I had a friend visiting from the US this weekend - nice way to celebrate Easter. We took a walk by the river in a blinding sunshine, and explored the intricate avenues of the Singapore History Museum. Since the country does not have that much in terms of recordable history - that is beyond jungle stage - the entire Museum fits in half a floor, above Brewerks.
Food is always good in Singapore and across the whole weekend varied between Chinese, Thai, Tropical and Indian.
Easter Mass did not feel like Easter to me - probably in the same way as Christmas would not have felt like Christmas if I were to spend it in a tropical climate. The Church was completely packed with people - there was a line to get in, even though four masses were offered on that day, and there had been an Easter Vigil Mass the day before. Children were given bags of Easter eggs at the end of mass - so sweet! The only trouble that I can foresee is chocolate turning rapidly into a big brown melted mess in dad's latest car.

On Good Friday, I made a point to go and see The Passion Of The Christ. All venues were nearly fully booked, so we had to go all the way to the airport to find a theater that still had seats. I went with French and Japanese INSEADers. We spent dinner talking about the Passion and why there were four Gospels, all different but all recording the same thing.
I had heard extremely negative accounts of the movie. At the end of the day, it is a piece of art and like every piece of art, some people will like it and some will not. So any taste-related or style-related comments are probably not workable.
I also heard other comments which I would like to address - I do not intend to fuel a controversial discussion.
1) it does not respect historical trend
Actually, I have found the movie following quite closely the Gospels, at times mixing and matching them, that is true. There is also one sentence that Christ pronounces which is not recorded at that time in the Gospel but which is present in the New Testament. I do not believe that the ambition of this film was to stick to any historical evidence but to be faithful to the scriptures. Evidently, this movie does not claim to offer the same sacred character and is tainted by an obvious human and artistic bias. Does this matter? Is the main message lost?

2) it is too bloody and show purposeless violence
There I'd like to make two comments. The scriptures say that Christ was crucified. This was not a pleasant experience by all accounts and for anybody. It was not pleasant for Christ either. Lower ranks of Roman society was used to Gladiator combats and bloody battles. Torture at that time must have been quite horrific and unsustainable. I do not know to what extent it is bloodier than what the real scene was - but I am quite sure that it was bloody. Showing such suffering could also be to recognize the magniture of the sacrifice. For those among you who are not Christians, this sacrifice was accepted by Christ - He fulfilled this mission out of love for human race. And no matter how harshly He was treated and how brutally He was put to death for a crime which He was innocent of, He forgave and loved those who condemned him, those who tortured and crucified him. And He is teaching us to do the same. If there is an emphasis in this movie on violence, inspired by the Horror genre, could it be to emphasize the grandeur of this sacrifice? Is this violence then purposeless?


3) it is completely unbelievable, no man can be tortured so much yet survive
Possibly, in fact, very probably. However, if the underlying assumption of the director - and Jesus' followers at the time - is that He is no man, but the Son of Man, the Son of God, God made man, then no conclusions that would be applicable to a man can apply to him. He also heals the servant's ear when He is taken - clearly that is not human! Is it more believable? He can also speak Latin which was probably not common among his disciples. Is this more believable?
All these can be interpreted as little artefacts to underline the divine character of the Jesus - throughout the movie, while respecting the facts described in the scriptures.

4) they wouldn't speak latin or arameic between us, probably Greek
I do not have sufficient knowledge of how wide-spread Greek was. I just assume that it required a fairly high level of education which perhaps some of the characters did not have. There might have been also the need to rally the crowds and the local languages might have been better suited for that as they would have been emotionally closer to their hearts.

5) there is no point to this movie
This movie is simply telling a story for anyone who sees no meaning in the Gospel. I am assuming that it feels like anyone reading the Bible out of curiosity to understand the principles behind christianity. For anyone who receives the Gospel as an act of faith, they now see it through someone else's eyes. It could be one way of preaching, an artistic way. Sharing the word of the Lord is a mission that all christian receive. Anyone might fulfill it in different ways.
For people who desires to listen to the message of love ever-present in the Gospel, they might feel the need to go back to the Gospel and get to know better this person who walked freely toward such a horrible death, for motives that would be incomprehensible to the average human being. There would be a point to the movie.
For people who have listened to the message and who have started to walk alongside the person who accepted to give his life for the people He loved - it is a conversation with another believer.
For people who do not wish to listen to the message and who are just watching the story, it describes events in an artistic manner - as faithfully as possible. The only point would be whether the story is well told? Could these people be moved by the inadequacy of a justice system that condemns an innocent to a criminal sentence? Could these people wonder about the influence of political events over the righteousness of a judge - and how much power the governor had to surrender in order to maintain a status quo? Has this happened anywhere else in the world? Who really had power? Would there really be no question and no point to this violence? And if there was no point - would it by itself raise the basic question of why it was even allowed? Where does this violence come from?
Yes, the director could have chosen to mask this violence, to suggest it. He chose not to. Some people say that nude sculptures are pornographic art, some people say that drinking one glass of wine is alcoholism. By magnifying the violence, the Director could magnify the bearer of the violent acts and his own feelings with respect to this sacrifice, which represents the foundation of Christian faith.

6) he just wanted to make a controversial film to make loads of money
Maybe! If that was his objective, was he successful? Has anyone felt obliged to go and watch the movie? If this is your view, and you reprove of this, a simple solution is simply not to fuel the controversy and not pay to see the movie. Is there something wrong with making money - especially if it is not the sole purpose of any enterprise and not at all cost?

7) it is anti-Jew and anti-Roman
Lower ranks of the Roman army were not nice people. Most of them were mercenaries. Now, the lower ranks of Hannibal's army presented similar taste. I am quite sure that the Vikings were not very subtle in their ways, the medieval ages produced ferocious battles - and throughout the ages countries and races can count their fair share of horrible practices. More recently the Khmer Rouges, the Nazis, the French catholics ordering the Massacre of Saint Bartholomew. Most people have some sort of horror story somewhere in their history. Yet, we must reconcile this with our lives, and understand our own boundaries. Italy is also the country of fashion, beauty, elegance and the source of numerous works of art - all world famous. It is ok to be ambiguous!
This film happens to depict an event which features the Roman. Go and see the Ten Commandments and talk about the Egyptian, Saving Private Ryan and talk about the Germans, La Reine Margot and talk about the French, Joan of Arc and talk about the English? etc...Some of the Roman characters do show natural human empathy, such as Claudia, Pilate's wife. If the movie is to respect the scripture, I cannot quite imagine how the director could have turned the Roman into Gengis Khan's buddies.

Anti-Jew? If we put everything back into the political contest of the time, Jesus was probably threatening the authority of the High Priests - does this mean that everyone was like them? These people had a lot of authority and were very respected. They happened to be Jewish since Jesus preached in that region - and because this is the land where the children of God were led to. There again, I am not quite sure how the movie could have been faithful to the scriptures and change the priests into the lineage of Pharao - then it would have run the risk of attracting the wrath of another community ;-)

Like for the Romans, can you generalize to the entire jewish world population that lives today and accuse them of willingly sending innocent people to death? Like for the Romans, many people in the movie actually show courageous expressions of care (the woman trying to give water to Christ, Simon of Cyrene who helps Christ to carry His cross, Joseph - a Jewish priest! - who asks Pilate for the body of Christ and who gives his own tomb.
And if you are Christian, you have forgiven already!

Maybe we could go back to the core message of the movie - actually the message of the Gospel. It is a message of unconditional love and forgiveness. The only true bad character in the movie is the Devil that tempts into doing evil anyone who allows for another message to compete with the Lord's. In fact, on several occasions in the movie, the Director portrays the demon (tempting Jesus in the Garden who chooses to crush the snake therefore accepting His mission, tempting the High Priests, tempting the soldiers during the scourging scene).

I went to see the movie with an agnostic, a buddhist and a catholic. They all found it powerful and thought provoking. The movie is based on the Gospel - but it is also a form of art and the expression of someone's idea. No one is forced to agree with what they see, nor like the movie and levels of understanding will vary with everyone's beliefs, everyone's personal spiritual inclinations - and will be dependent on how long you had to cover your eyes for during the show!