiful ghost. Therefore, such an insistence on the realism of suffering. This is like an antidote. Yes, the film shocks the viewer by naturalism of scene of scourge, naturalism of crucifixion - but this is seen justified both spiritually and artistically. When the patient may die, you have to resort to bitter drugs, so it seems that Gibson believes. And the appointment of a methodical show of suffering is in creating a shock that can withdraw a modern person out of a daze.

It remains to say the main and main moment of claims to the film in the United States. It is indicated by the code word "anti -Semitism". At the same time, it is clear, of course that there is no anti -Semitism in the usual sense in us. There is no caricature image of “evil Jews”, nor shifting guilt, or even sticking out ethnic features. All members of the Sanhedrin and almost all Jews are played by Italians. The blue -eyed Cavisel put on the brown lens to be more like a Jew. Maria Morgenstern is a Jews at all. The point here is not in visible anti -Semitism - in this sense, claims are absurd. The fact is that in America a certain code of social behavior is in force, in which many manifestations of Christian (especially Catholic, but in principle, religious) feelings and beliefs are taboo. The Gospel is the book "Anti -Semitian" because of (as it is considered) that anti -Semitic conclusions were made from it in the European Middle Ages and in Russia and justifications for Jewish pogroms were deduced. And therefore, only such a reading and representation of the gospel history is allowed, in which "objectivism" and "arianism" completely displace all religious vitality. There is one story left in which it is very difficult (and not necessary) to understand. And Gibson violated this taboo, for he tried to show the Gospel as a real story of the murder of the Son of God by people who forgot that they were his creations.

In a sense, one can even say that the “passions of Christ” is not quite cinema. If you watch the picture simply “like a movie” - it turns out that a movie like a movie that does not amaze artistic imagination spoiled by modern technologies. You can even assume that this movie is ordinary and even in something bad. Like a movie . But that’s the trick that Gibson did not make a movie, but a social gesture. The gesture of attracting attention, the prophetic gesture - "See what we have done and do to the bottom!" One correspondent of mine successfully said: "This is not the cruelty that leaves you frightened and helpless, on the contrary: it shows how cruel is helpless itself, and shows that victory over it is love."