Like many of you, I went to see “The Passion of the Christ.” And like many, I found it intense.

It took several days afterward for me to totally digest the experience.

First off, this was the first movie I have ever watched with subtitles. Also, I don’t ever recall sitting as close to the screen before. My wife and I got there a little late, so we had to sit in the third row from the front.

Generally, I sit no closer than half way. The last time I even came close to sitting this near the front was the premier of “Coal Miner’s Daughter.” And then I was so close I had the urge to help Loretta Lynn tune her guitar.

And, there were no well-known actors in the “Passion.” In fact, as I write this column, I couldn’t give you a single name of the cast.

It hit me several days later why Mel Gibson probably picked unknowns. You see this movie was so graphic and spiritual, had big name stars been chosen for this presentation, their past roles and their very lives could have detracted from the essence of the film. In one sense of the word, they would have brought much baggage.

Not only that, I think most blue chip actors initially would have refused to take a part in this movie, thinking it was going to be a flop.

But think about it. What well-known actor do you suppose could have played Jesus without bringing past elements onto the set? I can’t imagine Val Kilmer in this role. First, he doesn’t look Mideastern and second, I could not avoid the image of him as Doc Holiday in “Tombstone.” I would have expected him to tell Pontius Pilate, “I’ll be your huckleberry.”

And Jesus’ mother Mary certainly had to be an unknown. If she had ever starred on “The Young and the Restless,” or “L.A. Law,” there’s no way I could have associated her with such purity. I don’t even think I could have made the transition if I had previously seen her on “Oprah.”

So was it accident or genius? Whatever, it worked.

We all know Gibson sunk a freight car of his own money into making this picture. I must admire a man of that kind of conviction. Gibson said making this movie was something spiritual for him.

I didn’t buy any popcorn or soda during this movie. I thought about it, but then it seemed almost sacrilegious, and I need all the hedging I can get. To me, that would have been like serving Oreos at communion. It just didn’t fit.

As a youngster, I remember a rather dramatic evangelist who described the crucifixion with great animation. He contorted his face, depicting incredible agony, and he screamed into the rafters as the nails pierced his hands. He would never win an Oscar, but when he slammed his Bible against the podium to describe the thunk of the cross falling into its hole on that rocky mount, the congregation let out a gasp in unison. That was a bit much for a 14-year-old. For months after that, I struggled to even dig a post hole while I was fixing fence.

So when it reached that part of the movie, I had the same knot in my throat that I had 42 years ago. Only this time I knew what to expect. And I still don’t want to dig any post holes any time soon.

Now I think the movie told the story well. I think it was well produced and I don’t think it was anti-Semitic, but then I’m not Jewish nor Italian and since the Irish did not make the New Testament, my perception must be qualified to those points.

Even beyond the actual scriptures from the Gospel of John, I think the movie should have reminded us of what great tragedy can come from mob mentality, and certainly it underlined the incredibly sound logic for separation of church and state.

Someone said with a smile, “It was such a good film, someone ought to write a book about it.”



Dwain Walden is editor/publisher of The Moultrie Observer, 985-4545. E-mail: dwain.walden@gaflnews.com.