This (overly-panned) movie screamed Peretti-inspired:
And it's from Icon!
Posted on 02/29/2004 10:02:28 AM PST by Eva
Leonard Pitts Jr. / Syndicated columnist The 'Passion' of Mel: an exclusionary tale
Search archive
"This is my body, which is given for you." — Luke 22:19
The woman on my left watched through a latticework of fingers, a tissue catching her tears. The man on my right made sounds of wordless dismay. On the screen below us, Jesus, a carpenter turned itinerant rabbi, was being brutalized and put to death.
It happened 2,000 years ago on a mountain called Calvary. It is happening again in multiplexes around the country. "The Passion of the Christ," produced and directed by Mel Gibson, is the most controversial film in recent memory, both embraced and feared for its graphic recounting of the killing of Jesus. Some Jews think it revives old libels about Jewish blame for the crime. So they regard the movie with trepidation.
Consider a critic interviewed on the radio the day the film came out. Though usually a straightforward reviewer, she kept demurring about "The Passion," insisting that people would have to "find their own answer." She did fault the movie for emphasizing the bloody death of Jesus over His message of "love and faith."
The phrase struck me because it seemed strangely generic. A moment later, the woman mentioned that she is Jewish, and I understood both her inability to be more specific and her evident discomfort.
One of the radio anchors asked if she found the movie anti-Semitic. She said yes.
I'm hesitant to contradict her. A little over a year ago, when Trent Lott said a racially incendiary thing, it irked me to hear his fellow senator, Bill Frist, assure the nation that his colleague was not a racist. One middle-age white guy vouching for the racial blamelessness of another was hardly the most ringing endorsement.
Similarly, as someone who'll never experience anti-Semitism, I don't know that I have standing to say there's none in Gibson's movie. But I didn't see any. And anybody making that charge will have to go some to convince me.
Which is not to say I'm without empathy for the fears expressed by some in the Jewish community. To the contrary, those fears offer a visceral and poignant reminder of how tenuous a thing acceptance can be, how fierce a grip history can have. Jews have made inroads into the nation's mainstream to a degree that would have been unimaginable 50 years ago. Yet even in the midst of that success, they live with this constant nugget of fear, this need to be on guard, lest acceptance erode and yesterday's nightmares come roaring back.
I can relate.
But there's something critics of "The Passion," Jewish and otherwise, are missing. Namely, that this movie — there's no delicate way to say this — was not made for them — or for that matter, for Muslims or atheists. It is deliberately exclusionary to a degree I've seldom seen. You didn't have to be Jewish to get "Schindler's List" or black to get "Roots." Being those things might have deepened your appreciation, but they were not necessary.
To understand "The Passion," though, you need at least familiarity with the four Gospels and, ideally, faith in them. The movie does not concern itself with back story; it assumes that you come to it with a certain body of knowledge.
Otherwise, all you will see is a man being hit over and over and over again, such extravagantly brutal torture that you cringe and pray for it to be done. But it never is. There is always another blow, a fresh gout of blood.
If you know the Gospels, however, you might see something more than violence. You might see the embodiment of Christ's message. Which was not simply "love and faith" but redemption, ransom, sacrifice, the willingness to take upon himself, upon his body, punishment for all the sins of humankind.
I'll leave it to others to argue whether it makes sense to exclude so many people. I will only say that within its narrow confines, "The Passion" is a work of shattering immediacy and devastating power.
Its point is not that the blood of Christ is on the Jews but rather, that it is upon us all.
Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr.'s e-mail address is: lpitts@herald.com
Copyright 2004, The Miami Herald
You hit a bullseye with that one! His books are written in such a style that they beg to be turned into movies - visually descriptive along with being captivating stories. This Present Darkness would make an extra-ordinary screenplay.
Maybe with Gibson's success with The Passion of The Christ, studios may become more willing to "take a risk" with something more "Christian" in nature.
One can only hope....
What? A "white guy" can't have an objective opinion on the racial blamelessness of another white guy.
How is the author of this artcile not making a racist remark?
What are you trying to say?
Personally I know of two people who've decided they want to learn more about the Jesus they didn't know of before seeing this movie. There's something else that's been quite interesting to learn. I have two very well-educated friends, one a Ph.D and one with a Masters, who believed it was a scientifically documented fact that Jesus wasn't an historical figure. I had no idea this belief was so entrenched in our culture until my friends saw this movie. From our subsequent discussions, they have absolutely no idea where they learned their belief that even the mere existance of Jesus has been proven to be fiction. Now they want to know why. It's an important question, I think.
Yes and no. The author is implying that it's Gibson's fault in a way that the movie is exclusionary. He says, "To understand "The Passion," though, you need at least familiarity with the four Gospels and, ideally, faith in them. The movie does not concern itself with back story; it assumes that you come to it with a certain body of knowledge." Yes, Gibson could have included more of a back story, but then his movie would have been a lot longer. The increasing secularization of American culture has contributed to this lack of knowledge, so it's not Gibson's fault here.
My original point was more of a general one about how Hollywood excludes half the voting population from its movies, and they never get called on it. I can name exactly one sympathetic character in recent years who was a Republican -- Ralph Fiennes' character in "Made in Manhattan." And even then, he was more of a RINO anyway.
There's a lot of movies that assume a certain mindset on the part of the audience. That doesn't excluded the excluded from seeing, commenting, and even getting something out of it. But that does change the viewpoint.
I spent some time as a music reviewer on folk-music website. As a libertarian/conservative, a lot of folk music did not appeal to my beliefs, but I taught myself (successfully, I think) to learn to recognize good music of a style and/or politics I didn't care for. I think I can apply the same thinking to this movie, if I see it.
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.