This page was created on August 2, 2009
This page was last updated on August 2, 2009

Jeff Niems is a Jewish follower of Jesus Christ and a film producer with Realm Productions. Because he sees through Jewish eyes, his view of Mel Gibson's Passion are vitally important. It is hard for non-Jews to understand how Jewish people might view the Passion. Jeff's commentary on the film helps build needed bridges of understanding. I thank him for allowing me to publish his remarks here for you.

As far as "The Passion of the Christ" is concerned, I believe it is the best cinematic portrayal of Jesus I PERSONALLY have ever seen and is probably the best portrayal ever. I only leave myself some wriggle room because I have not seen EVERY Jesus movie ever made, though I have seen more than my fair share.

I knew that Jim Cavaziel was going to do a good acting job based on his other work. What surprised me was how strong his Jesus was. Not only physically, but also in his demeanor. And yet not TOO strong.

Most of the Jesus movies I've seen make you wonder what Bible the filmmakers have been reading and what historical context they think these events took place in. What Mel Gibson has done is give us as fine a "Jesus in His own time" movie as I can imagine.

Being Jewish, I really appreciated hearing certain phrases in Aramaic that I am familiar with in Hebrew. Hearing Him called "Yeshua" was powerful to me or hearing Him called "Adonai". These are examples of what I mean when I say a "Jesus in His own time" movie.

When I saw the film "Bruce Almighty" I was able to point to Morgan Freeman's portrayal of God and say, "That's the kind of God I believe I serve." I feel even stronger about Gibson's/Cavaziel's Jesus. I still can't get over how wonderful it was to watch the movie unfold, to see them present the events as I've seen them presented in other films countless times before, and yet to feel that what I was seeing was fresh.

Why? Because we don't have a Jesus speaking with an "oh, so proper" British accent. We have a very human Jesus who can get boo-boos when He falls down as a child and who has a loving relationship with His mother. I think Mr. Gibson's portrayal of Mary (Miriam!) was reverential and yet not overly so in a way that would put off non-Catholics.

We have a Jesus who doesn't go through the events of the Passion in some detached "I'm an alien from another world" kind of way, but rather a Jesus who clearly feels what we would feel if it were us. I LOVE the use of flashbacks as the Passion unfolds and was very glad to hear from the gentleman during Q & A time that there were going to be more "back story" scenes added.

Between you and me, I wish I had another 25 million dollars to give Mr. Gibson myself and ask him and Jim Cavaziel to go back and shoot what I will refer to as "The Complete Gospel According to Mel." As stirring as seeing the Passion events was (and I know this is the core of why Mr. Gibson wanted to make this movie) I found myself wishing they had done "the rest of the story" because of the great job they did with the few sequences they do show.

I think the first time I began to weep rather uncontrollably was when Jesus rescued Mary M. from "the Stoners". Jim Cavaziel showed the strength blended with compassion that I personally believe was the essence of who Jesus was in the flesh. Once Jesus stomped on the serpent's head in the Garden of Gethsemane, I knew we were not in for "our Father's Oldsmobile"!

All that being said, I do understand the concerns being expressed by the Jewish community. As in most movies of this genre, the Jewish people end up coming across as the "guys in the black hats". Please understand that I know very well the historical truth of the complicity of the Jewish leadership in the crucifixion of Jesus, and of the Romans, and of the whole world for that matter. However, whether it's because of the costumes or the casting or I don't know what, the bad Jews still come out looking like the "baddest of the bad" while the good Jews (take the Apostle John as an example) don't look nearly as Jewish. Still Cavaziel is one of the most Jewish looking Jesus' I've seen.

I wish the clear fact that the followers of Jesus were JUST AS JEWISH as the Jews who were going OUT OF THEIR WAY to kill Him could have somehow been emphasized more.

I think there are a couple of key things that can be fixed that would help. I have done a tremendous amount of studying the cultural, historical, linguistic background of the New Testament, especially the Gospels. One of the subtleties I think was missed is that while there certainly were "Pharisees" involved, as the subtitles in the film indicate, the "Sadducees" were never mentioned. My historical understanding is they were the chief priests at the time and in fact the group with control of the Temple and High Priesthood. Grouping all the Jews as "Pharisees" is somewhat reductionistic and misrepresents the historical facts.

Another "tweak" that could help not show the Jews in the worst possible light would be to show Caiaphas and the rest of the leaders having to work a little harder to stir up the crowd against Jesus, rather than it looking like "all the Jews" were there just waiting to "get Him". Some believe that the crowd gathered before Pilate might have included a great number of Barabbas' supporters who really were not concerned about Jesus' fate. Mark 15:8 is an example of why some believe this might have been the case.

From some accounts I've heard, part of the reason the "Council" held their meeting in the night was to try to get Jesus before Pilate as quickly as they could, before most of Jerusalem had even woken up from their Passover Feast induced slumber. See Matthew 26:3-5 and Luke 22:1-2 for the rationale behind this thinking.

Another Historical factor that could help would be to emphasize the Passover as the backdrop against which these events are taking place and the urgency of getting Jesus' body in the tomb because it was about to be the Sabbath. Showing the veil being ripped in the Temple and seeing Caiaphas understand the significance of that happening would have been a nice touch while I think having Caiaphas' prophecy from John 11:47-52 would have helped establish God's role in bringing this event to pass.

Showing that in many respects it was the activity of Satan in the background of these events, that it was Satan spurring the various parties, both Jews and Romans, to do what they knew not what they were doing, helps give those who will be mouthpieces for this film something to point to. As I think the film also shows, Jesus LAID DOWN HIS LIFE. I think it's clear He could have stopped it had He chosen to. But oy the mess we'd be in if He had!

Having said all that, I was glad to hear during the Q & A that they are going to add in a couple more scenes of supportive Jewish voices and also the BRILLIANT move of darkening Jim Cavaziel's beautiful but nonetheless WAY TOO BLUISH eyes.

This is an extremely great example of sensitivity on the part of Mr. Gibson and whoever else is involved in making those kinds of decisions.

Mr. Gibson proved to me that he is sensitive to the Jewish people in a couple of ways. One was his emphasizing Jesus praying "Father forgive them" from the cross as Caiaphas walked by Him. Or pointing out the Jewishness of Simon the Cyrene and the beautiful depiction of Simon and Jesus baring the cross together. And make no mistake about it, the Jews have borne the cross of Christ in what they have suffered at the hands of so-called Christians in the name of Jesus since that fateful day.

As I stated in the Q & A, it is too bad that throughout its history Churchianity has neglected to recall that prayer (Father, forgive them) and has instead persecuted the Jews with such vengeance that it is almost impossible for them to even consider that this man, Yeshua, might indeed have been their Messiah.

I hope you understand the motivation behind these ideas is to help this movie reach its broadest possible audience and to make it accessible to the Jewish people without removing their historical involvement.

All that being said, as a child of Israel, I have finally seen a movie in which the One I believe is, was, and will be the Messiah of Israel was not portrayed as a Blonde Hippy from California or a Robed Neo-Nazi or an Anorexic Englishman. And I am beyond happy for that!

Which brings me to the box office issue. I am so pumped up by the film's having gotten (in my opinion) "right" what so many other Gospel-based films have gotten "wrong", that I wish it were playing nearby TONIGHT. I would grab my wife and see it as soon as possible. I want my kids to see it so they can understand the price that was paid. That aspect alone has left an indelible mark on my own soul. Thank you Mel Gibson for finally giving us a "real" image of what Jesus went through during the Passion. What haunts my thinking is that as brutal as this film showed the Passion was, the reality had to have been even worse.

I don't see any reasons why the Christian community will not and should not flock to this film. I don't know what that should mean for y'all in the numbers game, but I'd think it would have to be pretty significant. Oh sure, you'll have some drop outs from those who won't go see movies at all, or those who won't go see anything rated R (will this film be?) even if it's a quality film like "Braveheart", or those who just can't handle reading subtitles. But by and large, you should get a huge percentage of the faithful to see this when it is released. Ash Wednesday and all that is perfect.

I will admit I finally had to leave my seat during the Q & A from some of the questions today! It was all I could do not to get up and shout, "Would you please stop trying to make this BEAUTIFUL HOLY WORK OF ART into "Left Behind" or "The Omega Code"?!?" I for one thought the Resurrection was handled subtly and powerfully. Rather than teaching, like Jesus, in parables, Christians tend to S-P-E-L-L everything out. Especially in so-called "Christian Art". Nevertheless, I think any self-respecting Believer will absolutely HAVE to and WANT to purchase the DVD when it goes on sale. I'm sure the marketing folk are already hard at work putting together educational materials, etc., for churches, Christian bookstores, etc., that can be released when the film's theatrical release is over, right? 'Cause y'all ought to be able to sell a whole bunch of that kind of merchandise when that time comes.

The area I have less confidence in is "the unbelievers". For those of us who watched this film or will watch this film with a "vested interest", it is an unbelievable event. Many may not be able to handle seeing it more than once because it is so graphic. From a strictly cinematic point of view, I just don't know if there is enough "story" here to appeal to those who are "just looking for a good movie". That's why I'm on board with adding more and more back story and more and more context to The Passion. All it will do is make the story being told that much more powerful and possibly a more gratifying movie going experience for the "general populace" while still accomplishing Mr. Gibson's vision.