Via Media

Via Media

What’s Up With the Ugly Baby?

CT wants to know

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.”

Comments read comments(27)
post a comment

posted March 2, 2004 at 3:18 pm

The other point of that scene which Steve Greydanus (most notably) noted was that in addition to being grotesque, it’s completely, utterly meaningless.
Which, as anyone can tell you, is the hallmark of evil.

report abuse


posted March 2, 2004 at 3:19 pm

I thought it picked up on the parallel between Mary and the Devil evident on the Via Dolorosa (where they both shadow Christ across from one another) and the Pieta at the end of the film.
In this scene it is an obscene and blasphemous inversion of the Madonna and Child

report abuse


posted March 2, 2004 at 3:28 pm

How about the foreshadowing of the Anti-Christ?

report abuse


posted March 2, 2004 at 3:28 pm

I thought it was an anti-image of Raphael’s Sistine Madonna. As a mock mirror image. Go figure.

report abuse

Kevin Jones

posted March 2, 2004 at 4:03 pm

I thought it was a foreshadowing of the Anti-Christ, too.

report abuse


posted March 2, 2004 at 4:16 pm

Obviously, Gibson is full of hidden agendas and secret intentions with his movie. . .
Can you think of any other filmmaker who would so quickly and clearly answer questions about his intention and meaning with a scene from their movie? And why am i already thinking that this is the kind of thing that the “it means whatever you think it means” crowd can’t STAND about Mel Gibson: he is who he says he is. . .now, how do you say that in Italian?

report abuse

posted March 2, 2004 at 5:02 pm

Questions about The Passion of the Christ?

It seems that there are a lot of questions about Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ – particularly the symbolism and characters involved. For those who haven’t seen it, the movie is full of Christian symbolism and includes…

report abuse

Patrick Sweeney

posted March 2, 2004 at 5:03 pm

Gollum’s kid brother got lost and wound up in Jerusalem.

report abuse


posted March 2, 2004 at 5:14 pm

I saw it as Satan playing the ape of God, his customary role (cf. Ex. 7, 11-12; 2 Cor 11, 14; 2 Thess 2, 9). In this case, it was a vision of the infernal Nativity.

report abuse


posted March 2, 2004 at 6:16 pm

I thoroughly enjoyed The Passion of the Christ, but I gotta ask what Mel’s thing with androgony is. In so many of his movies, (Braveheart, The Patriot, The Passion) effeminacy (among men) and/or androgony = evil. I’m not saying that effeminate men are, or ought to be, anyone’s ideal, but come on. The fact that some guy might not be the butchest on his block, or that someone might, at first glance, be of indeterminate gender is hardly justification for considering him evil. These things are determined by biology, after all. Am I reading too much into this, or are Mel’s theology and worldview perhaps a little too colored by his own macho-ness?

report abuse


posted March 2, 2004 at 6:47 pm

I thought it was the graphic symbol of the increase of evil’s effects in the Romans. I thought the baby got larger as the flogging went on. But that could have been an effect from the on-coming migraine – I left the theater with one.
But I still thought the movie was very well done.

report abuse


posted March 2, 2004 at 9:04 pm

I liked the ugly baby. Wait, I mean I liked the use of the symbolism. As stated….”evil distorting what’s good.” I thought it was very powerful.
(But I wouldn’t want to be the actor with the role of the ‘ugly baby’ on my resume.)

report abuse


posted March 2, 2004 at 10:01 pm

So glad someone is talking about this. I have a friend who definitely believes “the baby” to be a symbol of the anti-christ. She said it had the mark of the beast on its forehead. Can anyone who has seen the movie give tell me if you remember seeing ‘the mark’? I’m thinking of emailing my friends this Mel quote. TIA.

report abuse

Frank Hanincik

posted March 2, 2004 at 10:19 pm

It seemed to me to be a mockery of the incarnation.

report abuse

Barb N

posted March 2, 2004 at 11:14 pm

I know the answer to this one! I got it from Mel directly when I saw the film last June. I’d post it here but I’ve been saving the story for my blog…
Stay tuned…
[wicked sadistic chortling]

report abuse


posted March 24, 2004 at 6:59 pm

On July 5th 2002 I had a dream that made me sick and weak for a week afterwards. It was the only ‘nightmare’ I have ever had and I wish to state that I have never experianced anything like it. I do not hear voices or ever have seen a UFO. I was volunteering for a Christian Mission at the time in downtown Vancouver and two others came to me with previous related dreams that they had. We were concerned with a false Christianity that was being preached at the Mission and in prayer I asked that God would help me to see clearly as the issue was creating tension between some of the volunteers and the Pastors there. I awoke that night in a sweat and was so ill that I could not get out of bed for some time.I could literally feel cold waves of wind in the room though the window was closed.I have never been so afraid in my life. The next day I started taking afternoon naps at the Mission because I was so exhausted though I was sleeping 9-10 hrs nightly. I have NEVER been able to sleep during the day in the past. In part of the dream I saw a young child who was so beautiful that I was drawn to him. I turned away for just a moment and when I looked back the boy was gone and in his place was a figure almost exactly as the baby in the movie. It frightened me terribly, I can’t begin to explain it.The man emulated evilness and was old and I had the feeling of great evil in the area. I was very afraid of him and sought to get away but before I could turn and leave he caught my thumbs in his hands. Each thumb was in a differant hand and I grew panicked and struggled to escape his clutches. I have never imagined the terror that I felt or that I could be so afraid. After a brief struggle I broke free and ran. What does it all mean? Probably nothing as inspite of how crazy the preceding sounds I am a realist. What shocked me about the movie was seeing the same little man. The man said nothing but the little boy did speak and said, ” This church forces new brides to confess their sins and charges them for it” I had been studing false Christianity in the years leading up to the dream. I know something happened there that night but what is is I can not say. I do know that I could not stand for some time after and was violently ill, so that when I finally made it to the washroom,I collapsed in the shower from the effort. It made me realize that there is an powerful ‘unseen’ that we know little about.

report abuse


posted March 25, 2004 at 7:17 pm

While I see Mr. Gibson’s point with this, I tend to think of the ugly baby as a future antichrist as well. Satan tries to imitate GOD in a pathetic attempt to rule- as such, he tries to copy the Trinity- himself as the so-called father, antichrist as the son (hence the baby) and the false prophet in Revelation as the unholy spirit. What do you think? I’d love to talk about this with someone. If e-mailed, please put the Passion of CHRIST as a subject..thanks:D

report abuse


posted March 29, 2004 at 2:59 am

The sybolism is the “Lady of Kingdoms” in Isaiah 47:1-9. The Vatican wants to elevate the Virgin Mary to coredemptrix, and name her the “Lady of all Nations”. Through the centuries there have been numerous apparitions of Mary claiming to be the “Blessed Mother of G-d”; one of the grandest apparitions was at Fatima in Portugal in 1917. This is a great deception that has lead many to worship this “Imposter who would call herself Queen”. Rev. 17: 18;7. This is not Mary of the bible, but rather a demon. This demon has been known by other names such as, The Goddess of Shinar (modern day Iraq) this was a Goddess depicted as a mother and child! According to the Fatima apparitions this “mother of G-d” says, “only my immaculate heart can save you”. This is a lie for only Jesus Christ is able to save us, this apparitions contradicts scripture and the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ. The symbolism in the movie is clear, a great many people will be decieved with Satans new plan to call people to his counterfeit church in the last days. Pope John Paul II wants desperately to honor the virgin Mary as coredemptrix or co-redemer of souls! This is a lie, for Jesus alone has redemed us!!
I urge all of you to research what Mel Gibson(who follows old Vatican tradition and not the current Vatican II tradition) has put before us all, please do not be decieved reject this lie and do not follow Satans great deception!
I pray in Jesus Christ’s name,

report abuse


posted April 1, 2004 at 1:01 am

i think that malformed baby represented that awful asian singer from “American Idol” that just sang in front of 27,000 and got a record deal. if there is better proof that Satan is loosed on this world, I havent see it.

report abuse


posted April 7, 2004 at 5:56 pm

The scene where a drop from the clouds shakes the earth,when Christ passes looked like “a tear from heaven”.

report abuse


posted April 17, 2004 at 6:29 am

I speak to all who have seen “The Passion” and wonder
about the ugly baby. If anything in this TRUE movie
should stay with us, it is the FACTS of what JESUS has done for us as a human race. He suffered the most horrible death, inwardly and outwardly! We should focus on and be grateful for this, because without this AWESOME event in time you and I would not have a door to enter into heaven! Be the ugly baby a symbol of what ever you choose it to be, LET IT GO… See the beauty of the film, the realness and the truth. We are saved because of JESUS, let us stay focused on HIM and not on the “ugly” part. Well done Mel, you have made HIM real, give our Great CREATOR Glory for all the beauty in our world, let the “ugly” disolve, DON’T give it air-time. Thank you FATHER for YOUR SON!
G-D Bless you all, because HE was, HE is and HE always will be……..

report abuse


posted April 23, 2004 at 10:50 am

Mandy, I fully see your point. However, part of the beauty that you speak of in this film is this use of symbolism in it..the fact that some focus a bit of attention on the ugly baby isn’t a bad thing! By discussing the ugly baby, people start to question the so-called allure of evil and see the baby as a representation of what evil truly is-a twisting of everything that was once good.
I do agree with you about the enormity of JESUS’ sacrifice for us, and we should be VERY thankful. God Bless You Mandy, and everyone else here too:D

report abuse

lowdown desa

posted April 28, 2004 at 5:49 pm

Well. that baby from the passion was so ugly that i need to see it again. I’m sure it was just a midget or something but i must see its face again… its creepy.

report abuse


posted April 29, 2004 at 11:40 am

Lowdown Desa, here’s a site that has a pic of the Ugly baby..I got it from another posting, but I cant remember which one at the moment..anyway, here you go:)

report abuse


posted May 21, 2004 at 9:01 pm

The baby in the movie could symbolize a new but old argument or resentment, the director (Gibson) probably knows more about this than what he let us see in the movie (after consulting the Vatican and hearing Gods voice now and then). Satan (Lucifer) was an angel in heaven and was Gods first love and was cast down from heaven when he wanted to be better than God, Christ on the other hand is Gods embodiment in a way, Christ is given the power to help mankind and was given this power so that mankind can understand that this is what can be expected from a good and loving God. I think that is what the director wanted to interpred saying the there is still resentment in Satan and he does this by filming an ugly old baby (An old argument with Gods first born) and the baby and Satan were put in the sceen when Christ was being beaten to represent that both Satan and Christ have suffered. But Satans suffering is only because of his own doing (symbolically:making a baby) and Christs suffering is because of his(Gods)love for mankind. I think that is what the director wanted to state.

report abuse


posted September 1, 2004 at 12:31 am

The ugly baby is clearly ‘mini-me’s’ evil antichrist twin!!!!!!! I loved the movie, I love Christ…and I wouldn’t subject the Savior to looking at that hideous face for more than a nanosecond!!!!!!!! Ironically, the baby was so ugly that when I viewed the movie for the second time today after buying it, the scene took me completely by surprise because I had blocked it out…guess I was suffering from PTUBS…post-traumatic ugly baby syndrome!
Well, just thought i’d put my two cents in…the movie was AWESOME…Mel is AWESOME…AND JESUS IS AWESOME!!!!!!

report abuse

I love Jesus

posted March 27, 2006 at 6:49 pm

I love how deep thatis. I mean at first I had no clue what the devil and the ugly baby ment but really it is so clear, the devil can take anything and make it ugly if we just stand by and watch without speaking up for what is right. Jesus was this beautiful thing given to us by God and man allowed the devil in and we ended up killing him so that our sins would be forgave. I would hope after everything that we did to Jesus that he would for give us. It really shows how much God does love us to give his son that kind of death for our sins is really amazing and over powering.

report abuse

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to and may be used by in accordance with the agreements.

Previous Posts

There is nothing I shall want
A couple of weeks ago, a memorial Mass for Michael was held here in Birmingham at the Cathedral. The bishop presided and offered a very nice, even charming homily in which he first focused on the Scripture readings of the day, and then turned to ...

posted 9:24:16am Mar. 05, 2009 | read full post »

Revolutionary Road - Is it just me?
Why am I the only person I know..or even "know" in the Internet sense of "knowing"  - who didn't hate it? I didn't love it, either. There was a lot wrong with it. Weak characterization. Miscasting. Anvil-wielding mentally ill prophets.But ...

posted 9:45:04pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Books for Lent
No, I'm not going to ask you about your Lenten reading lists...although I might.Not today, though. This post is about giving books to others. For Lent, and a long time after that. You know how it goes during Lent: Prayer, Fasting and ...

posted 9:22:07pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Why Via Media
How about....because I'm lame and hate thinking up titles to things? No? about...St. Benedict? Yes, yes, I know the association with Anglicanism. That wasn't invovled in my purpose in naming the joint, but if draws some Googling ...

posted 8:54:17pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Brave Heart?
I don't know about you, but one of effects of childbirth on me was a compulsion to spill the details. All of them.The whole thing was fascinating to me, so of course I assumed everyone else should be fascinated as well in the recounting of every ...

posted 10:19:45pm Mar. 03, 2009 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.