Week of real hatred: film critic suffers backlash to 'Passion' review

New York Daily News ^ | 2/29/04 | Jami Bernard

[Brian Mosely]

In 18 years as a professional movie critic, I've never gotten the response that I had this week to my one-star review of "The Passion of the Christ."

I knew the reaction would be hostile - movie critics routinely get hate mail, even one time for a review of "Bambi."

But, as they would say in an action movie of the kind Mel Gibson formerly made, this time, it's personal.

[MaryFromMichigan]

"What interests me as a movie critic is the profusion of people who do not understand or care how to evaluate a movie."

How kind of her to enlighten us.
How condescending.

[alnick]

I don't know, she is pretty slovenly looking.. I have a hard time taking advice or orders from slobs or those who disrespect themselves sooo much. How can a person with such obvious lack of self control with something as valuable as their life be taken seriously.... I certainly wouldn't want them organizing anything in my life.

The above says more about you than your intended target.

[shhrubbery!]

I think Bernard's column today is well written.

However, what on earth did she expect when she wrote a movie review with such vicious (and untruthful) rhetoric as this:

Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of World War II.

[Rocko]

"What interests me as a movie critic..."

Does Jami understand that everybody is a movie critic; only some of us are paid for it?

[alnick]

That's right, she does do those things. That's why resorting to attacking her looks undermines the truth. It makes her seem credible because her detractors make personal attacks rather than going after the subject matter.

There are a lot of good conservatives who aren't especially attractive. Does that mean that anything they say can be refuted by changing the subject of anything they say to their physical appearance?

[laconic]

I agree that her physical appearance should be irrelevant. What is relevant are statements such as only devout Christians and nuts will go see this film (I didn't see any "nuts" among the 400 or so that packed my showing but there were people attending that I spoke to who said they weren't religious but much appreciated the film). Also, if you look at her past loving comments on gratuitously violent/sadomasochistic and meaningless movies, she's changed her tune 100% in reviewing the documentary-like Passion. The Catholic League for Decency website (I don't know how to post it) has an excellent article regarding Bernard's past movie reviews and her sudden Puritanism when it comes to violence.

[Enterprise]

"I decided to attack her content. She has been pretty much thouroughly discredited by her hypocrisy... so I wanted to move on, to wax & wane on the enormity of her head."

Then we are in harmony here. Attack the content, not the looks. You have made great strides in your personal development today grasshopper, go now, smile widely, hold high your head.

[dagoofyfoot]

I love these threads.


I know that...

[MaryFromMichigan]

I agree.

"Experience will teach you that what we see in others is another way of looking at ourselves" -Noah ben Shea

[Calvin Locke]

Libs are mad because Pilate is Klintonian

and

...I would have cited Soviet theories of montage to explain how Gibson turned that despicable historical figure Pontius
Pilate into a sympathetic character...

Hey Jami! Go try to read some of Mo Dowd's Monicagate Era stuff.

And Jami, BTW, didn't The Greatest Story Ever Told have Pilate making a reluctant, but "social" decision too?

("Slave! Water! I want to wash my hands!")

[Uncle Hal]

Looking at the writers picture, I am reminded of the old joke about the gal checking out of a super market. A drunk behind her says "you are single aren't you?" The gal quickly looks at her groceries and sees nothing in her cart that would indicate she is unmarried. So she says to the drunk "how did you know I was single." The drunk replies, "because you are ugly."

[FormerACLUmember]

post #90" AMAZING, BREATHTAKING HYPOCRISY!

[mhking]

My main objection to "The Passion" is that Gibson has used the tools at his disposal to disguise sadism as piety. My tools, meanwhile, are words.

Which shows your lack of understanding of the subject matter and the means Gibson used to show the content of the subject matter.

[sakic]

The disparity I am refering to, is the disparity between the rave reviews of "the passion" by non-Christians who thought it was a master-piece and the reviews of this Lady and a few others that thought it was the worst movie ever.

This disparity happens with every single movie, religious subject or not.

It is a little hard for many to believe that there was no political or religious bias interfering with their reviews when they say it is so horrible and bad, because it is so at odds with other reviewers.

Of course there was a bias by some reviewers against this film. What troubles me is that most here don't consider the religious bias affecting other reviewers into giving good reviews. Bias is in all of us. It's not a one way street.

Another way to put it, I have never seen a movie where Ebert and Roeper, or Ebert and Siskel raved so much about how good a movie was, only to have other reviewers think it was completely dreadful.

Then you might want to read more reviews because that is just flat out wrong.

Maybe you can show me an example. Has there been another movie where Ebert and his partner have both given the movie 4 stars and other reviewers have given it a one star?

One Example Of Reviews All Over the Place

By the way, This is probably a good place to investigate your question.

[Arkinsaw]

I tend to think it would be a rare case indeed where there was such a huge divergence, both in stars and in the descriptions. Which says to me, that some people are letting their political or religious bias interfere with their reviews. This is what I believe most people are upset at.

Exactly. You give a 1 star review to movies that have no redeeming value. Even "Birth of A Nation" or "Triumph of the Will" still get praise for their unique artistic aspects and for pioneering despite the widespread dismissal of their content.

This movie on the other hand gets a 1-star despite the fact that it is obviously a very artistic movie that is skillfully made. It gets a 1-star despite the fact that it is pioneering in several ways. Many reviewers acknowledge these things and give the movie credit for these things despite a) being non-Christian, b) not liking the content. The movie might get a lesser rating from them due to its content/screenply but they are not dismissing the film out of hand.

Those reviewers who do not care for the content yet fairly treat the movie as a whole are professional critics of art.

Those who trash all aspects of the movie because they don't like the content are spinners spinning for political reasons or to ingratiate themselves with a political agenda. These types have overplayed their hands. They would have been better off killing this movie with faint praise rather than stirring up the ****storm they did.

[Melas]

In defense of this guy, it's not necessarily a liberal/conservative thing. Certain people have such an emotional investment in this movie, that if you don't like it, it's taken as a personal insult.

[LisaMalia]

I believe Ms. Benard did, in fact, receive tons of protest emails regarding her review. I do NOT believe that most of these are unprintable. Why are they unprintable? Because they disagree with her highness?

She is obviously trying to portray Christians in a bad light. Unfortanately for her, we all know better.

She used (or should I say, misused) her position as a jounalist to give a very bad review to a movie based on her personal feelings. This is just another example of BAD, BIASED JOURNALISM, which is running rampant in our society today.

I haven't yet written an email to Ms. Benard, but I'm going to now. It will simply say..."God loves you, Jesus Christ died for our sins, and I'll include you in my prayers." I wonder if she will deem that "printable"?

[SeattleTiger]

I suspect the fellow above is mentally inefficient, according to the "pretty people are intelligent people" Freeper standard discussed on this thread. Einstein may not have been fat, but he was disheveled, and he did smoke a pipe, after all.

[null and void]

I would be interested to see which movies she rates rather highly. I'll bet the violence in movies in "Kill Bill" were OK and great art, at least that is my opinion.

Ask and ye shall receive:

"You want blood? You can shower in it in ‘Kill Bill: Volume 1,’ a giddy and only occasionally brilliant homage to all the kung fu fighting, B-movies and spaghetti Westerns Quentin Tarantino scarfed down during his movie-centric adolescence…this long-awaited movie has been unwisely chopped into two pieces -- the second is due in February -- when it really needed to be one long, delirious ride…There's a lot to admire in ‘Kill Bill,’ and a lot that should have been lopped off like the arms and legs and scalps that go flying. What this undoubtedly enthusiastic writer-director needed was someone who would just say no, be it an editor or Miramax mogul Harvey Weinstein." --Jami Bernard, The New York Daily News

[Dr. Scarpetta]

What interests me as a movie critic is the profusion of people who do not understand or care how to evaluate a movie.

To Jami Bernard, movie critic:

I'm not interested in your criticisms of this movie; in fact, it makes me happy that I'm going to see it this very afternoon.