Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is a movie I can still see in my mind's eye. The film's images and symbols will surely influence my spirituality and understanding of Jesus' life for years to come. Some of these images are to me fine art; others are horrific.

Mary
The most treasured impression that I have of Mel Gibson's film about the last twelve hours of Jesus' life is that of the character of Mary. As played by Maia Morgenstern, this Mary is the most credible and authentic Madonna I have ever encountered on television or the big screen. Morgenstern plays Mary with an innate sense of her womanhood; she is warm, loving, strong and maternal --- a nurturer. She has a sense of humor. She looks like she has lived a life close to the earth and lived it to the full and with joy. The flashbacks to her life with Jesus as a child and youth touched me deeply. Mary looks her age and responds to the horror of her son's passion and death as I imagine the Biblical Mary would. This is the Mary my faith imagination has longed for all my life.

Evil as a Woman?
One of the character choices I found troubling, however, is the personification of evil in the form of a woman, played by the ethereal Rosalinda Celentano. Gibson has given this character a deep throaty voice so that evil's gender may seem ambiguous. Yet to me, evil is a woman here. The entwining of the snake with this feminine-looking form of evil when Jesus is arrested in the Garden (with a flashback to his life with Mary) seems like a reference to classical Renaissance theology and art that often contrasted Eve/evil and Mary. I would have wished that this film in particular could have moved away from this overused stereotype for evil.

Interpretation and Anti-Semitism
St. Thomas Aquinas once wrote about the efficacy of the grace of the sacraments: "He who receives, receives according to the mode of the one receiving." The same can be said for our understanding of books, movies, and even homilies. Every person interprets movies according to his or her own "lens" which has been constructed by family, faith formation, education, and life experience. Despite the intention of the filmmaker, people interpret movies according to their particular lens.

If one knows the Gospels and has been taught tolerance, then "The Passion of the Christ" may be inspiring. After all, we know the story and we do not seek to attribute blame but rather to understand the divine meaning in the Holy Week events. Mel Gibson has stated that he had no intention of making a film that is anti-Semitic.

However, I was troubled at how brutally the Jewish guards treated Jesus in the Garden, for example. Not one of the Gospel accounts describes the viciousness we see when Jesus is arrested in the film --- though the Gospels do say that the temple guard came with clubs and spears to lay hands on him. This is the filmmaker's interpretation of the events. So, if people only view the film on a superficial level, how will they interpret this beginning of a travail of sorrow and cruelty?

Later on, we see that Pontius Pilate is a conflicted character who may be perceived as being sympathetic to Jesus when instead he was a morally weak government official. This distinction, as well as the contrast between the roles of the Jews and the Romans in these events, might have been made clearer by the filmmaker out of respect for historical truth about the Roman occupation of Palestine.

Horror
I think some may expect "The Passion of the Christ" to be a formulaic Biblical film. But from the opening scenes, my conviction is that this film actually belongs to the horror genre.

Horror is not a frivolous genre. Horror films are tales about personal chaos, the lack of control over one's life and environment. These horror films have a beginning, a middle and an end --- and they can be, for some, a way to confront loss and fear and gain a sense of power over turmoil and madness. As Gibson explained it, his own life was in chaos 13 years ago when he got the idea for this film. Making the film has given him more control over his life. Will its explicit violence do so for us?

Gibson uses cinematic horror devices in the film to show human and natural danger and chaos --- from the waning moon to the waling of animals, and from the bulging eyes of the children who taunt Judas to the crow that pecks out the eye of one of the thieves on the cross. These all fit the pattern of a horror film, and they can shock the viewer.

The Passion and Film
The sequences of the scourging at the pillar and the via crucis are dramatic, sometimes choreographed, brutal, relentless and graphic. My issue with the intensity of this portrayal is that after more than a century of cinema we know how to "read" film language. Therefore we are able to understand Jesus' suffering after one or two minutes of the bloody beating by the Roman soldiers. We understand the journey to Calvary after three falls; we do not need six or seven to feel and comprehend the depths of Jesus' suffering. Even though some of the sequences are artfully done, the inspiration was mitigated for me by the seeming unending torture.

Could a human being have survived the scourging at the pillar as portrayed in the film? I cannot imagine how. Jesus was true God and true man. So what is the Christology that underpins Gibson's interpretation of the Passion of Jesus? Is the filmmaker confused about the human and divine nature of Jesus? In days, months, and years to come, there will be many conversations about the mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God and its depiction here.

"The Passion of the Christ" offers us a "table" so that we can gather around and talk about whom Jesus is, the nature of our relationship with him, and how to live his teachings in our everyday lives 2,000 years after his passion, death and resurrection. It remains to be seen, though, what image of Jesus will walk beside us in our darkest moments when we need him the most.

Feminine and masculine
Do men and women see film differently? I think we do. For example, what challenged me the most as a woman viewer and critic about this film was the sheer force of its graphic violence. It repelled me. Instead of evoking lasting pity for Jesus (and admiration for the actor James Caviezel), I wanted the film to be over.

But I have spoken to several men who have seen the film, and with very few exceptions, they found a way to identify with this suffering Christ. Not so for me. The conversation continues.

Spirituality of suffering
I live with multiple sclerosis. I must admit that through the experience of this film I have been forced to enter into a reflection on the meaning of suffering in ways I have avoided until now. It is one thing to read books about suffering by people who know the theology but have not had the same experience.

But when I gazed upon this suffering Christ on the cross, I was compelled to confront my own understanding of spirituality, the mystery of suffering and death, my relationship with the person of Jesus, and to consider the extent of my empathy for the suffering of others. What is the difference between passively accepting suffering and embracing suffering as God's will for our good and the good of others?

However, the film makes a reflection on personal suffering difficult because it is such an extreme representation of Jesus' pain and simultaneously places any comparison with Jesus beyond my reach. And the conversation keeps going.

The Resurrection
I think it is important to remember that we are Christians because of the resurrection of Jesus, not because of his passion or his suffering. Through several flashbacks in the film we get a sense of Jesus' childhood, public life, preaching and the Last Supper. And though we know Jesus rises from the dead at the end of the film, I wish it could have created a historical and theological context so that the resurrection could have been a stronger culmination to this epic.

Mel Gibson said that it was not his job to tell the whole story. So it is left up to us, the viewers, to understand and contemplate our heritage of faith and to share it in meaningful ways with those around us.

The ethical aesthetic
No matter what, viewers will not be neutral about "The Passion of the Christ." The film will have a unique place in the history of Jesus films, from early silent versions to "The Last Temptation of Christ" to "Jesus of Montreal," because it truly is art. The American painter Georgia O'Keefe once said, "True art irritates." Mel Gibson's film will irritate one's sense of the ethical aesthetic because we will want to talk about if and how truth and goodness are served (ethical) by the art or beauty of the film (aesthetic).

Conclusion
Someone once said, "We see so many films but we never have a chance to talk about them." I pray that this film will build bridges between peoples and cultures and lead to understanding and tolerance. My hope for "The Passion of the Christ" is that people who wish to see this film will want to see it with others, reflect upon the experience and dialogue about it in respect for the opinions and dignity of all people. Then we can transform the world through the love that Jesus taught us through his life, death, and resurrection.

Should children see 'The Passion of the Christ'?
The most helpful advice I can give parents, teachers and guardians of children is a reminder that this is appropriately R-rated by the MPAA from for intense graphic violence.

Questions you may wish to ask yourself when deciding are:

---Why do I want my child to see this film? List at least three reasons.

---What is the level of my child's faith development? Does he/she understand the context of Jesus' suffering and death?

---Is my child old enough to witness an unrelentingly bloody and cruel execution for two hours?

---Am I prepared to respond about why Jesus is being beaten and killed in ways that my child will understand so as not to blame Jewish people for the passion and death of Jesus?

Suggestions:
---See the movie first. If you decide it is something you wish your child to see, and he/she agrees, then accompany him/her and talk about it afterwards.

---Don't force your child to see this film, no matter the age.

---Wait for the video or DVD. Then you can watch it together when the child is at an appropriate age. This way you can stop the tape and talk about what is happening when questions arise or you think explanations are called for.

Pauline Sister Rose Pacatte is a film critic for St. Anthony Messenger magazine and co-author of the "Lights, Camera, Faith: A Movie Lover's Guide to Scripture" series.