Skip to comments.
Violence is Gibson's message
New York Daily News ^
| 3/02/04
| Richard Cohen
Posted on 03/02/2004 1:16:58 AM PST by kattracks
I saw Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" the morning it opened. I thought it was tawdry, cartoonish, badly acted and anti-Semitic, maybe not purposely so, but in the way portions of the New Testament are - an assignment of blame that culminated in the Holocaust. But I wrote none of that because something else about the movie disturbed me, and it took days to figure it out. It is fascistic. I don't know if I use the word right, but in Richard Evans' brilliant "The Coming of the Third Reich," it becomes clear how violence was so much a part of fascism. It was not merely that Hitler and, to a lesser extent, Mussolini used force to get their way, but also that violence almost became part of the ethic - "the cult of violence." After a while, Germans became inured. That, both precisely and surprisingly, is how I felt watching Gibson's disturbingly nondisturbing movie. I was bored stiff.
I abhor violence in movies and avoid films that have more than I think I can tolerate, so I approached the Gibson movie with some dread. I wished that the Anti-Defamation League and other critics had simply ignored it. I even joked with friends that the ADL's Abraham Foxman must be taking a cut (of the gross) for all the publicity. But my joking mood changed when I entered the theater. I became uneasy.
I need not have worried. The movie was inexcusably gory, but I found myself intrigued: Why wasn't I horrified? Instead, I was more like the Roman soldiers who tortured Christ. I did not laugh with glee as they did, but I did find myself at an emotional remove. There was so much horror that almost immediately I became inured to it all. I felt as a surgeon must in the operating theater. More work.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: moviereview; passion; review; reviewofthepassion; richardcohen; thepassion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-93 next last
I would wager that if the movie had been about some murderer on death row, Cohen would not have found himself "at an emotional remove".
1
posted on
03/02/2004 1:16:59 AM PST
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
They're continuing the anti-semitic shtick after honoring one of Hitler's chief propagandists at the Oscars? Talk about chutzpah.
Qwinn
2
posted on
03/02/2004 1:20:06 AM PST
by
Qwinn
To: kattracks
A hardened heart, more likely.
Maybe Mel should've had the soldiers kick a starving puppy or two.
To: Qwinn
But "fascist" is *such* a wonderfully volatile little "trigger word".
It's so useful when you have no real point to make.
Ideological ad hominem.
To: kattracks
Cohen.
I hate this movie.
Coincidence?
Morons.
5
posted on
03/02/2004 1:29:58 AM PST
by
Stallone
(Guess who Al Qaeda wants to be President?)
To: nutmeg; firebrand; Clemenza; PARodrig
ping
6
posted on
03/02/2004 1:31:09 AM PST
by
Cacique
To: Qwinn
The shtick continues , but it doesn't seem to be having a negative effect now does it ? Anybody that could be swayed by this leftist pinko ponce wouldn't be moved by the flick anyway .
7
posted on
03/02/2004 1:32:34 AM PST
by
sushiman
To: Salamander
Event's written about a God in disguise as a man who was crucified because he loved the very ones who killed him.
I feel sorry for non Christians who don't get the message.
8
posted on
03/02/2004 1:33:37 AM PST
by
Dallas59
To: Cacique; firebrand
Richard Cohen should go back to shilling for the Clintons. In this article, he fails as both a film critic and theologian.
9
posted on
03/02/2004 1:35:53 AM PST
by
Clemenza
(Maybe the DINGO ate your baby!)
To: Stallone
Richard Cohen is an agnostic of Jewish ancestry who hates Israel to boot. I don't think any faction in this debate really wants or needs him.
10
posted on
03/02/2004 1:37:04 AM PST
by
Clemenza
(Maybe the DINGO ate your baby!)
To: kattracks
The funny thing liberals hold violence is okay if comes from the tender warm-hearted souls of Planned Parenthood, Jean Bertrand Aristide and Saddam Hussein.
11
posted on
03/02/2004 1:38:01 AM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: Dallas59
And someday he'll return with -no- "disguise" and it'll be too late for them.
Anyone with a lick of sense would err on the side of caution, at the -very- least.
To: kattracks
This reviewer reminds me of an older guy I had to work with at my job-- that I call a "Jewish atheist". He was born and raised in the Jewish tradition but he himself is not religious and is in fact a self-proclaimed atheist. So he has the ultra-sensitivity of someone with a religious chip on his shoulder but at the same time doesn't care anything for religion. He himself has a personal code that I can only describe as "amoral". Oh yeah, and he's from New York. Very confusing to me, being a Christian and not accustomed to Jewish people, much less "Jewish atheists".
I have a feeling there are a lot of people like that up there. And guess who they probably voted for?
13
posted on
03/02/2004 1:43:57 AM PST
by
zipper
(Don't Tread On Me)
To: kattracks
Sorry, Cohen.....the Gibson Success Train has already left the station with a cargo of over a hundred-million clams.
Now be a good boy, go back to your barren cubicle, suck your thumb and have a good cry. You're so irrelevant.
Leni
14
posted on
03/02/2004 1:44:24 AM PST
by
MinuteGal
(Enjoy the FRN "FReeps Ahoy" cruise for a week of fun and freeperistics. Bargain fares! Register now)
To: kattracks
From a NY Times editorialist who is so impulsively liberal, leftist, and socialist -- I am somehow not surprised by this comment. Richard Cohen doesn't like "Passion." Who cares?
15
posted on
03/02/2004 1:58:22 AM PST
by
tom h
(.)
To: MinuteGal
This article is pretty funny. Cohen thinks he can snuff out the giant flame of success with his puny, little fingertips.
16
posted on
03/02/2004 2:04:19 AM PST
by
kitkat
To: kattracks
Who cares what you think, Richard?!
17
posted on
03/02/2004 2:06:18 AM PST
by
kcvl
To: kattracks
Ah yes, the true message of Christ's profound love and sacrifice is that I should engage in mindless violence. I'm glad this idiot leftist twit has set me straight. I feel better now... /barf
18
posted on
03/02/2004 2:15:45 AM PST
by
Caipirabob
(Democrats.. Socialists..Commies..Traitors...Who can tell the difference?)
To: kattracks
Maybe, strictly speaking, the movie cannot be called fascistic - but in the best sense, it cannot stop me from insinuating as much.
19
posted on
03/02/2004 2:18:40 AM PST
by
xm177e2
(Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
To: kattracks
I wonder what he thought of Schindler's List?
20
posted on
03/02/2004 2:20:17 AM PST
by
rmh47
(Go Kats! - Got Seven?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-93 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson