Passion Criticism
by Julia Nelson - Originally posted in February 2004
I am one of the many Americans who looked forward to the nationwide release of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.” Of course, if you looked at a lot of mainstream media pre-release hype,
http://gocm.org/images/uploads/poster_250.jpg you would worry that I will light a torch after the viewing and try to kill some innocent people. Those “reporters” that lambasted the movie without even seeing it, hardly deserve to have their remarks addressed. Now that they’ve all gotten their chance to see it, the substance of their criticism is interesting to say the least. At this writing, the film review site rottentomatoes.com recorded 104 positive reviews and 96 negative. I read The Hollywood Reporter’s largely negative review and the essence of their reporter’s objections was this: “nonbelievers or even less literal-minded Christians—will be troubled by the film’s staunch adherence to a story line and characters that have been used by bigots to fuel hatred for centuries.
Such a complaint reduces the entire legacy of Christianity to persecution and intolerance. ALL the Gospels have EVER done when taken literally is encourage people to kill and torture Jewish people, and so on. Now, as a Christian, I am in strong favor of acknowledging and apologizing for anti-Semitism, past and present (although most would agree that much present anti-Semitism is fueled by certain forms of Islam), which we have done and must continue to do. However, it is equally unfair to ignore the countless Christians who have, over generations, been inspired by the Gospels to follow Christ’s example and lay down their lives for their fellow man.
Even New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof who has an unbelievably condescending attitude toward evangelicals admits periodically that many Bible believing Christians are doing courageous deeds in some very scary places in the world. I am always touched at how rapidly our local Christian radio station raises donations for any humanitarian effort they undertake. Again, I think it is vital that we continue to acknowledge the horrific wrongs committed in the name of Christianity, but it is simply inaccurate to allow our faith to be characterized solely by our shortcomings.
As for the movie itself ‘blaming Jews’ for Christ’s death, consider this. Spike Lee’s film Malcolm X strongly implies that the title character was assassinated by a rival faction of the Nation of Islam, an organization which is made up of black people. Did anyone is his or her right mind think that this was collectively blaming all blacks for the death of Malcolm X? Of course not! Malcolm X was black. Jesus was Jewish. Not to mention that the film goes out of its way through the personification of Satan to show that much larger forces were at work, beyond the schemes and plans of any group of human beings.
I am also amused at how many movie reviewers have now dubbed themselves New Testament scholars, criticizing what Mr. Gibson chose to emphasize and what he left out, based on their apparently authoritative knowledge of the Bible. The film is called “The Passion of the Christ,” not “The Life of the Christ,” nor “The Life, Death, Resurrection, and Ministry of the Disciples of the Christ.” The movie should not be evaluated on whether or not it meets a random film critic’s idea of what a movie about Jesus should or should not include, it should be judged as how effectively it brings the story “The Passion of the Christ” to the screen. Is that asking too much?
That mainstream reporters have criticized the film’s violence is laughable. How much more hypocrisy can we ask for from an establishment that praised Kill Bill Vol. I and countless other bloody films? (Notice to illiterate people: the film is rated R. Why are you pontificating about the effect of violence on little children while discussing an R RATED FILM?) Extreme violence makes me uncomfortable, but I can endure it for a purposeful and well-told story (Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart, and so on). Yet somehow if we are portraying Jesus, the only politically correct way is to paint Him as an emasculated wimpy hippie-before-his-time. That’s the Jesus that the mainstream press can deal with.
I believe that most of the criticism is driven by the fact that the mainstream media, and perhaps a good portion of America are very uncomfortable with Mel Gibson making this movie. Matt Crouch can take a few million, make The Omega Code, open number ten in country after spending next to nothing on marketing, and the Hollywood establishment is not obligated to care. However, Oscar winner, beloved leading man, and former “Sexiest Man Alive” Mel Gibson is harder to ignore when he displays religious convictions. So instead of making a movie from his heart, Mr. Gibson is branded as having “an agenda.” Instead of sacrificially giving his own money to something he believes in, foxnews.com entertainment columnist Roger Friedman dismisses it as a “vanity project.” His visceral denunciation of the film that passed for a review spewed not only the same hate he accuses Gibson of, but displayed questionable emotional stability.
Of course everyone doesn’t have to love the film or even like it. They can criticize the acting, the quality of the dialogue, the score, the costumes, or the skill with which it was directed and so on. I would just like to see “The Passion of the Christ” evaluated by mainstream reviewers on its merit as a film, not their amateur opinions as theologians nor their amateur speculations as sociologists and historians about the film’s effect on viewers. That seems fair enough to me.
Filed in: Editiorals ·
0 Comments
Leave a comment
Use the form below to add comments, suggestions, and the inevitable off-topic banter (please keep to a minimum). Feel free to use HTML code (optional), and be aware that we reserve the right to edit any raw language or banter that's too far off topic.