Jim Caviezel portrays Jesus in 'The Passion of The Christ' (courtesy Icon Distribution)
Posted on 02/25/2004 9:36:56 AM PST by blake6900
'THE PASSION': JUDGMENT DAY
Violent film lovers
suddenly sensitive
Critics who praised decapitations
in 'Gladiator' blast Gibson movie
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Many reviewers of Mel Gibson's film are displaying a "New Puritanism," condemning "The Passion of the Christ" for being too violent while lauding other violent films, charged a Catholic leader.
"Having failed to tag the movie as anti-Semitic, those who hate everything about Mel's masterpiece are trying to convince the public not to see it because it's too violent," says Catholic League president William Donohue.
"Alas, there is a New Puritanism in the land," he said. "Violence has now joined cigarettes as the new taboo."
Jim Caviezel portrays Jesus in 'The Passion of The Christ' (courtesy Icon Distribution) |
Gibson's controversial film about the last 12 hours of Jesus' life opens today.
Donohue points to New York Daily News reporter Jami Bernard, who voted the "super-violent" film "Gladiator" the best picture of 2000, but brands Gibson's film "a compendium of tortures that would horrify the regulars at an S&M club."
Yet, Donahue says, Bernard is "a big fan of the Marquis de Sade – the pervert who wrote the book on S&M – and that is why she liked 'Quills.'"
Reviewer Peter Rainer, the Catholic leader noted, also condemns "Passion" for delving into "the realm of sadomasochism," yet commended director Steven Spielberg for the "gentleness" he brought to the bloody war hit "Saving Private Ryan."
Richard Corliss of Time, he noted, thinks the only people who will be drawn to Gibson's film are those "who can stand to be grossed out as they are edified."
Yet, said Donahue, Corliss called the "body halvings, decapitations, [and] unhandings" of "Gladiator" a "pleasure that we get to watch."
 Critics praised violence by 'Gladiator' Russell Crowe (courtesy Universal Studios) |
Newsweek's David Ansen says "The Passion" will "inspire nightmares," though he hails as "a must-see" movie a film about incest, "The Dreamers."
David Denby of the New Yorker cites "The Passion" as being so violent it "falls into the danger of altering Jesus' message of love into one of hate."
Says Donahue: "This is the same guy who said of 'Schindler's List' that 'the violence [is] neither exaggerated nor minimized."
"The New Puritans will not win this one," Donahue said. "The public does not share their deep-seated aversion to religion nor their phony pacifism."
A New York Times review today by A.O. Scott says Gibson "has constructed an unnerving and painful spectacle that is also, in the end, a depressing one."
The review says, "It is disheartening to see a film made with evident and abundant religious conviction that is at the same time so utterly lacking in grace."
"What makes the movie so grim and ugly is Gibson's inability to think beyond the conventional logic of movie narrative," charges the critique.
In a scathing review in the Boston Globe, James Carroll says the subject of the film is the "sick love of physical abuse, engaged in for power."
"'The Passion of the Christ' by Mel Gibson is an obscene movie," says Carroll to open his critique. "It will incite contempt for Jews. It is a blasphemous insult to the memory of Jesus Christ. It is an icon of religious violence."
David Edelstein, film critic for Slate.com says: "This is a two-hour-and-six-minute snuff movie — The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre — that thinks it's an act of faith."
He concludes with: "Gibson's Jesus reminded me of the Terminator — he could be the Christianator — heading out into the world to spread the bloody news. Next stop: the Crusades."
In contrast to these reviews, the many Protestant and Catholic leaders who have screened rough cuts of the film over the past several months have praised it as the most powerful cinematic treatment of the subject they have ever seen.
Those films stood as indictments against our society and everything wrong with it...at least as far as liberals were concerned. To them, when religion is thrown into the mix, it becomes a different issue. Socialists/Communists cannot let religion get in the way of "progress". Hence we end up with nonsense like no prayer in school, no God in the Pledge, no Jesus in the movies.
Mao Tse Tung and his buddies had to have a Culture Revolution in China before their control was complete. To liberals, secularism is only the beginning...and as we all know, the liberal credo is, "The end justifies the means". In this case they find fault with Gibson's movie because it's "anti-Semitic" or "too violent". They use these excuses because saying it's too "Jesus" would be exceedingly blatant. But we know what they mean.
To the Jews complaining, what they'd really like to say is, "We didn't believe he was the Messiah then and we don't believe he's the Messiah now." But that would be politically incorrect. So they play the tried and true "anti-Semitic" card. But it's just a mask to hide what they really think.
You need to add "And don't you believe it either..."
And here's something else to consider in this matter. More than one of the movie critics railing against The Passion has charged that the movie will cause anti-semitic violence. Do these same critics blame Martin Scorcese's Taxi Driver for causing John Hinckley to shoot Ronald Reagan? Do they blame Oliver Stone for the Natural Born Killers copycat killings? Do they blame the Jackass producers for the dozens of kids hurt while emulating the movies' stunts? I haven't seen any of them say so.
Wow! Thanks for the your insight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.