Jesus Christ Movie Star

MSNBC ^ | 03/08/04 | David Gates

[Pikamax]

March 8 issue - Whatever you think about Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," it's clear that everything Hollywood insiders knew was wrong. After a massive opening on Ash Wednesday last week—the film took in more than $26 million that day—we're not hearing much from all those folks who said nobody would turn out to see an uncompromisingly gory Christian movie in Latin and Aramaic.

The mixed reviews—thumbs up from Roger Ebert, thumbs down from almost everybody else—didn't matter. This was the biggest opening day for any movie ever released outside the summer and holidays. "It's incredible," says one studio source. "I don't know if it's 'surprising,' but it's surreal."

Not to moviegoers like Lorrie Delaney of Bloomfield Hills, Mich. "I prayed throughout it," she says. "I'm a very, very devout Catholic. I love my faith. I love my God." Nor to the Rev. Jack Graham, president of the Southern Baptist Convention. "This is a providence of God," he says, "that in the midst of an international war on terrorism, in the midst of a cultural

[07055]

"Speaking as a theologian, well ... what Mel Gibson does is give us the Passion according to Mel Gibson," says Father John West, an adviser to the Archbishop of Detroit and a pastor in suburban Farmington. "I would never tell anybody not to see the movie. But I would caution anyone to watch it carefully and critically."

What can you say about a quote like this from someone who is an adviser to an Archbishop. I guess he thinks we should go see the latest gay-themed crap out of Hollywood instead.

[GROOVY]

thumbs up from Roger Ebert, thumbs down from almost everybody else

Bias alert!!! It was far from everybody else giving it a thumbs down, even Roeper gave it a thumbs up.

[IronJack]

The premise of this article is that Hollywood scoffed at Gibson because they thought his project would be a failure. That is not the case. Hollywood was terrified of this project from the outset, not because it was destined to fail, but because it was destined to succeed.

The last thing the amoral film Establishment wants is a resurrection (pardon the pun) of Christian spirituality. After all, they've spent half a century trying to destroy it. That The Passion is succeeding as phenomenally as it is just confirms their worst fears.

[WestTexasWend]

'Father John West, an adviser to the Archbishop of Detroit and a pastor in suburban Farmington: "I would never tell anybody not to see the movie. But I would caution anyone to watch it carefully and critically."'

Hmmm...sounds like a verse from the gospel of JFKerry.

This "report" is further proof that it's not just Hollywood that was caught flat-footed...the media (and, yes, many clergy) are also running way behind (and showing no desire to catch up).

[Moonmad27]

All along Mel said he felt guided by the holy spirit - to me, judging from this huge success in spite of all the odds, he was absolutely right. Every million that gets added to the total must irritate the powers-that-be in H'wood tremendously. Excellent!

[lafroste]

Every million that gets added

I have a question for the more erudite amongst us: How much money does Mr. Gibson actually make on this? If he gets 50% of the gate and spent $45 million ($30 for production + $15 for marketing), then ticket sales need to equal $90 million just for him to break even. After that, he personally earns 50% of the ticket gross, is that right?

I would really love to see Mr. Gibson walk to the bank earning $500 million or more. That much money in the hands or such a powerful, talented, and devote man will end up sweeping hollyweird clean.

I guess it was a smart decision for those "un-named studio executives" to request anonymity while proclaimiung that Mel would be shunned. I think there will be a whole lot of groveling going on, and it won't be Mr. Gibson bending his knee to those blatherskytes...

[I still care]

There was this totally inept film critic on Fox who said that the Passion was a bad movie about Jesus; he suggested that people go so "The Last Temptation of Christ" by Scorcese instead if they wanted to see a movie about Jesus.

I laughed myself off the sofa. Clueless.

[lafroste]

from the article...

This isn't to say that major studios now regret taking a pass on "The Passion." Ticket sales could drop when word of mouth spreads about the film's graphic violence; besides, who needs the controversy? "

Oh brother. Talk about clueless. "Gee, the Passion of the Christ has violence in it? Gee, I never would have known, gosh, I better not go see it."

Sheesh.

[07055]

"Who needs the controversy?"

Sounds to me like the Christian community needs to *create* controversy about the garbage Hollywood has been spewing for decades. If the Hollywood moguls are truly worried about avoiding controversy, maybe there is still hope.

[alloysteel]

Once again "conventional wisdom" is set upon its collective ear. What we saw in the critics and the pre-release hype was nothing more than wish and hope, and perhaps a nagging suspicion that God really IS watching, that became a full-blown fear that God might really do something about it.

A lot of the nay-sayers are in fact a little unsure of their own religious beliefs, and didn't want to take a chance that whatever they think are the foundations of the faith they profess to have, were based on completely false perceptions. And perceptions they did not want to disturb.

[Glenn]

Hollywood will tap that keg. They won't be able to resist it.

Expect to see "The Apostles", "Just Judas", "Mother Mary, May I?" and "You've Been Converted" at a theatre near you in the next 18 months.

[Cboldt]

Hollywood was terrified of this project from the outset, not because it was destined to fail, but because it was destined to succeed.

In my opinion, not so much out of fear, but of hubris. Hollywood believed it could stifle the message by stifling this messenger. Destined to succeed? Over Hollywood's not insubstantial efforts to abort it.

[Gumdrop]

I think the Fox film critic was Roger Friedman. He was way over the top with his criticism, IMHO. He, like many others, of the Jewish faith seem to have pre-conceived ideas about Christians and about the story of the Passion. It is most unfortunate. I/we all need to pray for these people. They need to be inspired by the Holy Spirit so thay may have more hope and joy in their lives. Roger seemd to be totally filled up with fear of this movie to the point of not being rational. Pity him and pray for him too.

[RayChuang88]

I've heard that Icon Productions has another Bible-based project in the works. I want to see Mel Gibson do the story of Job from the Old Testament--now that would an interesting story to interpret on film! :->

[Snuffington]

There was this totally inept film critic on Fox who said that the Passion was a bad movie about Jesus; he suggested that people go so "The Last Temptation of Christ" by Scorcese instead if they wanted to see a movie about Jesus.

I remember seeing the Last Temptation of Christ back in my college days. Lesson Learned: controversial does not equal good. Because Last Temptation was a pretty boring movie (not walk-out terrible, but nothing very memorable either), and its artistic vision was like stock-footage from a few dozen other movies about Jesus.

And incidentally, even back then I grasped that the "shocking" theology behind it was pretty shallow stuff.

[Mr. Thorne]

I was touched by this statement: "Peter Richards, a self-declared agnostic from Cambridge, Mass., booed "The Passion" as most of the audience at a Harvard Square movie house applauded. "Christ's story is being used to make divisions among us when that's not really his message," he says."

Au contraire, Petey!

According the books I never read 'cause I'm Catholic, "Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation. For there shall be from henceforth five in one house divided: three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son and the son against his father: the mother against the daughter and the daughter against her mother: the mother-in-law against the daughter-in-law and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

Finally...

It seems to me, you get out of this what you put in. People like the aforementioned Mr. Richards are on the lookout for any offense that they can find, and are quick to magnify it to all mankind.

On the other hand, people like Lorrie Delaney (also mentioned in the article), go in to see, in effect, a work of religious art. They look for a heart stirring interpretation of scripture that speaks to them in some way, just as do viewers of the Pieta, or the Sistine Chapel.

Somewhere in the middle are the secularists with little or no agenda. They will look at the technique, the manipulation of the medium.

Count me into the second category. With a smattering of the third. I have never cried at a movie in my life, this film came near to eliciting that reaction; I did have to wipe my eyes several times, various scenes felt, to me, as though I were being stabbed in heart (the denial of Peter, the meeting of Jesus and his mother on the Via Dolorosa, "It is accomplished," the resurrection).

I loved it. I will probably see it again on Good Friday, just because.

[dbehsman]

This from the article:

"A NEWSWEEK reporter asked one studio head, "Does the success of this movie make you think that—" and the executive shot back, "That I should be developing more Jew-hating material?""

I would really like to know which executive said that and what company he works for.

[valkyrieanne]

The film will probably earn $90 million in the first couple of weeks. That doesn't even include the DVDs, overseas screenings, etc.

[NYCVirago]

I've noticed lately that "divisive", which is in the subtitle of this story, seems to be a new code word for the liberal media. It's only used, of course, to describe things libs don't like -- you'll never hear the push for gay marriage described as a "divisive" issue; only those who don't want it are "divisive."