Passion II – This Time It’s Personal
Not long ago I wrote a scathing criticism of Mel Gibson and his controversial movie The Passion of the Christ. I began my remarks with a confession: I hadn’t actually seen it. The day after I published those remarks my sense of fairness kicked in and I had to admit that I should either give the movie a chance or shut the hell up. So last night, accompanied by movie industry insider* Sam Phelps, I finally went to see it.
And now after having seen the movie I want you to know that I stand by every single word of what I wrote before. Some will say this can only mean that I was biased about the movie to begin with. And that’s true. I admit it. How could I possibly deny it, seeing as how I lambasted the thing without having first seen it? I maintain on my honor, however, that I went into the theater willing to change my mind. I was perfectly willing to find something redeeming in this movie.
But I didn’t find it. And in truth, I do have a bias. You see, even if Mel Gibson had made a less violent and less controversial movie about Jesus and his message I would still be no big fan of it. Why? Because I’m not a fan of the Christian message. I’m a staunch atheist. That’s my bias. Thus, even a “feel-good” Jesus movie would be unlikely to warm this audience member’s heart.
With that confessed, let me try to sum up my views on Gibson and his movie with a series of questions and answers:
Q: Is this movie excessively violent?
A: Yes. Apparently Gibson thinks that Jesus’ suffering and death has to have superhuman proportions to be meaningful. As if the amount of pain he endured has to arithmetically somehow equal the sins of all of the world. I always understood the theological significance of the Passion was the fact that he died willingly, and not the amount of suffering he endured.
Q: Is this movie anti-Semitic?
A: Yes. As I mentioned before Gibson can be forgiven for not correcting the unfortunate biases of the gospel writers, but he needlessly and blatantly embellishes them. There is no biblically supported reason for doing this. Nobody with any sensitivity to the fact that since the dawn of Christianity millions of Jews have been persecuted and murdered over this issue would make a film with this inexplicable emphasis. Why would Gibson embellish the already damning (and probably untrue) gospel account if not to deliberately cast Jews in the most negative light possible? Why would he want to do this unless he, you know, doesn’t like them?
Q: Is there a legitimate Christian message in this film?
A: Yes. The idea that Jesus sacrificed himself willingly, carried the entire burden of all our sins, is present in this movie. Very little screen time is devoted to this idea, however, and it’s hard to find amidst all the blood and needless violence. Not that I care, anyway. I’m an atheist and a bright so this message means nothing to me. (And stop cringing every time I say that! I mean there’s more than 29 million Americans who are nonreligious. That’s over 14% of us! Or didn’t you know that?)
Q: Should I see this film?
A: No. Not unless you are the kind of devout Christian who would find a religious themed snuff film inspirational. Christians of the liberal or “nominal” varieties need not apply, trust me. The only other reason to see this film would be that you want to keep your cultural literacy chops up. After all, this is a movie everyone will be talking about for decades. You might want to see it just so you have a clear idea of what everyone’s talking about. Other than those two scenarios (devout Christian or cultural literacy) stay away. By my estimation that cuts out at least half of the moviegoing public. And please do not bring children to see this movie! The very idea that this movie is in some way “good for kids” is disgusting.
Q: Is there anything else you want to say about this movie?
A: Yes. I was struck by how Satan was portrayed. Specifically I found it odd that he was portrayed more sympathetically than some of the Jews! Seriously. Jesus was praying in Gethsemane. Satan appears. “Listen, Jesus,” he says. (I’m paraphrasing.) “Listen, Jesus. Do you really think one man can carry the entire burden of sin? That’s a whole lot to carry.” Me, I was thinking Satan has a point. It’s a lot of weight for one guy. Then as Jesus progresses through his bloody ordeal we catch eerie glimpses of Satan in the crowd. Near the end when Jesus dies we see Satan is pissed. Apparently he knows that the good guys won. Sin has been atoned for. Or something. And that’s pretty much it for Satan. Pretty evil, huh? Also, with regard to the overal level of violence and horror, I found the movie as a whole marginally less disgusting than Hannibal. Your mileage may vary
Q: Is Mel Gibson a kook**, or what?
A: Probably. He seems to think someone is conspiring against him, trying to keep him and his film and his message from reaching a mass audience. (Jews, i’ll bet!) He completely misses the astonishing irony here. I mean here he is, a guy who’s made millions in and risen to the top of an industry that is widely believed to be run by Jews. Then he makes a multi-million dollar anti-Semitic film and managed to get it into just about every theater in the world. I can only conclude that if there is an anti-Mel conspiracy it must be the most inept and ineffective one the world has ever known. Anyway, I said everything else I need to say about Mel in my previous remarks.
* Sam works at Blockbuster. He didn’t like the movie much either.
** Andy Rooney seems to prefer the term “wacko” but the idea is the same.
March 25th, 2004
I thought I was joking when I told you I’m skipping The Passion in the theater and waiting for the South Park parody. The wait is over. Kyle sees The Passion on the next episode of South Park.