Gibson transcends electronic medium with a passion
The Australian ^ | March 4, 04 | Frank Devine
Posted on 03/04/2004 5:00:15 PM PST by churchillbuff
Gibson transcends electronic medium with a passion
March 05, 2004 IT'S gratifying to learn that Mel Gibson has got $US146 million ($194 million) back in a week from his $US40 million personal financing of The Passion of the Christ. The opening burst is from North America only. The picture hasn't yet been released in most parts of the world.
One reason for my interest in the money-spinning side of Gibson's risky venture - when others are more high-mindedly concerned with its religious and cultural aspects - is simple mean-spiritedness. It's one in the eye for The New York Times.
After a year of breaking its back and its principles, first to prevent the movie getting a showing, and then to condemn it as encouraging anti-Semitism and being faithless to the scriptural record, the Times published a spiteful little story last week under the headline, "New movie may harm Gibson's career".
It quoted two Hollywood studio chiefs saying, in effect, that Mel would never eat lunch in this town again. They would, themselves, never do business with him.
Hollywood being Hollywood and shareholders being shareholders, it's hard to credit studio heads black-balling a maker of (conceivably) a billion- dollar movie. According to The Los Angeles Times, Gibson avoided the Oscar ceremonies this week, having been invited to attend as a presenter, because he was afraid of being booed.
If this was really the reason for his absence, Mel should probably have taken his chances. Hollywood being Hollywood, a take of $US125 million in the first week would have caused an awful lot of boos to catch in the throat. It may well be in my nature to linger over the coarsely materialistic aspects of Gibson's success against the odds, but there is no question that there are other, far more powerful benefits in Passion's securing a large audience.
Consider that the nine other movies in the present top 10 US box office winners are: 50 First Dates, Twisted (of the serial killer genre), Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights, Miracle (about the victory of the 1980 American Olympic ice hockey team over the Russians), Eurotrip (teenage sex comedy), Welcome to Mooseport (political farce), Barbershop 2 and Broken Lizard's Club Dread (yet another slasher horror flick spoof).
Since I have seen none of them, it would be impetuous to dismiss them as gunk, though I don't believe the danger of error is high. However, every one of these pictures - with their plot synopses a pretty reliable guide - is the work of a collective of marketers, money changers, publicists, opinion pollsters and studio chiefs steeped in cynicism.
Gibson's picture, by contrast, is a work of personal inspiration. Its success at the box office may erode the hegemony of the depraved collective, especially as it provides far less leeway for rip-off imitation than other successful movies of originality and individuality.
Then there is the matter of accusations against The Passion of fostering anti-Semitism. Writing with transparent honesty (unlike some of his colleagues) in The New York Times, William Safire asserts that Gibson searches in the movie for someone to blame for Jesus's tortures, and settles on the Jews.
I am entirely unable to share this perception. The high priest Caiphas is depicted as villainous, a cruel, power-seeking political schemer.
But a considerable number of dissenters in the Jewish leadership are shown being brutally silenced by Caiphas's claque.
As others have pointed out, all the good people in the picture are Jews. In a telling scene, a Roman soldier uses "Jew!" as an insult against the noble Simon of Cyrene, who helps Jesus carry his cross and tries to protect him from the clubs and whips of the soldiers.
A large audience, I think, ensures a greater plurality against the evil foolishness of attributing Caiphas's wickedness to others. Finally, I need to turn to the personal to make the most important point about Gibson's movie.
It's always been my feeling that religious belief belongs to one's inner life, nurtured and strengthened during a lifetime of experience, observation and contemplation. Externalities just provide the scaffolding. On the other hand, religion has inspired all forms of art through all the generations, and religious art stirs the emotions.
Sometimes it brings tears, not for Jesus, because his suffering and death are awesome, but for the frail human beings in his company. For poor Judas. For Peter, bravely following Jesus to his place of trial, and then devoting the rest of his life to expiating his failure of nerve under direct threat. For the women who followed Jesus to Calvary.
Until now, the new mediums - moving pictures with sound, electronically transmitted - have for the most part resisted depiction of transcendent concepts.
Gibson may have drawn the first sketchy explorer's map. The Passion of the Christ is a true work of art, and enters the inner life.
This movie is going to do nothing less than change the direction of Hollywood.
Until now, the new mediums - moving pictures with sound, electronically transmitted - have for the most part resisted depiction of transcendent concepts.
Gibson may have drawn the first sketchy explorer's map. The Passion of the Christ is a true work of art, and enters the inner life.
Beautiful and true.