In a past issue of Christis there was an article about the impossibility of making a film of the entire Bible. Well Mel Gibson didn't take up this challenge, he didn't make a film of the Bible, nor the New Testament, nor even the life of Jesus; he made a film of the last hours of Jesus' life. This film has provoked much comment and many polarised views: some see it as a fantastic evangelical tool; others as a film more likely to push people away from Christianity by its bloody and graphic violence. The concentration on Jesus' last hours with little or no mention of his teaching has also caused concern.

Having seen The Passion of the Christ, appropriately on Maundy Thursday, I can see why so many people have derided it. Yes, it is horrific, yes the scourging does last an unbearably long time, yes, by the end you may be suffering from 'Passion-fatigue', yes, there are bits that could be interpreted as anti- Semitic, and yes, Mel Gibson does at points 'embellish' the Gospel accounts.

So should the film be consigned to the great movie waste-bin in the sky?

Although I can see the weaknesses of The Passion of the Christ, I also think it is incredibly thought provoking, and, for me it offered new perspectives on parts of the passion narratives. To take three examples:

Firstly, the depiction of Mary, and her relationship with Jesus, counteracted many stereotypes. Mary is not blonde/blueeyed and in a blue dress. This is a small point but considering how Mary is portrayed in much Western art (and primary school nativity plays) I thought it was an important reminder that Jesus, Mary and the disciples would resemble Palestinians. The relationship between Mary and Jesus provided, for me, the most moving scenes of the film. They showed Jesus as human who laughed and joked, not just a suffering and bloody martyr.

Secondly the portrayal of Simon of Cyrene was very effective. He is shown as a man who was reluctant to carry the cross, forced by the Romans to do so. The viewer sees a change in him as he walks with Jesus, bearing the cross, to Calvary. He becomes puzzled and bewildered, but by the end of their journey he seems be in awe of Jesus. The impact of Jesus, even in the final few hours of his life, on those around him was incredible and is seen in other parts of the film: on Pilate and on the Roman soldier whose ear Peter cuts off and Jesus heals. This was no ordinary man.

Finally the sheer absurdity of a man who was beaten, captured, and killed as the Messiah, as God, struck me in a way it never had before. St Paul said that Christ crucified is "a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles," (1 Corinthians 1:23) and there is something of this in the film.

I do nevertheless have one major complaint about The Passion of the Christ. It is not the violence; rather that the death of Jesus takes up over two hours of screen time; the resurrection 30 seconds.

A similar imbalance can happen in churches. On Easter Sunday I went to a service in a church near my home in Oxford. The entire service was based around The Passion of the Christ: the church was covered in posters for it, during a drama images from the film were shown on screen; almost all the songs concentrated on the physical suffering of Jesus; the sermon was based around the word 'p.a.s.s.i.o.n' (P is for pain and persecution, A is for agony; S is for suffering etc) and drew heavily on reviews of the film. The only mention of resurrection was a rendition of "Thine be the glory, risen conquering son" at the very end of the service. Again two hours on suffering, only a few minutes on resurrection.

Given that the idea of a man rising from the dead requires a huge leap of faith, it is shame that in the film (and in the service) it is given so little time and even less explanation. I am not sure that if your knowledge of Christianity was weak, you would understand what was going on. Is the Jesus of the final scene a vision? a ghost? an angel? One review I read compared this scene to David Ginola walking through an after-shave advert. It is perhaps a little unfair for Mel Gibson to be expected to cover the significance of Jesus' death and resurrection on screen. But, to put it rather crudely, one could say, that if Jesus did not rise from the dead all The Passion of the Christ does is show an innocent man getting very very bloody.

This of course is just my opinion and there is much more about the film to agree with or to be outraged at (I'm sure Christis would be more than happy to receive any other views....). For The Passion of the Christ is a film that is at once mystical yet realistic; violent yet quietly moving; dogmatic yet able to provoke more discussion than any other film this year.