Mel Gibson’s ambitious, controversial new film, “The Passion of the Christ,” opened in theaters yesterday. After at least a year of publicity, hype, and outcry, the film that could make or break Gibson’s career has finally reached the public eye.

Since the release, the controversy has only gained steam. Protests have been vocal and harsh, and the loudest one has been from religious groups claiming that the film is anti-Semitic. The film makes some decisions on how Jesus of Nazareth’s fate was determined, and those decisions have given cause for debate ranging from the casual conversation to vitriolic religion-based rhetoric.

It is also a brutally visceral depiction of the last days of Jesus’ life, right up to his death on the cross atop Golgotha. The hours leading up to his death are full of torture and suffering, not only by Jesus but by his followers as well. It is clearly not a pleasant experience, watching a man being beaten to within an inch of his life, and then put on display to die in front of friend and foe alike – even if the images are fictional.

This has caused many reviewers to decry the film as too violent, too depressing, and generally too upsetting to serve its purpose. However, it is because of these things that it does meet its own demands. What Gibson, a traditionalist Christian, has done is provide the most striking, emotional passion play in history. He has pulled no punches; he has worried over no criticisms, at least in how his film was produced. Though there is much being written and spoken of Gibson’s own torturous feelings about the film and its subject, he has done well to keep his message clear.

Where that message has gotten lost is in a plot point that is debatable at the least, and damning at the worst. However, that single decision shouldn’t be enough to cloud the relevant discussion here.

We live in an age where nearly every event in history, from the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team’s upset victory, to the death of Christ, can be depicted on film with a strong measure of sincerity and accuracy. The other edge of this sword is that every minute detail is magnified, so that every decision the filmmaker makes is taken under consideration, and weighed against the true facts of history.

It is not as easy here, because the history of Jesus’ life is harder to nail down. The Bible is the main source of information, but the book alone is one of the oldest causes of debate known to man. So any film depiction of biblical events is sure to bring controversy and emotion.

What is being lost here is what the film actually is. It is a dramatic portrayal of the death of Jesus, considered by many to be one of the most important events in human history, and a large part of the basis of the Christian faith. And so, it provides a very important piece of our culture. We now have a very solid, extensive creation of the events, true or manufactured, of Jesus’ time. We should marvel at the fact that there is such a piece of art that can bring the emotional discourse that “The Passion” has, and remember that the right to free speech is shared both by the filmmaker and the film’s detractors. If nothing else, the controversy surrounding “The Passion of the Christ” is a testament to the liberty that we hold so dear.

Unsigned editorials represent the majority opinion of the Massachusetts Daily Collegian Editorial Board.