Posted on 02/26/2004 10:06:37 AM PST by Pyro7480
Last week, I wrote a preamble column about Mel Gibson's new movie, The Passion of the Christ. I said that I was extraordinarily optimistic. In fact, I have never before wanted to enjoy a movie so much.
But I was wrong. Oh, how wrong I was.
I love God and Jesus with all my heart, but for the life of me I cannot embrace this film.
Forgive me if I cause offence, but I have to be honest.
This is some pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic blood cult. It is populated with medieval-type caricatures, screaming out of context, laughing at suffering.
Everyone is gruesome and grotesque, apart from a handful of people such as the Virgin Mary, Mary Magdalene and the apostle John. Mary, by the way, is hardly off of the screen, when in fact she is seldom mentioned in the Gospel accounts.
Herod is some cross-dressing lunatic, the Pharisee leaders, some of the brightest men of the age, are all obscene brutes and the Roman soldiers and the mob resemble crazed gargoyles.
No, no, no! The point has been completely missed. Hate me if you like, but please listen. The point is this:
We would have crucified Him. We would crucify Him. You, me, us. We'd smile, be tolerant and loving, do the right thing as we see it, and crucify Him. Then go home to hug our children and talk about how bad the world had become.
Evil seduces and beguiles. It is frequently attractive. If it was as ugly as director Gibson has portrayed, Jesus would not have had to die in agony. And agony is what it was.
Modern Christians have tended to play down the blood and gore of the Messiah's death. But Gibson compensates to such an extreme that he gives us a virtual fetish.
Indeed, the scene where a Roman soldier plunges his spear into Christ's side is, I am sorry, almost like something out of Monty Python. The soldier and those around him shower in the water and blood that cascades out of Yeshua's body.
I suppose we should not be surprised. Gibson made Braveheart and The Patriot, with all of their disembowelings, throat cuttings and, of course, massive historical absurdities. Somehow I thought he'd be more sophisticated with something this important.
The shame of it all is that we know more about what really happened 2000 years ago now than we have done since shortly after the events actually took place. We think in nuance and truth. Not Gibson. Nor does he appear to have read any of the books written in the past 50 years that make the Gospel story so believable, so fleshy and, thus, so convincing.
One example: Barabas. He was a Zealot leader, possibly a local aristocrat. We read our Hebrew and Greek, know about Essenes, Sadducees and Jewish life and culture. We understand. Yet here he is portrayed as a dribbling psychotic. As are most of the Jews in the movie.
So, is it anti-Semitic? Not really. Jews are generally shown as hideous, stupid and barbaric, but then so are the Romans.
Apart from Pontius Pilate, who is here compassion embodied. The thing is, he was a notorious killer who crucified thousands of people without a second thought.
Movie-making requires subtlety, and The Passion is relentlessly violent and nasty. There is no rhythm, no chance for light and purpose and meaning to shine through.
Yes, meaning. More than pain and suffering, so much more.
The flashbacks seem, with one touching exception depicting Jesus as a child, to be mere attempts to push Catholic eucharistic theology onto the audience.
There are vile moments, resembling outtakes from some remake of The Exorcist. A mob of Jewish children morph into tiny devils with murderous faces. Maggots eat away at a dead mule. Satan creeps around, worms crawling up his nose, carrying a perverse baby with hairy back and adult features. None of this is Scriptural, of course. It is also so, well, so anti-humanity.
I wanted majesty and pathos but was given clumsiness and thumping. Yet God's grace and His love still surround me.
If the movie works for you, I am happy. For me, it is prayer, Bible and a dwelling in a God-given imagination that this hyped Hollywood product can never rival.
Michael Coren is a Toronto-based writer and broadcaster. He can be emailed at info@michaelcoren.com and his web site is michaelcoren.com.
I expected this.In that case, you'll be disappointed to learn that Jesus, not Mary, steps on the snake ...
All this claptrap about the film not being historically accurate is BS. Read the contemporary accounts of how people were routinely treated at the time particularly condemned criminals. Gibson is likely more historically accurate than anything seen on the screen before.
As for complaints about the excess blood and violence--does anyone remember "Saving Private Ryan" or "Schindlers List"?
Then why are the majority of devout Christians who attend church regularly (and especially Catholics) women?
No, not Coren. He's an unashamedly devout Christian and very consistent in his beliefs (pro-life, pro-family, social conservative). He WAS very much anticipating this film and has been quite positive about it's coming for some time. I was really surprised when I first read this review...it was most certainly not the reaction I expected from him, and I'm convinced it's not the reaction he thought he'd have.
Having saw the film last night, I honestly have to say there's a lot in this review that I agree with, but I suspect reactions to it will be all over the map depending on the viewer's faith (or lack thereof) and the expectations they bring to the theatre. I may see it again.
Good work; perfect response.
I see SD answered your other question.
The Leftists must have e-mailed each other the talking points. All I hear from everyone from Morford to Dowd to this guy is the same thing:
"fetish... fetish.. fetish ...fetish ..fetish ..fetish.. fetish"
or
"S&M fetish...S&M fetish....S&M fetish..."
over and over again. Hey goofballs...when you try to smear your opponents with your own hangups, it is called projection
Literally?
The majority of people who endure abusive relationships are women. You may not see the connection, but after a "good" Jesuit education, I do.
So why this movie? So why this time?Why is this Jesus movie different from all other Jesus movies ...
Yes.
Muslims relegate women to a back room off the main mosque, Catholics are more subtle but the message is similar: women don't count as much as men. Recently, for example, word came down from Rome that altar girls were no longer permissible. Another tiny dagger in my lifelong night of long knives. I'd only considered returning to the church after being touched to the core by seeing devout and lovely little girls serving mass. Maybe the church had a place for me. Quickly disabused (!) of that notion.
Very orthodox Jewish temples pull the same stuff, with women seated away from the main floor. Not a tremendous amount of support (care and feeding of my spirit) for me on the traditional paths, not a tremendous amount of intellectual satisfaction in nontraditional churches. My best bet: charismatic nondenominational churches, where the Holy Spirit thrives and people are free to participate fully.
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.