Morford: How To Gag On 'The Passion' (Gibson's brutal snuff film makes a mockery of true belief)

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Friday, April 16, 2004 | Mark Morford (they finally found the other gerbil)

[Odyssey-x]

Here's My earlier comment regarding the inability of these people to understand radical Islam due to their lack of understanding and contempt for religion.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1116844/posts?page=4#4

[Loyalist]

If it wasn't for the loyal readership at Free Republic, SFGate could not justify keeping Mark Morford on. He should get down on his knees and....well, let's just say he should be grateful we pay enough attention to mock him.

[presidio9]

I love the fact that Morford is so tormented by the success of this film that she is telling Christians to steal (buy a ticket to another show and sneak into the theatre) rather than purchase a ticket to see it.

[mhking]

From my site (http://mhking.blogspot.com/ this afternoon:

---

SF columnist wears his hatred for Christians on his sleeve

San Francisco Chronicle columnist Mark Morford vomits forth his own brand of hatred against The Passion of The Christ, now the 8th largest grossing motion picture of all time. Mind you, the film just opened in some nations (Austrailia most notably) this past weekend.

Perhaps you, furthermore, are more than slightly disturbed that millions have flocked to this bizarre ultraviolent blood-drenched revisionist flick and that so many actually believe its story to be absolutely true, and that it just surpassed "The Return of the King" in total box office and is the No. 8 most successful film of all time and it was No. 1 again across BushCo's flyover states during Easter weekend and has sold 650,000 books and 125,000 creepy pewter nail necklaces and you find it all just incredibly warped and disheartening and what the hell is the world coming to.

You are not alone.

I have seen the movie. I have endured the spectacle so you don't have to. Here, then, are some counterthoughts. Nine random points of spiritual contention and pointy perspective check, a small pile of juicy karmic stones to toss at the next utterly depressing screening of 'The Passion' and perhaps at Mel Gibson's very sad and deeply tormented ego.

Why? Because he deserves it. Why? Because this is not a movie. It is a sad phenomenon. It is a gross spiritual emetic. It is, clearly, a cry for help.

Morford's hatred of the president shows even in a piece about a religious motion picture.

In his disjointed screed, Morford waxes poetic about the amount of violence in the picture (this coming from the liberal press who glorifies the violence in, say Kill Bill -- insisting that there was no way that Christ, the man could have withstood such punishment (of course ignoring Christ, the Son of God); worrying about the children who were there with their parents, forced to "endure" the brutal violence of the flick; the nails through the hands of Jesus, accusing director Mel Gibson of fetishism (never mind that the Bible, explicitly discusses that point); or in short, anything to belittle the Christians and anyone else who feel the sheer power and magnitude of the experience of this film.

This is not Christianity. This is not a message anyone needs. This is the exact opposite of spiritual progress or insight or gentle divine heat and if Jesus came back right this minute and was made to sit through this film, he would sigh gently, shake his short, shaggy hair (long hair was forbidden by Jewish law -- wrong again, Mel), and, you know, hold a nice seminar or something.

Morford joins Andy Rooney as a distinct part of the national press corps who would rather entertain his personal hatred than to acknowledge that a significant part of American culture has been profoundly affected by this motion picture.

Bottom line: Gibson could be wrong about some of the details. He certainly took some cinematic license in areas where the Biblical text is unclear. But for Morford or any other columnist to belittle Gibson or the remainder of mainstream Christianity to assuage their own political agenda is offensive at best.

At worst, it makes one wonder whether he is in league with more sinister forces who do not want our Lord's Message out there.

---

Just damn.

If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...

[theFIRMbss]

>The odd thing is that critics loved the bizarre ultraviolent blood-drenched KILL BILL ... So why is there such an uproar about Gibson's film being violent? ... It would seem there is a "double-standard" being applied to Mr. Gibson. Why?

This question gets asked
a lot. I've never seen it
answered, so here goes.

A film like Kill Bill
is surreal -- in movie terms,
that means it "admits"

it's a film, it's fake.
It -- and many modern films --
don't want their viewers

(to use art terms) to
"suspend disbelief." Rather,
post-modern movies

take viewers on "rides,"
give viewers genre thrills, and
do it with a wink.

On the other hand,
Gibson postures as if he
had been attempting

a "JFK" thing --
pseudo-documentary.
Cinema buffs, then,

judge Gibson's movie
not by comic book standards,
but seek realism.

And, to their eyes, don't
find it, but find surreal flash
offered as substance.

Cinema buffs see
hypocrisy -- in the film,
and the marketing.

[bethelgrad]

This person does not understand the Jesus of the New Testament.

[Johnny Gage]

I see the fudge-packer got a weekend pass from the HIV Hospice.

Hmm.. Getting now where I can't even read the first 2 sentences.

LSD - enabling losers like Morford think their relevant.

[presidio9]

You are not stupid. You have read The Da Vinci Code. You know damn well that the truth about Mary Magdalene

Um, the Da Vinci Code is a novel Einstein.

BTW Mark,
You and I both know you read these threads. As orally-fixated ego-centric, you can't help yourself. You told me once.

I just wanted you to know that I never find your writing to be particularly immaginative. But I was especially unimpressed with this column. You went away for a month to rehab (or wherever it is you claim you were), and the best you can do is to combine the thoughts of two of your last four columns? Surely you can do better than that. Didn't they let you see a paper in the clinic? A lot has happened in the world since you went away.

[My2Cents]

You're right. As for violence in films, I've seen worse. In this film, there was a point to the portrayal of the violence. And this Morford dude again proves the point I've been making since the film was released...Those who love Jesus Christ can see below the surface violence in the film, to the depth of love and mercy that were the reasons he submitted to such violence.

[B Knotts]

Well, you know...I would be more charitable in my comments about the guy, but he shows himself to be little more than an anti-Christian bigot in virtually every column.

[My2Cents]

Good comments, Michael.

[theFIRMbss]

>So, violence with heads being sliced off and blood jetting out in KILL BILL is to celebrated as art (because we all know it is fiction), while historical recreations in THE PASSION are scorned because the gore helps to illustrate a historical event?

Yes, that's about it.
Fake is fine, if it is "fake."
Fake sucks if it's "real."

(But historical
recreations aren't scorned,
just bogus, fake ones.)

Cinema buffs like
to keep genres and techniques
in line. Believe me,

if Oliver Stone
had added chop-socky blood
to JFK's head,

or had a ninja
come in and run Oswald through,
film buffs would have yelled.

[comitatus]

I had a spare minute, and took the opportunity to send the following to Mr. Morford, I hope he enjoys it:

Mr. Morford,

I was thrilled to read your sneering rant about the Passion. I particularly liked the statement "You are not stupid, you read the Da Vinci Code." I eventually stopped laughing at that oxymoron, with which you certainly established your scholarly credentials and the extent of your biblical expertise. The Hollywood elite is choking right now on a cocktail of bile and envy over the success of the Passion, and although you can't count yourself in the elite class, I am pleased to see you sucking down the same bitter brew. I have derived enormous pleasure from the self-righteous indignation of the pseudo-intellectual class, and fervently hope Mel uses his hundreds of millions to whip up more of the same, for the sheet joy of watching the effects on those of your ilk.

The more ignorant, anti-religious bigots like you find yourself spewing such swill, the more obvious the power of the message.

Fides et Ratio

-glr

[familyop]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1091949/posts
(discussion on Emmerich's and others' influence in the play)

"Caviezel – who notes his initials are J.C. and he was the age of Jesus, 33, during the filming – says he has had fans bow down before him, the New York Daily News reported."
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37221

"About Frank Rich, the New York Times columnist who implied Gibson's father is "a Holocaust denier," the director had some choice – and inflammatory – words: "I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick. I want to kill his dog."
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34497

I am a Protestant Christian. I will not be seeing this or any other passion play.

[ThreeYearLurker]

Help, I'm lost inside Morford!

[beckett]

I'd heard complaints about the length of the scourging sequence before I saw the film so I deliberately timed it. It's ten minutes long, not thirty as Morford claims, and significant parts of that ten minutes are taken up in either flashbacks or a test of wills among the Roman soldiers about how the scourging should proceed.

Morford's dishonesty is not surprising. Like Michael Moore, Michaelangelo Signorile, Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, the gang at DU, and so many more on the left, he uses dishonesty as a standard tool of his polemics, and so helps me remember, whenever I get little less than enthusiastic about the standard of argumentation here on the right, that the alternative is far worse.

Guys like Mark Morford help me remember what I am not, and, please God, what I will never be.