There have been a few questions about the portrayal of Satan and the ugly baby in Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ.
This article from Christianity Today is very helpful in getting into Mel’s mind as to why he did things the way he did.
When asked why he portrayed Satan – an androgynous, almost beautiful being played by Rosalinda Celentano – the way he did, Gibson replied: “I believe the Devil is real, but I don’t believe he shows up too often with horns and smoke and a forked tail. The devil is smarter than that. Evil is alluring, attractive. It looks almost normal, almost good – but not quite.
“That’s what I tried to do with the Devil in the film. The actor’s face is symmetric, beautiful in a certain sense, but not completely. For example, we shaved her eyebrows. Then we shot her almost in slow motion so you don’t see her blink -that’s not normal. We dubbed in a man’s voice in Gethsemane even though the actor is a woman … That’s what evil is about, taking something that’s good and twisting it a little bit.”
But what about the ugly baby?
“Again,” said Gibson, “it’s evil distorting what’s good. What is more tender and beautiful than a mother and a child? So the Devil takes that and distorts it just a little bit. Instead of a normal mother and child you have an androgynous figure holding a 40 – year-old ‘baby’ with hair on his back. It is weird, it is shocking, it’s almost too much – just like turning Jesus over to continue scourging him on his chest is shocking and almost too much, which is the exact moment when this appearance of the Devil and the baby takes place.”
Do you think some of your friends would enjoy reading What’s Up with the Ugly Baby?? Please use the buttons below to share the post. Thanks.
Thansk for that bit of information, it was one of the strange things that stood out to me about the movie.
I reckon it’s also healthy to finally take this movie as a movie (e.g. talking about actors and voice effects) instead of as a 5th gospel where the subject is seen to be too important to investigate and have critical thought on the style.
You’re absolutely right. We need to be able to see it as a movie and as a tool to point people toward the Gospels.
There seems to be a lot of argument between groups who say that the film is wonderful and those who say it is blasphemous. I personally ‘like’ the film but whichever way it goes, thanks to the film, people are talking about Jesus.
We need to use the opportunity to take people’s eyes off the film as soon as possible and introduce them to the real Jesus. I’m sure that Mel Gibson doesn’t want people arguing endlessly about the merits of his movie, but rather focussing on Jesus.
My first reaction before hearing Gibson’s account of why he used the baby was that Satan was taunting Jesus saying look at how I take care of my son/daughter, why doesn’t your father take care of you?