Dick and Mambrina haven't seen Passion of the Christ, either. They review the reviewers. Mabrina first:
For those who question what possible purpose can be served by the intense and unrelenting violence of Mel Gibson's passion play, The Passion of the Christ, particularly those Christians who find it objectionable, the answer might possibly be found in Jesus's identification with all who suffered ("I was hungry and you gave me meat; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you took me in; Naked, and you clothed me; Sick, and you visited me; In prison, and you came unto me") — and his condemnation of those who refuse to acknowledge the basic humanity of suffering. We often use the word "inhuman" to describe extreme poverty or pain. But history and the six o'clock news demonstrate that all too often these are precisely human in origin.
Wait, before you dismiss me, let me say that I'm not defending Mel Gibson. Although I stand by my original post (in which I argued that all of humanity stands with the Jerusalem mob who cried out "crucify him!"), I'm no longer confident that Gibson's heart is in the right place with this film. I haven't seen it yet (so, Dr. Omed, you can add me to the list of "bloggers reviewing this movie by hearsay"*), and I can't truly judge whether the charges of anti-semitism are groundless or not, or if the film does a disservice to Christian teachings. I can tell you, however, that I despise literalists of all religious stripes and that I'm aware that many of the people supporting this film are just that. I fear that the rabbi I saw on a local television discussion panel might be right when he says that only a very mature person can walk out of the theatre with a nuanced understanding of the spiritual meaning behind the events depicted on screen.
Still, I am baffled by the vehemence of some critics and bloggers towards this film. Their vehemence, in fact, seems to be directed not so much at the film itself (which might actually be a bad film) but at Christians in general. I'd like to see some of my fellow liberals — if they truly find all religious expression to be at odds with their principles — abandon their hypocrisy and speak out against the "sadomasochistic perversions" (celebration of "fundamentalist pornography"?) of the Iraqi Shi'ites during their days of mourning for Muhammud's grandson Hussein. In this case, I think, they would pretend not to disapprove of scenes like this, and instead speak in praise of freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Somehow I don't think any will risk it. Certainly not in such vindictive language.
Personally, Dr. Omed has no problem speaking out against the religious insanity of Shi'ites—or Hasidic Jews, or fundamentalist Hindus—in the most vindictive language I can think up. If I believed in God, I'd feel sorry for Him—with friends like that, who needs enemies? Religious Muslims don't just beat themselves with chains and hit themselves on the head with swords, they fly airliners full of people into tall buildings! For the love of God they do this! All for the love of God. Here's Dick:
There’s an awful lot of heat getting generated on an awful lot of blogs about Mel Gibson’s cinematic Fifth Gospel. Everything I’ve read so far – pace Doc Omed - is a.) negative & b.) written by zealots who haven’t seen the bloody film yet. And what a motley crew they are too, covering the waterfront from wall-eyed God-botherers to firebrand atheists. Well, as Oscar Wilde (or Samuel Johnson, Sam Goldwyn, Groucho Marx or Dorothy Parker) once remarked of a fool, “He’s not one to let ignorance get in the way of a firm opinion”. So there’s some amusement afforded by the spurious authority with which the film’s critics declare their judgements.
Personally, I don’t give a damn. I don’t have a good record on sitting through solemn cinematic dissections of holy writ, nor do I care much for films concerned with dissections of the more visceral kind. And it would seem from the advance reports that The Passion of The Christ is pretty active in both areas so (after a careful scrutiny of reviews written by critics who have sat through its entirety) I shall probably give it a miss.
However, the one aspect of this whole simmering debate that does strike me forcibly is the criticism levelled at the film for its apparent preoccupation with violence. Like the omnipresent depiction, pictorial & three-dimensional, of a man hanging from a cross with nails through his hands & feet with a hole in side inflicted by a centurion’s spear isn’t violent! For as long as painters & sculptors have represented the crucifixion, the graphic image of the ritualised torture of a man on a cross has been unsparingly visited upon the Western world. For century after century children & adults have had to make sense of the bleak pairing of a babe in arms characterising primal innocence & purity with an agonised ascetic stretched on a cross, mocked & taunted up to the moment of death. However the relatively sophisticated Christian might account for the journey between those two points & beyond, the bleakness of Christ’s passing & the obsessive attention to detail in word & visual image given to its depiction are part of our heritage. I would have thought it was a little late in the day for squeamishness concerning blood & pain, particularly from those who genuflect before Christ crucified each & every Sunday.
Dr. Omed is not one to let facts or factoids get in the way of a good rant or agit-prop; on the other hand, facts are fun things to fling about. Actually the thing that bothers me about what I've heard about The Passion of the Christ, is that Gibson presents his Passion as an accurate, factual portrayal and true cinema reenactment of the events recounted in the Gospel narrative, and furthermore presents the Gospels themselves as a single, unified, true account of what actually happened to Jesus; treats them as history and not historical documents written (and rewritten) by people with big agendas (just like Mel) decades after the event. We know very little about what actually happened to Jesus. The Gospels are not history, they are earnest fictions "based on a true story." They are not a unified narrative, they are cobbled together from different sources, they show their seams, and they contradict each other in significant ways. Mel, the revanchist Catlick, suborns and perverts modern biblical scholarship in the same way that today's shiny new creationists suborn and pervert science, in order to take his audience back to the gloomy gothis charnel house of the medieval Catholic Church—a passion play indeed.
Btw, Rob Salkowitz hasn't seen the Passion, and says, "Oh Jesus"
Help set off the Google Bomb—click all my passions.
9:50:18 PM 
|
|
