Oh, For Art's Sake! (The Passion)

Anna Zetchus Raetz

[AnnaZ]

 

 

Oh, For Art's Sake!

Anna Zetchus Raetz, Los Angeles

 

 

 

Somewhere in the midst of all of the hype that preceded the Passion's highly (or warily) anticipated opening, the subject of the debate was lost, and, sadly, no one noticed.

 

To its detractors, the first stage was pre-emptive, sprung whilst the film was still being shot. It was dismissed as too inaccessible -- dead languages, an uncomfortable-to-the-point-of-gruesome focus, dogmatic. Distributors balked.

 

Once distribution was guaranteed regardless, the spectre of Anti-Semitism was the next attempted, still attempting, dissuader. Is Mel a Holocaust Denier? "Who killed Jesus"? Blood libel! Is the script too literal or too mythical? Are the roots not too Biblical, but really the rantings of a Jew-hating hallucinogenic nun?

 

Lots of seemingly normal people still planned to see it.

 

Thus, stage three was the launching, still flying, of the "too violent"-"gory"-"barbaric"-"fetishistic" assault, unsuccessfully disguised as public service. This, frankly, was the more amusing of the accusations if only for the sheer audacity of its hypocrisy, considering the sources from whence these slams derived. (The only thing more naked was the New York Times' article regarding studio heads' plans to boycott Gibson forthwith, a shockingly unspun outburst.)

 

Still, people went and saw it, I among them, and Passion of the Christ had the biggest opening of an R-rated film. Ever. By a mile.

 

But due to the cacophony from both sides I now realize that I will not have seen it until I see it a second time, without their words ringing in my ears. And I strongly recommend the same to all.

 

As I exited the theatre after seeing it opening night, I was suffused with love for my fellow man and resolute in my philosophy that there is nothing of greater import than one's relationship with God, with one's Creator, and that, at the end of the day, it's between the individual and Jesus.

 

Here, the film said to me, here is this gift, do you accept it? And if you choose to accept the story just depicted then the only acceptable response to it, indeed the demand of it, is love. Accept it and arise, new, redeemed, golden, victorious. Decline and one's fate is that of the maggot-ridden ass, of Legion, dust and howls and bones. And all this demonstrated with very, very few words.

 

As I walked with friends and family down the street a sad anger aimed at the detractors began to build inside, an anger certain, though dulled by the depth of the experience.

 

Too narrow? It is the directive of the director's faith. Anti-Semitic? Almost every protagonist is Jewish. Too violent? Not, unfortunately, compared to reality. Too not what you'd prefer it would be? It is one artist's vision.

 

Too beautiful! The colors, the poses, the lighting, the emotion. A film -- neither agitprop nor absolution, but rather a moving tableau illustrating God's love for man, created by a man who loves God in return, with a dying world in between. Within the confines of Gibson's understanding he has touched the depths of that question that lives within us, that is answered daily in the complex and the banal, in the choices of the moment that craft the theme of a lifetime.

 

For this aspect, and this alone, some will love it and some will hate it and some will weep and some will be stunned and it needs to be seen again on its own worthy merits, for what it is, unperverted by the prism of anyone but one's self.

 

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:

for they are foolishness unto him:

neither can he know them,

because they are spiritually discerned.

    1st Corinthians 2:14

 

 

 

See it in the Spirit, see it in the flesh, but for a moment at least see it simply as art. Where is the discussion of the lighting, the performances, the camera work, the music, the vision? Mel Gibson's Passion of The Christ may very well be, so far, the 21st Century's Sistine Chapel, but the viewers will need to look up to see it. To be finally appreciated as such, The Passion will need to survive the boxes that people on both sides keep attempting to put it into. And thus has it always been for real, actual, art -- with the pious and the fashionistas, down the road, trying to convince all that they were there in the beginning.

 

For at the end of the day, this is art -- meditative, redemptive, devotional, powerful art -- because that was the gift of the director. The film is less a series of scenes and more a literally and figuratively moving mural of, objectively, an incredible story. It doesn't try to be a documentary, for which one should be grateful.

 

This week has been tough in Hollywood with the Oscars overshadowed by, of all things, a film that exalts the Lamb of God. The American Film Market is also currently in town, and the self-promoting and self-congratulating is reaching crescendo.

 

After seeing the movie a few of us went around the corner for a drink, to relax, ruminate. A man was hosting a party for himself -- posters for his movie all around, the flick itself projected onto the walls, postcard-sized headshots that read "For your consideration for work"...

 

After what we had just experienced it was a garish surreality. We chose to step back outside lest the resonance of the beauty we had experienced slip out of our grips as well.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dr. Zoo]

LOL

Har

[McGavin999]

Beautiful Anna. That is an angle I have not seen written before.

[Burkeman1]

Yes- I had the exact same thoughts- anger that I would be watching the film closely for any whiff of anti semetism. I would like to view it again with that nonsense issue being closed in my mind.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the comments. I have found it rather interesting when folks have talked about the incredible pre-release hype about this movie, as if Gibson and company were responsible for it. One guy refered to this as, 'pre-release promotion'. LOL

Gibson was forced into using focus groups who viewed the movie, to adjust the final product to one that wouldn't offend too many. When he did this, his willingness to try to work with concerned groups was completely dismissed, and refered to as pre-release hype.

[CounterCounterCulture]

I'll be seeing it Sunday for the first time.

[CounterCounterCulture]

Fancy seeing you here ;-)

[Dr. Zoo]

Gosh Anna...how profound fer sure.

:>)

Really, a fantaztic commentary!

You have done it again, kudos kiddo.

I am not going to see the movie, I saw it 30 years ago.

I pinged Syncro, I am sure he will have a comment too...LOL

BTW, Michelangelo Buonarroti was one of my grate inspirations to create Art, as was François Auguste René. 1840-1917.

His problem? He thunk too much...

[teresat]

Just an aside Askel but I haven't been on FRep for awhile and I miss your posts...

[teresat]

I didn't see any anti-semite in the film and I have seen it twice now. There was a group of rabbis on Greta Van Susterns show a couple of days ago that said that afte seeing the movie it had a lot of hooked jews in it and after I saw it for the second time I think there was only two people that I saw with hook noses. Hardly the outcry they were talking about.

[Burkeman1]

Your kidding? They said "hooked noses"? That is sad- the most Jewish "looking" character was Peter! He is about the only character in the film that could even come close to having a "hooked" nose! And who knows what Jews looked like 2000 years ago anyway? With all the mixing and melting that naturally occurs among peoples over thousands of years- Jews of today most likely look nothing like Jews of two millenia ago. I doubt the Irish of 2000 years ago looked anything like they are said to look now.

[AnnaZ]

By the 2nd hour of the movie I was in downright pain.

Try to think of it as having been, in some way, cross-carrying (s'posed to be done daily : ).

 

No WAY was I going to get up and miss something!

I didn't want to look away for a second. Until I had to.

 

: |

[Marauder]

I'd not be surprised that another attack will come.

The attacks will not stop until they find another target for their animosity.

Their rage has nothing to do with anti-semitism, nor violence, nor anything other than their problems with the fact that this film acknowledges that Jesus is indeed the Son of God. Their secularist nature doesn't allow them to accept that, as well as the fact that one principle tenet of secularist doctrine is to undermine the trusted institutions of society whenever possible. Thus the movement for homosexual marriage, when not a one of them gives a damn about marriage beyond its destruction as an institution.

These people have been carrying on this fight for decades, with the libertines of the 60s now in power in industry, education, entertainment, and the media. The question is: What are we traditionalists going to do about this campaign? We might have them outnumbered, but too many of us are still asleep.

[baseballmom]

You have written a beautiful review. Thanks for taking the time and effort. It makes a difference.

[Burkeman1]

As a Catholic I highly identified with this film and it's near scene for scene matching of the Stations of the Cross that can be found in any Catholic Church and the recitation of The Passion. The Passion plays a central role in Catholic faith. Just curious - do Protestant Christians place the same emphasis on Holy Week and especially Good Friday as Catholics do?

[AnnaZ]

Probably one of the most magnificent works of Christian art we've had in some time ... particularly given the rank ugliness of most churches, the desacralization of sanctuaries, and the "modern art" ritual deformation and vivisection of the human being.

All I could think of as I thought of the critics' faux outrage was "meathook art", lik that flayed cow exhibit that made the rounds. And they give it grants.

 

One heads up even three or four viewings probably wouldn't have allowed me to notice: Jesus responds to Pilate in Latin. Nice touch, I thought.

I actually caught that, odd considering I know neither language. I will probably see it probably three times in the theatre, something I've never done before, the third time on Holy Thursday. Hopefully by then I'll be able to ignore the subtitles altogether. 

 

Blessings!

[AnnaZ]

I also had listened to too many reviews and read too many articles.

I have never read so many reviews and editorials about a single film before. And still I read on, add, even, to the din.

 

: |

 

Do you think the sleeping giant has awakened?

There's hope. The Blue-zone elitists overplayed their hand on this one, I think.

[Dr. Zoo]

Thanks for the ping, AnnaZ

Dr. Zoo pinged me too.

Oh BTW, Dr. Zoo that is the same as Auguste Rodin.

Don't cornfuze people.

The Palace of the Legion of Honor in San Francisco is a grate place to see Rodin and Michelangelo's works.

[AnnaZ]

Yikes, I have a host of typos in that post... sorry, too many distractions in this place.

[GeorgiaYankee]

Great article!

I too, need to see it again, to experience the film without filtering it through the negative spin.

Plus, it's like voting for it twice!

[freekitty]

"As I exited the theatre after seeing it opening night, I was suffused with love for my fellow man and resolute in my philosophy that there is nothing of greater import than one's relationship with God, with one's Creator, and that, at the end of the day, it's between the individual and Jesus."

This is the truth.