[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.

[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.

[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.

[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."