- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostVery Few Bloggers On The Net
- Next Post »31 Days of Wisdom - Day Five
The Devil's Child (A Passion Topic)
- 03/05/04
- 19
Many people have emailed me or posted comments on this site wondering about the significance of the disfigured baby Satan is holding during the scourging of Jesus. Christianity Today puts the controversy to rest in this article.
"Please explain the symbolism in the scene showing Satan holding a bald baby. Thank you."
That's just one of dozens of e-mails we've received in the last few days, asking about a surreal scene in The Passion of The Christ where Satan is shown cradling a hideous baby who looks like he's about 40 years old.
The scene occurs during the flogging of Christ. Satan is passing through a crowd of onlookers, cradling an infant in his arms. The baby turns to face the camera, revealing a sinister infant, creeping out audiences everywhere.
We took your questions straight to the source, e-mailing Mel Gibson's publicist for an answer.
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."
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (19)
Thanks for your review. I have referred to it on my blog. I appreciated you getting that answer about Satan with the baby. I and those who saw the movie with me have been wondering what the symbollism was.
Tim, good that this was explained to us. There were questions amongst my friends as well on this issue.
Tim:
I just read that you didn't like the movie at all. Thank God you live in a place where you can register your dissent. The time is coming soon when you, and all of the rest of us who profess to be Christians, will be persecuted for our beliefs. We will need to support one another. While I don't agree with your take on the movie, I join you as a sister in Christ. Lisa Robinson Roux
Tim:
I just read that you didn't like the movie at all. Thank God you live in a place where you can register your dissent. The time is coming soon when you, and all of the rest of us who profess to be Christians, will be persecuted for our beliefs. We will need to support one another. While I don't agree with your take on the movie, I join you as a sister in Christ. Lisa Robinson Roux
"The time is coming soon when you, and all of the rest of us who profess to be Christians, will be persecuted for our beliefs."
Persecuted?
You mean the way Christians have been persecuting the followers of every other religion ever since the days of Constantine?
The Inquisition wasn't Muslim, sweetheart. Neither were the Crusaders.
What can I say?
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
...and all that crap.
What goes around comes around.
One of my most favorite Calvinist writers, Gary North, made some intriguing points about Gibson's use of Satan in his review, titled "Did Jesus Get Lost in Translation?" (apparently a whimsical ref to the recent Bill Murray movie):
"...Yet the presence of the devil in the film is powerful aesthetically. Gibson has the devil begin the movie with the heart of the story: Jesus' bearing of the sins of the world. Without this bedrock theological explanation, the Christian interpretation of the crucifixion is meaningless. How could Gibson get this message across without tampering with the text? He added to the text in order to convey the text. Amazingly – and fittingly – he has the devil present it.
"Note: a man who is willing to play this practical joke on the devil is surely not afraid of other critics. He is also highly skilled at practical joking. This one is a whopper – a metaphysical whoopie cushion for Old Nick himself.
"When you mess with this text, you risk upsetting people who believe that the text is sacred. Nevertheless, I don't think Gibson will get many complaints from Christians about this particular instance of text-tampering. There is no textual evidence that Satan was in the garden of Gethsemane, but I doubt that you could find a Christian who would attempt to make a case that Satan wasn't there. If Satan wasn't there, he was really asleep at the wheel. This is not how Christians think of the devil...."
North's entire review can be read in full at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north251.html
Thanks for the review. I personally feel that satan holding a child is meant as satan mocking Jesus for being separate from the Father.
I believe the movie is accurate in terms of the punishment that Jesus received, but I particularly didn't like the lines spoken in the garden of Gethsemane scene along with a couple others in the movie that come from Jesus lips. These lines call Jesus' deity into question and they aren't scriptural.
Matthew, which "lines spoken in the garden of Gethsemane scene along with a couple others" spoken by Jesus in the film "call Jesus' deity into question"?
But Mel still does not explain fully the idea behind it! The devil distorts something lovely (mother and child) - but WHY? why was it even in the movie?
Concerning Satan carrying the disfigured child:
My 10 daughter asked me, "What was that thing the devil was toting around in his arms", after we had just finished watching it.
I told her that I thought it represented THE ANTI-CHRIST. Any others think the same thing?
In a sense I don't think it's really a relevant question anymore. Mel Gibson decided to put that in there and has said exactly what it is. So what *we* think it is has to take a back seat to what Gibson says...
Can't you see the significance of "mother and child?" Satan - (a woman); God - (Mary); Satan's child - (deformed baby); Mary's child - (Jesus.) It's very subtle of Mel to make his point this way. It took me a while to figure it out.
We loved the movie. It makes you look at the cross in a different way. The movie needed to be made the way it was. Beautiful job!
i went to see the movie i thought it was wonderful. i encouraged others to see it. i'm sorry now that i've seen it and spoke in favor of it. i really feel that satan has decieved us and he used someone that we loved dearly to do it. a month down the road i realize that if he can slip his way into a movie how easy will it be for him to decieve us in other ways. we all need to remember that he will come to us has an angel of light.
i thought this. the baby represents the world. the world is in the cluthches of satan. he is the lord of this world. he controls the media and such. that is why we are best to forget all we see here. it is not real. and not representational of theLord. the world is like a baby in it's thoughts. not very mature. and as it clings to evil and sins in actions and thoughts, it is laughing back in the face of Christ. very mocking and deceitful. full of leaven and ruin. for when we turn away from God and say no to him, we turn away life. therefore inhabiting the body that is fowl, and disgusting. not fresh and new like a real baby. born again in Christ's blood.
just my take on it. what do you think?
Jon - I think that is an interesting viewpoint, but Mel has said what the baby represents. Read the quote in this article and you'll see exactly what he meant it to represent.
i havent seen the movie yet but i have a question before i comment on something i havent seen save for the preview only.is mel born again?why do i ask becoz the person's passion whom i think this film seeks to potray made it undoubtedly clear to a teacher in the law(pharisee nicodemius)in john chpter 3(read whole chpter for fuller understanding)and pliz i didnt ask his denomination i have asked "is he born again" for those who intend to reply.what i think of this film is that it has expopsed a sickness and virus within the body of Christ commonly known as laziness and fear of walking in our ordination as belivers in Christ which is found in matthew chpter 28,why i say so is look at the hype people booking whole movie houses so that the "lost" will come if we dangle the "for free carrot"mel has done his going out and i feel most of us would rather do the"lets wait for them to come in and catch them whilst they are on a guilt trip"i been there myself and got really fed up with the results,so i have chosen to do what Christ did-live the faith!and not be ashamed of my saviour wherever i am,that i believe is more effective,but like paul wrote whether they preach him for their own gain or for the thruth of the gospel so long Christ is preached!but to believers i ask have and are you doing "your going out"if the body of Christ was in the sold out unashamed evangelist love and "passion" for the Christ they really would be no hype about mel's movie.here is a bit to think about -ask for an offering to go on a mission to preach to impact the community enthusiasim is not really on the hype,but buy movie tickets and we dont have to go out there and proclaim Him sold out! thats what i think,think about it
Its a great movie,strong and scary but this is real life bravo mel excellent very truth ful movie, that is truth what we see in your movie.
Mel did a terrific job. There were a few parts that let you know his religious persuasion, but for the most part it could have been made by ANY Christian...Catholic or Protestant. Should we try to pick apart each little detail to try to determine his motives, or should we appreciate the reality of the very severe torture and suffering our Lord went through for us. I, for one, would like to applaud Mel's effort, and the guts it took to show this to the world!