Friday, March 05, 2004
The Passion of the Christ
I have not viewed this movie yet. Part of me wants to refuse on the grounds that I am not a big fan of gratuitous violence, and that people whose writings and opinion I respect tell me to run away.
But with all the polemic going on from both sides, I am tihinking I may need to go to see for my own self.
Example of the Anti-Passion side from Slate:
You're thinking there must be something to The Passion of the Christ besides watching a man tortured to death, right? Actually, no: This is a two-hour-and-six-minute snuff movie—The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre—that thinks it's an act of faith. For Gibson, Jesus is defined not by his teachings in life—by his message of mercy, social justice, and self-abnegation, some of it rooted in the Jewish Torah, much of it defiantly personal—but by the manner of his execution.
Example of the Pro-Passion side from Time:
In dramatizing the torment of Jesus' last 12 hours, he has made a serious, handsome, excruciating film that radiates total commitment. Few mainstream directors have poured so much of themselves into so uncompromising a production. Whatever the ultimate verdict on Gibson's Passion, it's hard not to admire Gibson's passion. Or his artistry.
Another review that I found useful, which came as a surprise to me, was that of Roger Ebert at the Chicago Sun-Times: Ebert's Review of "The Passion". I am usually shaking my head after an Ebert review, if I even bother to read them, as he and I usually disagree and I find his reasoning pretty skewed.
So, I need to deicde if I want to subject myself to this. I know my students will be asking me about it... but is it worth 2:07 of being assaulted with such imagery?
01:20 PM in Film
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cba0453ef00d83425602253ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Passion of the Christ:
Comments
I haven't seen the film myself, nor do I intend to. Mainly because I don't care for the imagery to be stuck in my head. An interesting thing I heard on the radio this morning, which seems a bit ironic, considering your choice of pro-passion quotes on how Gibson poured himself into the film, is not about the film itself, but about the projected revenues.
The film is estimated to bring in roughly 600+ million dollars, which Gibson himself, as actor and producer, is expected to pocket 300+ million. Who wouldn't pour himself into an acting role for that kind of money?
Posted by: Keith at Mar 5, 2004 2:07:03 PM
I MIGHT go see it, but what I don't want to subject myself to is the wailing and crying of the other patrons that this movie evidently elicits. Perhaps we could see it together, Moose. As an intellectual experiment, if nothing else.
Posted by: Kirk at Mar 5, 2004 7:20:25 PM
I think a lot of this boils down to whether or not you are a person of faith. For christians/catholics/anyone else who holds Jesus' crucifixion as atonement for their sins, this movie couldn't be more poignant or important to see. It's a visual reminder of the biblical account that can be so easily glossed over and taken for granted. Seeing the blood, the torture, the humiliation, the pain that accompanies a crucifixion (especially of an innocent who came with nothing but love in His heart) will allow these people to SEE what happened. Panning the camera away from most of the violence would let these people of faith gloss over the simple fact that the son of God was beaten, tortured, and killed for THEM. IMO the depictions are necessary for the film to truly have this desired impact.
Posted by: Izzy at Mar 6, 2004 12:29:35 PM
I am a person of faith. I have preached as a lay person, as well as taught Sunday School to teenagers. I am very familiar with the Scriptures, and have studied the Gospels multiple times. I am also an educator and understand the concept of the "Object Lesson".
I am waiting to make any personal opinions until I have watched the film. I'll report back then.
Posted by: Doc at Mar 6, 2004 5:23:48 PM
Doc,
I don't know if I would call the violence gratuitous in this case. I'm sure Gibson could have gotten by with less graphic violence, but IMHO, I don't think it would have had the same impact on viewers. I am not a Christian, so the movie did not affect me as it did others, although I do think it was very powerful. I say go see it, but do be prepared because it can get rough.
Posted by: Howard at Mar 6, 2004 5:49:13 PM
Time out.
No offense meant with my comment Keith, I was not in any way questioning your religious credentials nor did you need to list them man. I was just giving some insight as to why the film is as graphic as it is without assuming that everyone interested in watching it is a christian. IMO it's not just for shock value, it has a purpose.
...all in love amigo.
Posted by: Izzy at Mar 6, 2004 7:41:08 PM
Izzy,
No offense taken. Honestly. I am simply giving some background into who I am and from where I am coming. I've been getting the impression from what I've been reading (via the mainstream press and the pundits on the web) that there seems to be some acrimony coming from the more conservative "believers" about this. As if they are setting "The Passion" up to be some sort of a litmus test for the faithful: i.e. if you don't walk out of the screening having had a Damascus road experience and then use the movie as an opportunity to evangelize, there is something wrong with you.
Again, this is all been brewing in my head for a few days and will not be "fit to serve" until I have watched the film. It also has something to do with the direction I believe this country is going in. Lot of hateful rhetoric out there for people who don't believe in the same things as the haters.
So, again Izzy, no offense taken (or implied). I appreciate your comments. I wrote what I did in my last comment partly in response to what you wrote, but mostly because I wanted to let people know what my background was.
Posted by: Doc at Mar 6, 2004 8:20:21 PM
