Schrader 'Disturbed' by Gibson's Crucifixion Film (Last Temptation Screenwriter Pointing Fingers)

Reuters ^ | Tue, Mar 23, 2004 | Laith Abou-Ragheb

[presidio9]

LONDON (Reuters) - The Hollywood screenwriter behind the last controversial film about Christ says Mel Gibson (news)'s new film on the crucifixion is violent and disturbing.

"It's a well-made movie but it's very violent and infused with a great sense of self-flagellation,", screenwriter for "The Last Temptation of Christ," told Reuters.

Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," to be released with an adults-only certificate in Britain Friday, has been heavily criticized for its bloody portrayal of Christ's final hours.

A 56-year-old woman died of a heart attack in Wichita, Kan., last month while watching the film's climactic crucifixion scene.

Some Jewish groups even branded the film anti-Semitic, arguing that it revives old accusations that Jews bear collective responsibility for killing the Son of God.

Schrader's "Last Temptation," released in 1988 and directed by Martin Scorsese, was attacked by Christian groups for a brief scene in which Jesus is seen having sex with Mary Magdalene.

But the screenwriter, who penned such cinematic classics as "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull," distanced his film from Gibson's.

"They are two totally different movies," he said after giving a talk in London about his acclaimed career.

"My film was essentially a humanist story about the struggle to find God in which Christ is used as a metaphor," said Schrader, who was raised in a strict Calvinist household and studied theology.

"But screenings of Gibson's film have been more like evangelical meetings. The audience comes into the film with such a powerful belief system that they think they have a religious experience. It's quite an interesting and disturbing phenomenon," he said.

Gibson's film has been a huge success in the United States. According to studio estimates, it has earned more than $250 million since its Feb. 25 U.S. opening.

Shrader said the film would never have been made without the backing of a big star like Gibson.

"This is not the sort of film Hollywood likes," he said. "But Gibson was uniquely positioned to make it and he successfully tapped into a ready-made audience made up of conservative religious groups."

Gibson, who reportedly spent $25 million of his own money on the film, is a follower of a small traditionalist Catholic church that denies the legitimacy of Vatican decrees made since the mid-1960s.

[VRWC_minion]

i think the point scrader was making is that stylistically it was on a par with slasher movies.

You must of seen a different movie than I. The blood was no worse than what I see on TV watching police shows.

[presidio9]

Did you, by any chance, watch the PBS special on birth control last night?

[presidio9]

I don't disagree with you; at least I hope you don't think I was disagreeing with you

No, I understand that we are in agreement. I was expanding on your original point, that's all.

[Liz]

Clearly, there is a calculated, coordinated effort to demonize The Passion. The ragtag cadres of secular naysayers, dividers and rumor mongers are so transparent. They will do or say anything to denigrate the film.

They are a fascinating bunch and about as shallow as a teacup. They don't get it and they never will.

The Passion movie shines a magnificent light on a singular Life--a solitary Life that has impacted the world for centuries.

Believers are attracted to that light. Non-believers are repulsed.

But I'll force myself to be charitable (snicker)......if secularists in the Hollyweird-media axis don't perform for their liberal Masters by demonizing the film, they will lose their positions, their connections, and their invitations to A-list parties.

[cvq3842]

A very good point! Sad, but true.

Dr. King's civil rights struggle was not afraid to use moral authority to "get the point across." This may be one of very few recent examples.

[Skooz]

...the "violence" obsession is a creation of people who are dedicated to keeping people from seeing this movie. It emerged when the antisemitism charges didn't take.

Yep.

[cvq3842]

PS (not really on the same point, but worth saying somewhere)

What was really different, and refreshing, about this film was that it was not "ironic" or "subversive" in any way whatsoever, as many current films are. It was very simple: telling the story of the last twelve hours of Jesus's life on Earth, as accurately as possible and without embellishment. No sweeping "revisionism" or modernistic twists. Twenty-first century filmmaking was used to tell a story as it hs been told for 2,000 years.

Certainly I enjoy films which explore and invite us to think of the familiar in different ways. That kind of filmmaking has a rightful place. But surely there is room for Gibson's film as well!

[TopQuark]

Exactly right! True belief and even one's true and earnest effort at being a decent Christian or Jew are disturbing for them. It still amazes me (I know, I am naive) how direct these "post-Christians" and "secular Jews" are. In the paragraph you pointed to, Schrader openly says so --- and gets a pass from the interviewer, of course. This is not bigotry, you see: had he said something about Muslims, Jews or Gypsies --- that would've been a different story. But belittling Christianity is OK; one can do that with impunity now.

The Europeans can say all they want about Bush: that he lacks sophistication, subtlety, whatever else. But I believe the real reason they hate him and find him "disturbing" is that he is a Christian.

[7thson]

I saw the film a few weeks back and have come to a rather different conclusion. I believe that the majority of people who have seen The Passion have confused violent with brutal. To me, this movie was not violent but brutal, and it made me wince because - one - I now realize the brutal beating that Jesus endured and - two - I know that mankind brutal inhumanity to his fellow man is well documented throughout history, including the Old Testament.

[Green Knight]

That's a ridiculous analogy. It certainly isn't clever enough for it to be posted on half-a-dozen different threads, so can you please cut it out, already?

[Liz]

....the "violence" obsession is a creation of people who are dedicated to keeping people from seeing this movie. It emerged when the antisemitism charges didn't take.....

The secularist shock troops had their "orders." They emerged in full battle regalia to demonize The Passion anyway they could. The attacks descened to new lows of condescension.

The first foray had ADL Abe claim it was anti-Semitic. That didn't work. NYT's Frank Rich attacked next----said is was fascistic, as his NYT colleague Maureen Dowd said it was crass. That didn't work, either.

Andy Rooney bashed it on CBS and SNL evilly caricatured it on NBC. No soap, The Passion continued to break box-office records.

Newsweek's Evan Thomas told Imus it was a snuff film and so-called conservative Krauthammer lacerated the film. It was all in vain. Their credentials are badly tarnished while the film reaches new heights of popularity.

The Passion is still breaking box-office records domestically and globally, its movie memorabilia is flying off the shelves, the DVD will break records and so will the book about the movie.

[Taliesan]

Every time "the church" and "the synagogue" took a step back, it created vacuum. It is into this vacuum that the idealism you referred to stepped in. This utopian ideal took different forms but was always the same at the foundation: it replaced G-d in heaven with man-god. And, as Dostoyevsky pointed out, man-god is not bound by anything; man-god can march through the Earth and cover it in blood. It did --- in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, communist China... This march of idealism continues --- and only because we allow it to happen by not offering a strong MORAL alternative in the language understandable by most. We preach to the converted, the choir that is getting smaller and smaller...

The moral alternative to humanism is divine law. Humanists reject the concept outright.

You may argue quite fairly that the church has been a poor demonstration of the transformative power of the gospel, but let's not pretend that secular humanism does not consider revelation an execrable superstition, and that stance closes the secular ear to any moral alternative.

The response of the world to the message of God's love is: war. Unilateral war. They are not innocent of His blood, nor do they lack His emissary.

[Liz]

.....the crucifixion is violent and disturbing....... people who have seen The Passion have confused violent with brutal .......

When talking to a world that is hard of hearing, Mel had to use a very powerful megaphone.

[TopQuark]

No, I did not. What is interesting/telling?

[TopQuark]

Dr. King's civil rights struggle was not afraid to use moral authority to "get the point across." This may be one of very few recent examples.

A recent and GREAT example. Thanks, CVQ.

[weegee]

The media is still using that heart attack to blame this film as "evil" when it was an unrelated coincidence.

[lonevoice]

ping

[bereanway]

You're exactly right. The brutality that was depicted in The Passion points out the sinfulness of sin and how seriously God takes sin. That sin has very dramatic consequences which impact every last one of us is not tolerated well in our "enlightened" society. The belief that there is meaning to life is anathema to the nihilism which undergirds our post-modern culture.

[TravisBickle]

But the screenwriter, who penned such cinematic classics as "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull," distanced his film from Gibson's.

With my screen name, I feel obligated to weigh in:

Obvioulsy, I admire much of Shrader's work, but in this case, I disagree with him.

I believe a screenwriter, or director of a film attempts to express his point of view, or evoke a specific emotion through the story. They prefer to control the story. And Gibson's Passion is no different. In Mel Gibson's view, each wound represents Jesus' willingness to pay for our sins. That the film is so brutal, only points, in my mind anyway, that the sins of the world are many.

In Taxi Driver, Shrader used Travis Bickle as a flawed character who wished to rid the world of sin--and he became an accidental hero because of it. Some find that film quite disturbing.

Perhaps Shrader is disturbed about The Passion because it doesn't allow for the individual to create their own redemption. We are powerless, but God has all power. That idea can be either liberating or constricting, depending on your point of view.

I guess we know where Shrader's stands.

[Skooz]

The media is still using that heart attack to blame this film as "evil" when it was an unrelated coincidence.

I would be interested in the statistics of patrons having heart attacks during "Titanic," "Almost Famous," "El Cid." or "The Tigger Movie." I'll bet the numbers are consistent.