I recently put on a DVD at home and sat through just over two hours of one of the most powerful pieces of cinema ever made, Mel Gibson’s: The Passion of the Christ (2004). The performances of the Actors and Actresses; Jim Caviezel in the title role, Maia Morgenstern as Mary, (who brought me to tears more than once), Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene and so many others was truly monumental. (The role of Satan was actually played by an Actress named Rosalinda Celentano, who never spoke and yet was truly evil incarnate… Brilliant). And Mel Gibson's direction was absolutely flawless. No matter how many times I see this film, I never cease to be as profoundly moved as I was when I first watched it. But of all the accolades I can give this wonderful piece of work, the one which really speaks to me is a factor which I personally think is extremely important in films which are seeking to give factual accounts of the past... Historical accuracy. It is astonishing the lengths that Gibson went to, to ensure that the events of almost two thousand years ago were relayed truthfully on screen. The Actors actually spoke the now dead languages of that period, Aramaic, (which was the language of Christ), Latin, and some sequences using ancient Hebrew. The costumes were faultless and the dusty, grimy, real-life environment of the ancient Middle East was palpable. But by far the most powerful part of the experience was the sheer unadulterated brutality in all its raw horror. The scourging of Jesus at the whipping post is surely the most horrific ever filmed, (Jim Caviezel was accidentally whipped twice during shooting this scene and suffered several other injuries in production). I found myself biting my knuckles and on the point of calling out from my sofa: “Please Stop!” And then of course, the crucifixion, the full horror of which was graphically portrayed. So accurate was the film, that I have always been just a little disappointed with Mel Gibson that he allowed two errors. Firstly, at the crucifixion, the common mistake is made of showing the nails being driven through the hands. In reality, the nails would almost certainly have been driven in just above the wrists, in between the two forearm bones. Secondly, at the whipping post and especially at the crucifixion, Christ is portrayed still wearing his cloth. In reality Jesus, like all Roman prisoners, would have been stripped naked. There may have been reasons why Gibson and his team preferred not to portray full nakedness, but given how much effort was put into making this masterpiece historically correct, I am surprised this mistake was allowed.
If you haven't seen it, and have the strength to endure it, I can recommend this deeply moving experience.
Historical accuracy, as I indicated above, is something which I think is of paramount importance when doing historical based dramas. Inevitably there will be times when telling the story effectively to an audience requires a degree of ‘artistic license’, and times of course, especially with ancient history, when the actual events may be unclear, or disputed. However, what we must never, ever do in my opinion, is re-write, or ‘water down’ aspects of history to suit politically correct sensitivities in our modern age. I remember becoming embroiled in a furious online discussion once about a dog’s name! The discussion arose when it was revealed that they were doing a remake of, (wait for this), The Dam Busters. Well first of all, why? As if they could ever better Richard Todd and Michael Redgrave et al. But the question arose because, (in actual real-life historical fact), Wing Commander Guy Gibson who was destined to lead the famous raid, owned a Black Labrador Retriever who was the squadron’s mascot, and whose name would later be used as the code signal to indicate that the operation had been successful. The dog’s name was ‘Nigger’.
Now of course, few people nowadays would name a pet using what is generally regarded as a pejorative term. But this wasn't nowadays. This was May, 1943. And the point I have emphasized previously and will again now, is that history is not racist, history is not phobic, history does not make judgments. History just is. If the dog’s name was ‘Nigger’ in 1943, then it's ‘Nigger’ in a film about 1943. So you can imagine my dismay when I heard talk of changing the name. Nineteen Lancasters of 617 Squadron RAF took part in ‘Operation Chastise’ on the night of May 16-17, 1943. Eight were lost, 53 aircrew were killed and 3 taken prisoner. On the ground some 1,600 people died, of which some 1000 were (mainly Soviet) forced labour. Two of the three targets were breached, a third damaged, and the industrial area of the Ruhr was catastrophically flooded. The survivors returned home still unaware that Nigger had been killed in a road accident the night previous. Gibson had kept it secret for the sake of morale. Now you can call me an idealist, but I think if you are going to tell the story of people like this, then tell it properly, and truthfully. We cannot allow modern day sensitivities to force us to re-write the past to accommodate sectional interests in the present. Otherwise where will we end up?...
“You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party”
From the Novel: Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949).
Author: George Orwell.
If you haven't seen it, and have the strength to endure it, I can recommend this deeply moving experience.
Historical accuracy, as I indicated above, is something which I think is of paramount importance when doing historical based dramas. Inevitably there will be times when telling the story effectively to an audience requires a degree of ‘artistic license’, and times of course, especially with ancient history, when the actual events may be unclear, or disputed. However, what we must never, ever do in my opinion, is re-write, or ‘water down’ aspects of history to suit politically correct sensitivities in our modern age. I remember becoming embroiled in a furious online discussion once about a dog’s name! The discussion arose when it was revealed that they were doing a remake of, (wait for this), The Dam Busters. Well first of all, why? As if they could ever better Richard Todd and Michael Redgrave et al. But the question arose because, (in actual real-life historical fact), Wing Commander Guy Gibson who was destined to lead the famous raid, owned a Black Labrador Retriever who was the squadron’s mascot, and whose name would later be used as the code signal to indicate that the operation had been successful. The dog’s name was ‘Nigger’.
Now of course, few people nowadays would name a pet using what is generally regarded as a pejorative term. But this wasn't nowadays. This was May, 1943. And the point I have emphasized previously and will again now, is that history is not racist, history is not phobic, history does not make judgments. History just is. If the dog’s name was ‘Nigger’ in 1943, then it's ‘Nigger’ in a film about 1943. So you can imagine my dismay when I heard talk of changing the name. Nineteen Lancasters of 617 Squadron RAF took part in ‘Operation Chastise’ on the night of May 16-17, 1943. Eight were lost, 53 aircrew were killed and 3 taken prisoner. On the ground some 1,600 people died, of which some 1000 were (mainly Soviet) forced labour. Two of the three targets were breached, a third damaged, and the industrial area of the Ruhr was catastrophically flooded. The survivors returned home still unaware that Nigger had been killed in a road accident the night previous. Gibson had kept it secret for the sake of morale. Now you can call me an idealist, but I think if you are going to tell the story of people like this, then tell it properly, and truthfully. We cannot allow modern day sensitivities to force us to re-write the past to accommodate sectional interests in the present. Otherwise where will we end up?...
“You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party”
From the Novel: Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949).
Author: George Orwell.
RSS Feed