|
February 28, 2004
All hail the film review I never wrote (about a film I haven't seen)!
Bloggers I greatly respect have offered differing opinions about "The Passion." Donald Sensing, more of an expert on Christianity than anyone I can think of in the Blogosphere, after noting numerous inaccuracies in the film, finally concludes with this: I was filled with a deep sadness - indeed, shame - at the profound deficiency of my own discipleship. Gibson has said that the movie's answer to the question, "Who killed Jesus?" is, "We all did." That is not what I felt at the end. Instead, I felt a deep sense of having betrayed the great trust given me by Christ, a enormous awareness of my own sin and sinfulness and my total reliance on God's gracious mercy. Here's Andrew Sullivan: Gibson does nothing to mitigate the dangerous anti-Semitic elements of the story and goes some way toward exaggerating and highlighting them. To my mind, that is categorically unforgivable. Anti-Semitism is the original sin of Christianity. Far from expiating it, this movie clearly enjoys taunting those Catholics as well as Jews who are determined to confront that legacy. In that sense alone, it is a deeply immoral work of art. Here's Roger L. Simon: Beneath Mr. Gibson’s insouciant exterior beats a heart all right, but it’s not a brave one. It’s the heart of a ruthless, unforgiving man. He has made one of the most violent exercises in sadism ever put on a movie screen and, unconsciously, the greatest advertisement for atheism I have ever seen. If “The Passion of The Christ” is about religion… any religion… I want no part of it. And I don’t think anybody should. Instead of adapting one of the magnificent spiritual works of world literature, the Gospels, Mr. Gibson has tossed them aside and made two hours of virtually unremitting gore, taking the “Son of Man,” ripping him, shredding him, flaying him, smashing him, bashing him, beating him, mauling him, hammering nails in him, and then starting all over again. And again. And then again. No known human being—of divine origin or not—would have survived even a fiftieth of this. It’s the theatrical equivalent of ten years of root canal work.Roger Simon's comments are closed. Believe me, I understand why, and I think I understand Roger's feelings about the film (at least I hope I do). Politically (and this stuff has become political as hell!), Gibson would do well to tell the world he is not an anti-Semite, and not just in a general sense; I think he'd be well advised to state clearly whether or not he wants the Catholic Church to return to its pre-Vatican II policy of anti-Semitism, and whether he agrees with the disgraceful positions taken by his father. Gibson would also do well to remember that anti-Catholic sentiment can take on a life of its own just as much as anti-Jewish or anti-homosexual sentiment. Here's an anti-Catholic Protestant fundamentalist site which believes "The Passion" violates the Second Commandment ("a two-hour stream of images graven in celluloid at the rate of 24 frames per second"...." thousands of graven images and likenesses of God's Son") and concludes it is the work of the devil: The Jesus of the movie is not the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus of the movie is not the Jesus of God. You are going to the devil to get a view of Jesus, and you will not undo the damage easily. The Jesus you see is that which Satan wants you to see. He does not want you to see the Jesus before Whom he trembled, and by Whom he will soon be cast into hell.Graven images are the work of the devil? Does that mean crucifixes are bad? What about Andres Serrano? Did he do a bad thing? What about early Protestants and their smashing and burning of crucifixes in places like the Netherlands and England? (More.) Or am I once again engaged in moral relativism? If I am slouching towards moral relativism, I might as well pose another morally relativistic question. Much has been made of whether or not Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic, whether he is homophobic, whether his father is anti-Semitic, etc. I think it is important to judge the film for what it is, as opposed to who made it, who paid for it, who promotes it, and what their motivations might be. My question is, would it make any difference had this film been produced and directed by a known, unabashed anti-Semite? If so, then why? Would it have made any difference had the film been made in Syria or Lebanon, by a Jew-hating Muslim director? I don't know, but it is becoming more and more of a struggle to separate the messenger from the message. Speaking of "messengers," there was a film I very much enjoyed called "The Lion in the Desert," -- a biography of Libyan guerilla leader Omar Mukhtar, who fought the Italian fascist occupation forces in the 1920s. I was told that the film was "propaganda" because of the background of the director (Syrian-born Mustapha Akkad) and its funding: Akkad again faced a somewhat hostile American public because the movie had been funded by Libyan leader Mu’ammar al-Quaddafi, who like Khomeini, was viewed with scrutiny in the West. The movie stared Anthony Quinn as Mukhtar, Oliver Reed as General Gratsiani, the officer in charge of crushing the Libyan revolution, and Rod Steiger as Benito Mussolini.The problem is, "The Lion in the Desert" is a damned good film! I am going to watch "The Passion" tonight (at least I think I will, if I can find anyone who'll see it with me...), and I am wondering whether I have any moral right to see it and judge it as a work of art or not. In the interest of full disclosure, I enjoyed Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" -- which of course was made as the purest form of Nazi propaganda. It never made me a Nazi!
This was around 1980. At the time, it occurred to me that the film had been censored, and in Germany they would not have been allowed to see it. Not a good thing. Even propaganda is part of history. So is art. ADDITIONAL NOTE RE PONTIUS PILATE: The available historical record regarding Pontius Pilate is sketchy and contradictory. Depending on which sources one chooses to believe, a case can just as easily be made for a ruthless and tryannical Pilate as for a waffling politician who wanted to avoid trouble. It is interesting to note that as the early church grew, Pilate's image seems have been cleaned up to the point that he was actually canonized by the Coptic and Ethiopian churches! It may well be impossible to ever know the actual historical facts. My thanks to Sandefur's Freespace for linking to this excellent discussion (which provided the link above). Superb work -- especially for a film considered "better seen than reviewed." Of course, I was too late to make it to the film tonight, so I can do neither! posted by Eric on 02.28.04 at 01:28 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/799 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference All hail the film review I never wrote (about a film I haven't seen)!:
» Ex-Gay 'Passion' for Mel Gibson Flick from Ex-Gay Watch
Eric Scheie at Classical Values nicely summarizes pundits' up-and-down votes for 'The Passion of the Christ.' Hopefully, Exodus ex-gay spokesman Randy Thomas will broaden his ow... [Read More] Tracked on February 28, 2004 07:40 PM
Comments
Tim Sandefur is excellent. I wish he was on the Supreme Court. Pontius Pilate probably was ruthless and tyrannical rather than wavering. A Roman official sent to govern a barbarian people most likely would be. Roman Law doesn't seem to have had any provisions limiting what we would call cruel and unusual punishment. It was not unheard of to seal a man in a coffin and then saw it in half. Crucifixion was another. Spartacus and the slaves who rebelled with him were nailed to crosses lined up along a Roman thoroughfare like telephone poles today, as a warning to any slaves who got similar ideas. On the other hand: Religious leaders demanding and stirring up a mob to demand the crucifixion of an unpopular man, and a politician capitulating to their demands. See any parallels? Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · February 28, 2004 09:56 PM In regards to The Passion (a movie I haven’t yet seen so I can’t judge it) and those critics who have criticized it because of Mel (and his dad), and not because of the movie itself, I wonder how many disparaged The Pianist because a known child molester, Roman Polanski, made it. Not many I suspect. It also strikes me that many people are jumping on the whole anti-Semitism thing not so much out of outrage but as a good opportunity to play bash the Catholic. Brad · February 29, 2004 04:22 PM Eric, you'll probably enjoy this article in today's WaPo. It looks at the movie from an Art History standpoint. Ray Eckhart · February 29, 2004 05:35 PM Thanks Ray, Glad I commented on the irony before the Washington Post did; otherwise they'd say I stole their idea! Steven, maybe you should start a movement to ensure the appointment of Justice Sandefur! Eric Scheie · February 29, 2004 08:38 PM I've often thought that, if I had the money, I would make a movie or series of movies "The Bible: Nothing Added, Nothing Subtracted". It would certainly be X-rated. That's not a criticism of the Bible. I place the Bible (especially the Old Testament) up at the top with all the great myths and sagas of the ancient world: Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, the Eddas, Beowulf, the Kalevala, the Vedas, the Mahabharata, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the myth of Inanna, the myth of Osiris and Isis, etc., etc.. Not one of those would play well in Peoria. They would make a combination of Howard Stern, Larry Flynt, and Quentin Tarantino look like a Sunday school picnic by comparison. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · March 1, 2004 01:13 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I also saw Leni Reifenstahl's "The Triumph of the Will". Didn't turn me into a Nazi either.
I also read Norman Spinrad's "The Iron Dream", taking place in a parallel universe in which Hitler, instead of becoming a dictator in Germany, emigrated to America and became a science-fiction writer. It was the kind of story he would have written had he done so, in which Feric Jaggar exterminates mutants and the Dominators of Zind. It was extremely weird and hilarious. Norman Spinrad, I must add, is not a Nazi.
Another novel by Spinrad -- my favorite novel second only to Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" -- is "A World Between", in which the liberal democracy of the planet Pacifica is caught in a propaganda war between the male-hating Femocrats vs. the male-dominant Transcendental Scientists. Whenever I read or hear of anything relating to feminism or male-female relations or the differing _styles_ of men and women, I always think of Femocrats vs. Transcendental Scientists.
I think I will see "The Passion" (I love the title!) -- but not too close before dinner. It sounds very interesting, at any rate. I'm sure I shan't be bored. I must add that I also read the Marquis de Sade's "120 Days of Sodom". Much the same sort of thing in many ways, but from a libertine atheist philosophy.