If You Criticize Mel, You're Criticizing Jesus
What can I say about Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ that hasn't already been said?
Nothing.
But I have read at least 6231 "reviews" done by conservative pundits, and can distill them for you: the movie isn't (overtly) anti-Semitic; it is, however, very violent, being centered on Christ's physical suffering -- and watching 100 minutes of Christ being scourged, beaten, battered, etc., makes an emotional impact on the viewer. Oh, and every conservative in North America is required to see the film in order to prove that he or she is on the side of religion over secularism, goodness over immorality, and conservatism over those liberal smarty-pants who think they're better than us.
So, I just want to remind people that IT'S JUST A MOVIE.
For a very interesting and well-researched piece about how the film is being used as a touchstone in a culture war, see David Neiwert.
And for an example of how the movie is being presented as more than a movie, see It's open season on Christianity, the latest column by 15-year-old Kyle Williams.
Under the guise of "reviewing" and "opining" on a movie, it's been a field day for any bigot to take a free swing at Jesus. Coupled with that and their disgust at the idea of Christ's passion being brought out into the public eye, the passion against "The Passion" has flooded newspapers and various media outlets.
I think I'm at least as widely read as Kyle, and I haven't seen any mainstream (or even second-string) reviewers or opiners taking swings at Jesus. While Kyle does provide selected portions of a few reviews in order to outrage his readers with the calumny the "bigots" are directing at the film, none of his examples are about Jesus bashing, but are just criticisms of aspects of the film or of Gibson's marketing of the film.
It all started with the ardent criticism of Mel Gibson, his family and his film by some Jewish groups, claiming anti-Semitism. It was rather puzzling to see a group of people attack Christianity, the Jewish faith's closest friend, under the excuse of "The Passion of the Christ."
Um, no. It all started with Mel claiming that he was defending himself against "any Jewish people" who might attack the film. Nobody had. Nobody cared about his film back then. And later, when Jewish groups finally did object to the film, they were OBJECTING TO THE FILM, not attacking Christianity.
Frank Rich wrote an op-ed in the New York Times, fanatically bashing Mel Gibson, his faith, his family, movie and expressing his opposition to anything of which Gibson has been a part.
No, he didn't "fanatically bash" Mel Gibson (just regularly bashed him). And Rich didn't bash Christianity, he just made a few snarky comments about Mel's religion, a break-off from Catholicism which believes that Kyle is not going to heaven. Oh, and Rich said nothing about any member of Mel's family except Mel's father, the Holocaust denier. And I don't recall Rich expressing opposition to many things which Gibson has been part of, such as Chicken Run. And Kyle doesn't point out that Mel struck back at Rich, saying he wanted Rich dead, his dog dead, and his intestines on a stick, which sounds a lot more fanatical than anything Rich ever said.
Anyway, no bashing of Christianity in Rich's column. I wonder if Kyle actually read it, or just read about it from other outraged anti-secular "Christians."
Kyle's other examples of "bigots" attacking Christianity are all just movie reviews: Per Kyle, Salon gave the movie a "terrible review," and said the 3 major religions "should worried about its impact." The Newsweek reviewer "compared the film with pornography and rape" (in that the long, sustained depiction of the torture of Christ gave him the same feeling as watching the real-time depiction of rape in the film Irreversible). Christopher Hitchens "says the film was marketed toward the 'gay Christian sado-masochistic community,'" (because the focus on whipping seemed to reflect an S&M esthetic). Kyle concludes his run-down of movie criticism thusly: "It's interesting how general condemnations of Christianity can be excused under the banner of 'entertainment review.'"
But, I still can't see where anybody actually condemned Christianity. But to Kyle, a criticism of the film IS a criticism of Christ. Kyle is young, and so can be forgiven making that mistake of the emotionally immature: believing that a criticism of something he likes is a criticism of Kyle himself. It's not. This is JUST A FILM. And Mel is NOT THE CHRIST, and so it's not blasphemy to object to his marketing plan or his movie. Sure, Mel seems to be telling you otherwise, but that IS blasphemy. I wish Kyle's elders would realize this too.
In a letter to WorldNetDaily one "M.W." says that he or she will not be seeing the film because it's "a graven image," in that it's a "likeness" of Jesus, and we aren't supposed to be making images of Him.
Okay, I don't believe that the second commandment actually forbids us from making or watching movies that depict Christ, but I do think that if we start worshipping the movie instead of Christ, that we are indeed breaking this commandment. And confounding the movie with Christ himself is also a way of breaking this commandment, I believe. And like "M.W" sort of pointed out, there is way more to Christ than that he got beat up really bad, and so claiming that this IS Christianity is also a form of idolatry, since it takes us away from Christ Himself.
So, enjoy movies responsibly, or I'm not going to let you kids watch them anymore.
3:59:28 AM 
|
