The early reviews of Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ are in, and as expected, they fall on the ends of the spectrum without much representation in the middle.
Some of the comments are interesting. Most of the pans are because the reviewers were uncomfortable with the movie's violence, but I am sure that it is not the violence per se, but the fact that the film's violence flies in the face of out culture's desire to view Jesus as a gentle moral teacher. From the above article:
Newsweek's David Ansen said, "Relentlessly savage, 'The Passion' plays like the Gospel according to the Marquis de Sade. The film that has been getting rapturous advance raves from evangelical Christians turns out to be an R-rated inspirational movie no child can, or should, see. To these secular eyes at least, Gibson's movie is more likely to inspire nightmares than devotion."
I don't understand this criticism; it is no secret that the film is R-rated and no-one is suggesting that children should see it. However, much more important that whether one wants to think of Jesus as having died a horrible death is in fact whether he actually did. No one in their right mind would look at the pictures of mass graves and victims of the holocaust and criticize them because they made them feel uncomfortable--that is, in fact, the point of seeing them. The revulsion one feels is necessary for a proper understanding of the events themselves.
The film Gladiator (best picture 2001) graphically depicted the violence that Rome inflicted on its subjects and it did not generate the emotional reaction that this film has. But there is an offensiveness inherent in the story of Jesus, and this movie tells that story. The only difference between this and other attempts is a large budget and modern, sophisticated filmmaking. This has predictably amplified the offensiveness that the story of Jesus has always incited: if Jesus was who he said he was (and if he is who Mel Gibson believes he is), then why did he have to die like that?
Posted by Matthew Pearson at February 23, 2004 09:20 PM | TrackBackActually, there are people who are taking their children to see it. On a Christian message board I go to sometimes, people have mentioned their plans to take kids as young as 10 ("if it bothers him, he can cover his eyes"), and according to my local paper, there were kids who were at the showing that one of the churches here sponsored last night.
Personally, I almost think that it should have been rated NC-17 to make up for bad judgement on the part of parents of young kids.
Posted by: kathryn at February 24, 2004 01:23 PMLooks like Andy Rooney's in a bit of trouble over his comments about this film... what a moron that guy is.
Posted by: andy at February 25, 2004 02:26 AMInteresting Katheryn. I suppose because that might be because Christians are not used to discriminating what content is appropriate for different age groups. For some reason, we have defined appropriateness across all age groups (calling it "family friendly"). We have also, in some ways, toned down some of the graphic nature of the Bible in our teaching. So it should not be a surprise that a movie about Jesus makes it difficult for some to determine its appropriateness for some audiences based on the paradigm we have developed for determining the appropriateness of movies in general. Nevertheless, I should have said that the filmmakers did not intend for this movie to be seen by children, and despite the bad judgment of some parents, violence alone in films does not incite the kind of offense that this one has generated. I believe that the story, not the violent scenes, is the true source of most of the offense that goes beyond what one would expect for any other violent film.
Posted by: Matthew at February 27, 2004 10:09 AMI think this problem must be disscussed in offline. Or ICQ....
Posted by: t-shirts-man at April 6, 2004 02:21 AM>>I believe that the story, not the violent scenes, is the true source of most of the offense that goes beyond what one would expect for any other violent film.
I think you have a point, Matt. Many of the critics prejudged the film.
At the same time I think that Kathryn has a point, too. Many children were being taken to see the film, and many churches were buying tickets in bulk so people could take their whole family, including children, to the film.
So, you're both correct.
As is generally the case, the movie is pretty good; but the book is better.
Posted by: David at April 26, 2004 10:19 PMi love the movie i thought it was great. and any one who thinks different is stupid....
Posted by: kayla at April 28, 2004 01:56 PM