Note: This is meant to be a joke. Any outward expression of hatred or ignorance is meant to be taken within the context of the overall piece and does not reflect my own personal beliefs.
The Passion of the Christ is a zombie film without actually being a zombie film. Instead of depicting the aftermath of the zombification of Jesus, its focus lies more on the events that lead up to it and the characters. One has to give Mel Gibson credit in attempting a film of this caliber. Though not a zombie film on the surface, it contains levels of violence and gore that border on the extreme. As all of the violence is more or less relegated to one individual, the film borders on exploitation and reveals itself in some ways to have the attributes of an ancient snuff film. Based on the events found in a single chapter of the New York Times Best Seller The Holy Bible (2002), The Passion of the Christ follows the torture and subsequent death and emergence as a zombie of one Jesus H. Christ, a poor, humble carpenter who has acquired a cult-like following of men he calls his “Disciples.” He is captured by the priests of the city Judaea, a fascist theocracy not unlike that of present day America, where he is subjected to torture and embarrassment for claiming to be the Son of God. It is not until the end of the film do we see any trace of a zombie, and it is only for a brief moment before the credits roll.
As stated above, unique to this film is the manner in which they approach the subject matter. Though zombies are conspicuously absent, the blood and violence that pervades nearly three quarters of the film is enough to rival that of some of the more gruesome films of this kind, such as Dead Alive and Cannibal Holocaust. Jesus is whipped and beaten mercilessly, chunks of flesh flying off his body all while throngs of people stand by and laugh gleefully. The blood flows and bones are broken as the film straddles the fine line between torture porn and exploitation film, its engrossing story and compelling characters allowing the film to skirt the much derided moniker.
Mel Gibson succeeds at making this cult leader a sympathetic character and an anti-hero in the same vein as V from V for Vendetta and as he endures more torture than one human being could handle, his stoicism begins to fade and his emotions take hold of his frail, battered body, until finally, three dies after succumbing from his wounds, he rises from the dead and wreaks havoc throughout Judaea. While this was filmed, it was given an epilogue treatment reminiscent of the end credits of Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead remake, and can only be found on the DVD, as it was deemed to gruesome for theater. The remaining characters provide a major draw for the viewer, as they allow us to see another side of the story. While most zombie films focus on the blood and violence and all manner of ever-present grotesqueries, this one gives us frequent glimpses into how the loved ones of those infected react to such a catastrophic event. Gibson goes one step further and places the emphasis square on the shoulders of one man and a few close relatives. In this approach we are able to not only see the violence horror fans crave, but also to be drawn into an in depth character-driven story filled with emotion.
It is well known that Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite, and given this, in an age where horror films are heavy on the metaphors and allegories (George Romero anyone?), it is entirely possible that the “virus” in the film that turns Jesus into a zombie could be the Jews that condemn him to death. In a recent interview, Gibson stated that, “Given the content, I knew the film would be controversial, so I had to leave several things open to interpretation.” Though I disagree with the message Gibson is seemingly trying to convey, I believe this is a breath of fresh in the world of zombie cinema, in which we’re inundated with hordes of dead people reanimated by a virus, or the dust from a comet’s tail, or something equally as implausible. No explanation is given, as none is needed. Whether or not one was intended is anyone’s guess, but part of the magic is formulating our own opinions concerning the content of the film.
Though Jesus does not appear in zombie form until the very end of the film, throughout the scourging, zombie-like characteristics start to seep through the cracks, attempting to overpower all the good that he is attempting to preach. Gibson here employs very, very subtle film techniques in order to show this, such as intermittent reddening of the eyes and his apparent super-strength, as an ordinary human being not infected by the virus would have succumbed to the injuries sustained by Jesus long before they forced him to carry the cross. Several times he emits a wail not unlike that of a typical Romero-esque zombie, though this is often subdued by the maniacal laughter of his Jewish adversaries.
It is rare for a movie within a genre that is so derided among the mainstream movie-going populace to achieve such critical and financial success, but The Passion of the Christ managed to do so and more, obliterating box office records and causing a wealth of controversy in the process. Many claimed the film was anti-Semitic, lending credence to the idea that the “virus” can be perceived, at least by Gibson, as the Jewish threat. Despite this, I believe Gibson crafted a masterful horror film, and it remains to this day a fresh take on such a beloved subgenre among dedicated horror fans.
Note: I don’t recall who made this image, but it’s brilliant and the creator deserves mad props.
Director: Mel Gibson
Year: 2004
Country: USA
Over the past several years a deluge of films have turned basic zombie tropes on their head, and in doing so opened the doors for those who feel the need to scratch the itch of change within a genre filled to the brim with overzealous fans who fear it. The zombies made famous by Romero’s trilogy were pushed to the wayside by Alex Garland and Danny Boyle in 28 Days Later, the French brought us the walking dead who just want to go on with their lives in Les Revenants, and Zach Snyder put a new spin on the slow, lumbering zombie with his remake of Romero’s Dawn of the Dead, which featured hyperfast zombies seemingly propelled by caffeine, speed, and about thirty Red Bulls. In the midst of all of these is Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, wherein we are treated to an alternative zombie film the likes of which have never been seen. Year: 2004
Country: USA
The Passion of the Christ is a zombie film without actually being a zombie film. Instead of depicting the aftermath of the zombification of Jesus, its focus lies more on the events that lead up to it and the characters. One has to give Mel Gibson credit in attempting a film of this caliber. Though not a zombie film on the surface, it contains levels of violence and gore that border on the extreme. As all of the violence is more or less relegated to one individual, the film borders on exploitation and reveals itself in some ways to have the attributes of an ancient snuff film. Based on the events found in a single chapter of the New York Times Best Seller The Holy Bible (2002), The Passion of the Christ follows the torture and subsequent death and emergence as a zombie of one Jesus H. Christ, a poor, humble carpenter who has acquired a cult-like following of men he calls his “Disciples.” He is captured by the priests of the city Judaea, a fascist theocracy not unlike that of present day America, where he is subjected to torture and embarrassment for claiming to be the Son of God. It is not until the end of the film do we see any trace of a zombie, and it is only for a brief moment before the credits roll.
As stated above, unique to this film is the manner in which they approach the subject matter. Though zombies are conspicuously absent, the blood and violence that pervades nearly three quarters of the film is enough to rival that of some of the more gruesome films of this kind, such as Dead Alive and Cannibal Holocaust. Jesus is whipped and beaten mercilessly, chunks of flesh flying off his body all while throngs of people stand by and laugh gleefully. The blood flows and bones are broken as the film straddles the fine line between torture porn and exploitation film, its engrossing story and compelling characters allowing the film to skirt the much derided moniker.
It is well known that Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite, and given this, in an age where horror films are heavy on the metaphors and allegories (George Romero anyone?), it is entirely possible that the “virus” in the film that turns Jesus into a zombie could be the Jews that condemn him to death. In a recent interview, Gibson stated that, “Given the content, I knew the film would be controversial, so I had to leave several things open to interpretation.” Though I disagree with the message Gibson is seemingly trying to convey, I believe this is a breath of fresh in the world of zombie cinema, in which we’re inundated with hordes of dead people reanimated by a virus, or the dust from a comet’s tail, or something equally as implausible. No explanation is given, as none is needed. Whether or not one was intended is anyone’s guess, but part of the magic is formulating our own opinions concerning the content of the film.
It is rare for a movie within a genre that is so derided among the mainstream movie-going populace to achieve such critical and financial success, but The Passion of the Christ managed to do so and more, obliterating box office records and causing a wealth of controversy in the process. Many claimed the film was anti-Semitic, lending credence to the idea that the “virus” can be perceived, at least by Gibson, as the Jewish threat. Despite this, I believe Gibson crafted a masterful horror film, and it remains to this day a fresh take on such a beloved subgenre among dedicated horror fans.
If I were to write a zombie Jesus film, this would happen:
Note: I don’t recall who made this image, but it’s brilliant and the creator deserves mad props.
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu