Replies

Not Pontius Pilate, the Roman in charge; he and his kindly wife are sympathetic characters

I could not continue past here. Pilate is not a sympathetic character, he is a despicable coward who suspects the truth but is concerned that Caesar will kill him if he doesn't control the populace. So, what the hell, he was scheduled to crucify two other Jews, why not make it three?

If Safire doesn't see this, then there is little use in reading further. He has seen what he wanted to see, not what was before his eyes like so many others. Such is life.

Not only that he does everything in his power to put the ultimate decision on someone else--by sending Jesus to Herod and washing his hands of his blood. Trying to absolve himself of responsibility to save his own hide. I didn't come away with sympathy for him at all. Even though I know the story, I keep yelling at him to do the right thing and as a typical politician he, of course, does not.

Thanks for the flag. Let's keep Safire and his ilk in our prayers.

=== He has seen what he wanted to see

This brings up my only serious problem with your review the other day: the title.

While the body of the piece made clear Gibson's was a profoundly meaningful work of art in the tradition of any human work which not only further informs those who know the story but communicates to those who don't, I was discomfited I guess by the sounding of the gramscian "art for art's sake" slogan.

It has not been by accident that for generations now we have been accustomed to the abstract, the ritual deconstruction of the human and the encouraging of an "to each his own" meaning where alleged works of art are concerned.

And -- just as the Gospels themselves have been politicized into social justice treatises ripe for a faithbased partnership with the state -- art has been dumbed down such that it's lost its transcendent, universal quality but instead is always now a vehicle for this or that "personal" value or "political" statement.

"Depends on your meaning of 'is' is."

This was one of the profound statements Clinton had or will ever make. It encapsulates the nut of the "art for art's sake" movement and reduces one of the most elegant and instantaneous mediums of human communication (art being second only to the math of music) to a Tower of Babel whose interior is but a hall of mirrors.

Thanks for the flag. Let's keep Safire and his ilk in our prayers.

=== He has seen what he wanted to see

This brings up my only serious problem with your review the other day: the title.

While the body of the piece made clear Gibson's was a profoundly meaningful work of art in the tradition of any human work which not only further informs those who know the story but communicates to those who don't, I was discomfited I guess by the sounding of the gramscian "art for art's sake" slogan.

It has not been by accident that for generations now we have been accustomed to the abstract, the ritual deconstruction of the human and the encouraging of an "to each his own" meaning where alleged works of art are concerned.

And -- just as the Gospels themselves have been politicized into social justice treatises ripe for a faithbased partnership with the state -- art has been dumbed down such that it's lost its transcendent, universal quality but instead is always now a vehicle for this or that "personal" value or "political" statement.

"Depends on what your meaning of 'is' is."

This was one of the profound statements Clinton had or will ever make. It encapsulates the nut of the "art for art's sake" movement and reduces one of the most elegant and instantaneous mediums of human communication (art being second only to the math of music) to a Tower of Babel whose interior is but a hall of mirrors.

I agree. Safire doesn't understand the movie at all. JEws tried to stand for Jesus at the trial and were thrown out. By far the most sympathetic characters of the movie, along with Christ, are the faithful Jewish women - Mary, MAry Magdalene, and the unidentified woman who gives Christ a cloth to wipe his face.