Catholic Influences in Gibson’s the Passion of the Christ, Essay Example

The question of the presence of possible Catholic influences in Mel Gibson’s 2004 film The Passion of the Christ immediately presupposes that the notion of a “purely” Catholic influence can be clearly defined. Although Gibson declares himself to be a Catholic, as James Martin notes, this does not necessarily entail a commitment to standard Catholic doctrine: “While Gibson offers viewers a decidedly “Catholic” film, he does so at the cost of setting aside some contemporary Catholic teachings and scholarship.” (Martin, 2006, p. 98) Despite the ambiguity of what constitutes a Catholic influence, we can nevertheless attempt to understand The Passion of the Christ in terms of Gibson’s own interpretation of Catholicism. In the following essay, we shall examine both theological influences and specific scenes from The Passion in order to determine the extent to which Catholic influences or explicit Catholic motifs are present in Gibson’s film.

Robert L. Webb provides a pertinent quote from Gibson regarding the sources that inspired the film’s narrative. Webb writes: “Mel Gibson affirmed that ‘Holy Scripture and accepted visions of The Passion were the only possible texts I could draw from.’” (Webb, 2004, p. 160) As Webb notes, alongside Holy Scripture, the key term here is “accepted visions.” Webb continues: “By ‘accepted visions’ Gibson is alluding to a nineteenth-century work, The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ by the Catholic mystic, Anne Catherine Emmerich.” (Webb, 2004, p. 160) Webb puts forth the bold statement that “it may be more accurate to state that The Dolorous Passion is the ‘primary text’ upon which this film drew instead of one of several possible texts.” (Webb, 2004, p. 160) Considering Webb’s remarks, the possible Catholic influences on the narrative of The Passion would have to be considered in terms of Emmerich’s own relation to Catholicism. In other words, how does Emmerich’s account of The Passion correspond to standard Catholic interpretation? It is crucial to note that Emmerich is considered to be, as Webb notes, a Catholic mystic. “Mystic” is thus the key term here, as it already implies a certain deviation from the dogma of the Church. The Catholic Church has always maintained a hesitation to the accounts of mystics, as James Martin writes: “The Catholic Church has resisted conflating what it calls “private revelation with Scripture.” (Martin, 2006, p. 98) In this regard, it is important to note that Emmerich’s account differs from those of the Scriptures and this difference is present in Gibson’s Passion. For example, in the film, violence is central to the narrative. As Webb points out, this suggests the influence of Emmerich as opposed to the influence of the Scriptures. Webb observes that violence in the film is “virtually constant and unrelenting” (Webb 2004, p. 161) and that “this certainly does not represent what is narrated in the Gospels.” (Webb, 2004, p. 161) According to Webb, therefore, the violence is a corollary of Gibson’s reliance on Emmerich, and not a result of Catholic doctrine.

Other explicit allusions to Emmerich are found in the depictions of Mary, the Eucharist and the overall form of the film’s narrative. Corley observes that the character of Mary “especially in the Stations of the Cross, however, does not come from the Gospels, but from the imagination of Anne Catherine Emmerich.” (Corley, 2004, p. 81) Corley’s use of the word imagination here is striking: it suggests that Emmerich’s narrative is purely speculative, implying that Gibson’s portrayal of Mary is constituted by this same speculative quality. Furthermore, Emmerich’s Dolorous Passion employs a technique that Jordan and Brintnall suggest is similar to the usage of montage in film. They note that Emmerich’s “visions frequently make fantastic splices between the Passion and other biblical events.” (Jordan and Brintnall, 2006, p. 84) Emmerich’s “spliced” account certainly seems to appear in Gibson’s Passion. For example, this influence is overt in Gibson’s own splicing of the crucifixion with scenes of Christ’s Last Supper. The formal technique of montage employed to connect the crucifixion to the Eucharist, however, is not merely an aesthetic decision. There are some clear theological ideas that Gibson advances by employing this technique, ideas that again may be traced back to Emmerich. Jordan and Brintnall write: “In Gibson’s depiction of the Last Supper…Gibson intercuts the meal with his depiction of Jesus being nailed to and raised on the cross.” (Jordan and Brintnall, 2006, p. 87)  Gibson appears to wish to establish the continuity between the body of the crucified Christ and the body of Christ that is symbolized in the Eucharist. This would certainly suggest a symmetry with Catholic doctrine; however, the montage employed by Gibson suggests the direct allusion to the way in which Emmerich’s visions of The Passion are constructed, as opposed to the reliance on any dogmatic Catholicism. To expand on this point, it can be noted that the non-linear narrative of Gibson’s montage itself recalls the phenomenon of the mystic in contrast to dogma: dogma by definition would be clear and defined, while the experience of the mystic suggests this very non-linearity in the form of the appearance of visions and the subjectivity that would constitute a personal relationship to Christ.

Accordingly, the extent to which the fealty to Emmerich’s account would constitute a Catholic influence remains one of the central questions of any theological reading of Gibson’s film. While Emmerich was canonized by Pope John Paul II in 2004, the question is thus the extent to which the Emmerich influence would be tantamount to a Catholic influence. Certainly, the utilization of a Catholic mystic as “the primary text” of Gibson’s film would seem to indicate Gibson utilizes purely Catholic sources to provide The Passion with its content. Nevertheless, the ambiguous relation of Emmerich to the Catholic Church suggests a further ambiguity when attempting to define Catholic influences in the film.

Considering this ambiguity, it can be useful to consider an Eastern Orthodox Christian perspective on the film’s narrative in an attempt to delineate possible Catholic influences. In Oleg Germanovich Uliyanov’s analysis of The Passion of the Christ, the author notes a specifically Catholic interpretation of the way the crucifixion of Christ is portrayed. Uliyanov notes that in the film Christ is “crucified backwards on the lying cross, and then the cross is already raised and strengthened in the earth.” (Uliyanov 2004) Uliyanov argues that both historical evidence and the laws of physics disprove this account of Christ’s crucifixion. As evidence, Uliyanov mentions the Latin term Cruce sedere, which he translates as “to take a seat at the cross” (Uliyanov 2004) This term suggests that the cross was already raised when Christ was crucified, as the seat of the cross is where the crucified reposed while the torturers nailed them to the cross. The theological significance of this criticism, however, is that for Uliyanov it is a clear indication of Gibson’s Catholic influences in portraying the crucifixion. Uliyanov speculates that Gibson’s portrayal is “inspired” by the “cultural tradition of the West, and also by Catholic experts”, (Uliyanov 2004) going on to cite the German theologian Dr. Willi Burgheimer as a source for this account of crucifixion. Moreover, the tradition of Western art repeats this specific depiction of crucifixion. Uliyanov mentions artistic portrayals of the “Raising of the Cross” by Western artists like Rembrandt and Rubens as evidence that this particular depiction is Western in origin, and thus indicative of a Catholic influence.

It is important to note that Uliyanov’s observation of the influence of the Western artistic tradition in The Passion is acknowledged by Gibson himself. As Gibson writes, “I began to look at the work of some of the great artists who had drawn inspiration from the same story. Caravaggio immediately came to mind, as well as Mantegna, Masaccio, Pierro della Francesca…their paintings were as true to their inspiration as I wanted the film to be of mine.” (Goa, 2004, p. 151) The aesthetic choice to utilize the Italian Catholic tradition and their depictions of Christ’s crucifixion certainly prima facie suggests a Catholic motif at work in Gibson’s art. Nevertheless, is the appeal to artists who happen to be Catholic enough to demonstrate the presence of Catholic doctrine in The Passion? It would appear that what Gibson is trying to capture in the reference to Caravaggio is a certain aesthetic that is present in the latter’s work, a recollection of an artistic perspective that Gibson attempts to duplicate, as opposed to the allusion to any dogmatic connotation that would be present in Caravaggio. Critics of the film have certainly noted this artistic continuity. As Vincent L. Miller notes, the influence of Caravaggio on Gibson may be thought of as primarily an aesthetic influence, particularly in reference to both The Passion’s dramaturgy and overall imagery: “The pace of Gibson’s film is courageously slow throughout, so the viewer can see and reflect on the beautiful tableaux that are created: beads of Caravaggio-like images strung on a thread of relentless pain and violence.” (Miller, 2006, p. 52) The crucial difference in understanding Caravaggio’s relation to Gibson could therefore be understood as the difference between an aesthetic influence and a dogmatic influence. The idea that the aesthetic influence as opposed to the dogmatic influence of Caravaggio is foremost in Gibson’s film is supported by the fact that Caravaggio’s status as a purely Catholic artist is certainly in doubt. Caravaggio had a definite reputation as an outsider, and despite being an Italian Catholic, the exact terms of the relationship between Caravaggio and Catholicism remains a point of conjecture in the academic literature. Genevieve Warwick writes: “The precise nature of Caravaggio’s personal engagement with Catholic beliefs remains obscure, and the religious conviction of his paintings is contested among scholars. Nonetheless, it is generally recognized that his religious paintings embody issues of faith then being debated in reforming circles of the Church.” (Warwick, 2006, p. 14) What is crucial to note in Warwick’s account is that Caravaggio’s own art cannot be interpreted according to any standard Catholic doctrine. Caravaggio’s work is rather closer to the reformers of the Church, which suggests an explicit break from dogmatic Catholic influence. As such, his art reflects the tensions inherent to doctrine as evinced in the notion of debate. In this regard, Caravaggio’s art could not be explicitly regarded as Catholic, as it does not assume to portray any dogmatic tenets of the Church. This surfaces the following question: to the extent that Caravaggio cannot be located in continuity with some reified Catholic tradition does this imply that the inspiration Gibson finds in Caravaggio is a non-Catholic inspiration?

We may suggest that the question of the influence of Western Art in The Passion underscores a general emphasis in Gibson’s aesthetics conferred to Catholic accounts of Christ’s crucifxion. In other words, what interests Gibson is how Catholics themselves view the crucifixion of Christ. To refer back to the crucial reference to Emmerich in Gibson’s Passion, it would appear that the Catholic elements Gibson seeks to develop in his film are the subjective interpretations of Catholicism, as opposed to a dogmatic or doctrinal interpretation, which, for example, would be demonstrated by an appeal to Papal authority. When considering the question of Catholic influences, the debate therefore revolves around the extent to which personal or individual interpretations of events in Christ’s life are equivalent to Catholicism as a whole. That is to say, the extant question is if whether these examples, considering their veridicality, are sufficient to ascribe a Catholic influence to Gibson’s film. Certainly, in the reliance on Catholic accounts, it could be suggested that Gibson adhered to a Catholic interpretation of the life of Christ in his film, insofar as Catholic interpretations recall a Catholic tradition. In this regard, the Christian Orthodox interpretation provides some interesting perspectives regarding the possible Catholic influence of The Passion, as the Eastern Church has its own very acute idea of what is characteristic of Western, and particularly, Catholic dogma. The limit to this interpretation, however, is that Gibson appears to emphasize what may be termed accounts of Catholic subjectivity as opposed to Catholic dogma. From the Orthodox perspective this does not constitute a difference, whereas from the Catholic perspective such a difference is profound.

In summary, the theological interpretations of Gibson’s film remain the subject of vigorous debate. Certainly, the attempts to define instances of Catholic influence in the film remain bound to a notion of what may be defined as Catholicism. Nevertheless, there are motifs in Gibson’s film that may be considered to be Catholic in origin. In this regard, the ambiguous relationship of Emmerich and Western art to Catholicism is crucial, as it underscores the varied interpretations of Gibson’s work that may be forwarded, to the extent that Emmerich and Western art are understood to be Gibson’s central influences.  This ambiguity, however, is not unique to interpretations of Gibson’s Passion, but is certainly symptomatic of Christian theology and Christology as a whole. The very analysis of Gibson’s film in terms of possible Catholic influences recalls the debates over doctrine and the problems of hermeneutics. As such, the events portrayed in The Passion of The Christ and their interpretation by theologians provides a recapitulation of the differences in perspective within the Christian faith itself. The question of the role of Gibson’s own faith in the film, and how he understands his faith, are reflected in the interpretations of his film: they reflect particular perspectives of Christianity. These perspectives repeat the similarities and differences in theological interpretation, similarities and differences that have had a profound influence on the history of the Christian Church and ultimately correspond to its lack of unity.

Works Cited

Corley, Kathleen E. (2004). Mary and the Other Women Characters. In K.E. Corley & R.L. Webb (Eds.), Jesus and Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ.The Film, the Gospels and the Claims of History (pp. 79-102). London: Continuum Publishing Group.

Goa, David J. (2004). “The Passion, Classical Art and Representation.” In K.E. Corley & R.L. Webb (Eds.), Jesus and Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ.The Film, the Gospels and the Claims of History (pp. 151-159). London: Continuum Publishing Group.

Jordan, Mark D. and Brintnall, Kent L. (2006). “Mel Gibson, Bride of Christ.” In T.K. Beal and T. Linafelt (Eds.), Mel Gibson’s Bible: Religion, Popular Culture and The Passion of The Christ. (pp. 81-90). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Martin, James. (2006). The Last Station: A Catholic Reflection on “The Passion.” In P. Fredrikesen (Ed.), On The Passion of The Christ: Exploring the Issues Raised by the Controversial Movie (pp. 95-110). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Miller, Vincent L. (2006). Contexts: Theology, Devotion, and Culture. In T.K. Beal and T. Linafelt (Eds.), Mel Gibson’s Bible: Religion, Popular Culture and The Passion of The Christ. (pp. 39-58). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Uliyanov, Oleg Germanovich. (2004). The Passion of The Christ. Retrieved from http://www.icon-art.info/book_contents.php?lng=en&book_id=32.

Warwick Genevieve and Michelangelo Merisi de Caravaggio: (2006). Realism, Rebellion, Reception. Cranbury, NJ: Rosemont Publishing.

Webb, Robert L. (2004). The Passion and the Influence of Emmerich’s “The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ.” In K.E. Corley & R.L. Webb (Eds.), Jesus and Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ.The Film, the Gospels and the Claims of History (pp. 160-199). London: Continuum Publishing Group.