March 15, 2003

Mel Gibson’s Passion

Well, the wait is over. Mel Gibson’s controversial film The Passion of The Christ was finally released grossing $125 million its opening weekend and riding steady into becoming one the biggest blockbusters ever. It has crossed over from being just a film into a genuine social event. And, in keeping with the times, it is deeply polarizing the country. For some it’s a validation of their beliefs. For others, it’s gory and Anti-Semitic. It’s become the film everyone must see attached with an unspoken dare from both sides to either love it or hate it. As a frequent filmgoer I find this frustrating. It has little to do with the controversy and hype but because, when all is said and done, the furor has been created over a film that may just be… okay.

Though biblical films have been present since the silent era with From The Manger To The Cross (1912) to their heyday of the late 50’s and early 60’s when widescreen was created, ushered in by the biblical era epic The Robe. In many ways it shares its history with the modern musical. They were the event films of their day before the changing tastes of the Vietnam era limited them to spotted theatrical appearances and numerous television films. History also reveals that religious epics and hagiographies set in biblical times, on the average, have not been very good. It’s not too say that they’re particularly bad… but they’re not particularly good either. Surprisingly, given the directors behind them, the films that focus on the story of Jesus are the ones that fail most often. George Stevens and Nicholas Ray were certainly at the height of their powers when they produced the middling effort The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) and the decent The King Of Kings (1961), respectively. Perhaps opinions would’ve changed dramatically in the late 60’s had The Bible (1966) not been such a disaster. (Disastrous enough to scrap all later plans to film the remaining chapters of the Bible.)

Does this automatically suggest The Passion Of The Christ is a bad film? Or is it today’s Chicago for biblical epics? It would be unfair to give any sort of critique to a film I have not seen. Rather, as a filmgoer on the outside questioning whether or not I would like to see this film, I find it hard to extract any sort of hint of The Passion’s caliber. Whether it’s the debate over anti-Semitism and violence or the films championing of a religious faith, none of them offer a valid critique of the FILM as a FILM; they are issues raised based upon the themes presented from the film, not its quality.

Everyone has seen a movie broiled in some sort of debate but decided its merit based solely on whether they liked the film or not. By now everyone should be savvy (or cynical) enough to put controversy in perspective. The anti-Semitism issue is part of a larger debate that has been going on for years. Those sensitive to it will no doubt give the film an immediate bad review as personal feelings will not allow them to see past their offense. At the same time there are those for which the issue would have remained invisible if the issue were never raised. Trusting the majority audience, it appears that those who loved the film saw it as a testament to their beliefs rather than a place to lay blame. And for those who do blame the Jews for the death of Christ: they did so upon entering the theater. Indeed one could use examples in the film to back up that argument but it would be ridiculous to think anyone is going to come to that realization because of the film alone.

In the end both sides are right because of their individual perspectives. A person entering a theater to see a movie like American Pie can either exit it seeing as a funny comedy with a good-heart or a shallow and misogynistic farce. For a film like The Passion these differing perspectives should be used to promote discussion on anti-Semitism. As for the comments of Gibson’s father, this argument should play no role in the discussion of the film or Mel himself. A son and father in disagreement? There should be no problem trusting this by just looking into our own lives (particularly in an election year, no?)

Before the film’s release a friend had asked me if I planned to see it. When I said, “No,” his response was “It’s supposed to be really violent!” apparently his way of encouraging me. So? As is well known, the film enacts the procedures of torture and crucifixion of Jesus in all its gory detail. Gibson’s choice to present it this way makes sense: these acts are brutal and gory. It would be more offensive to downplay it in any serious drama. For many the cross is a symbol of their faith and comfort though few may understand the true details of the violent act that took place behind it. The film may offer them a chance to realize what sacrifice and love was made for them. How extreme the violence, however, is not a comment on whether the reason behind it was successfully conveyed to the audience. It will depend on Gibson’s skill as a director. In the end the implied torture could stir more emotions in a viewer than the realistic.

The advance word on the violence will be enough to turn some viewers away. Fine. If you don’t like violence then don’t see it. If you want a film where the violence is toned down I can suggest a dozen others to keep you busy. Let this be the one with the realistic violence. It’s encouraging, however, to see so many audience members who would normally shy away from R-rated violence be able to view it within its context. (Hey, does his mean we all understand violence when taken in context now? Well… I guess that’s a whole other issue.)

Yet for those who have found justification for the violent depiction there is a confusing trend among some of the Christian viewers suggesting it is an actual document, as though it were a documentary they were watching. Gibson is a director whom is no doubt sincere in his faith and passionate toward his project, yes, but in the end the film is an interpretation nonetheless. It would appear few have of the faithful have realized this and thus made the film into a religious phenomenon. In fact, a large part of the audience comments first state their beliefs and preferences before letting their opinion known. But does its caliber depend on how truthful it is to the Christian belief? Disappointingly, it appears this is the field this film is playing within.

Part of this blame may lie with Gibson himself. A lot has been said about the bravery in the face of adversity of Gibson to produce a film that so vividly portrays the crucifixion of Jesus. Really? Rather than a roar of protest I hear “Ka-ching!” A film made by a major 20 million dollar Hollywood star that respects and empowers the belief of millions hardly qualifies as a great crusade. It’s difficult to keep from being cynical based on the marketing of his own film. In the months leading up to its release there were endless reports of screenings given to religious leaders. Subsequently, the film results with a resounding thunder of praise from a vast number of Christian leaders who all but command their congregations to see the film, some even recommending they take their children. (Brilliant. At seven years old I had nightmares for weeks from the image of E.T. screaming in the beam of Elliott’s flashlight. I can only imagine what the flesh being torn from person’s torso will do to a child, regardless of perspective.) As a result The Passion is being used to preach to the choir and adopted as religious propaganda by others. And still, nary a true review among the praises. It only helped to keep the film discussion on a basis of religious belief.

It’s not that the Christian audience doesn’t deserve to have their own film, particularly when God gets a bum rap in a lot of media anymore. The large dollar gross only proves their hunger for a little more quality after bring asked to accept Kirk Cameron and talking vegetables as their entertainment. Yet it’s surprising what Gibson chose not to do. When the charges of anti-Semitism began as far back as a year ago there was no reports of screenings given to Jewish leaders to ease their concerns. While it’s more than likely that it could have only increased their claims it would have in the very least shown some attempt to appear less biased. It could have also sparked a discussion and create some empathy for both sides. Even film critics were not even allowed screenings until a couple weeks before the release. Their reviews had no choice but to tackle the controversy and place things into perspective. Perhaps the film could have entered with a less religious weight and felt more for the whole. Instead, in the extreme case, we got televangelist Pat Robertson declaring Gibson a “genius.” Given that this was the same man who blamed rampant liberalism for the cause of September 11th is he really the best impartial voice for artistic commentary?

Part of Gibson’s courting of religious figures may have been done for his own personal validation. And certainly the spiritual empowerment one receives from the film is enough for someone to love the film. But for everybody? Regardless of how faithful to the text or spiritually uplifting does not necessarily make it a good film nor is it a comment of your own spirituality. Even the worst films were faithful to the religious texts. In King of Kings its impossible not be moved by the Sermon on the Mount scene but at the same time its difficult not to feel like the film drags. It may be disappointing that a film fails though it shares your convictions but it is also far from being a comment on them. Give me the religious themed The Apostle (1997) or The Song Of Bernadette (1943) any day but please don’t ask me to sit down to The Greatest Story Ever Told again.

The controversial films are not immune. Martin Scorcese’s The Last Temptation Of Christ opened to a storm of controversy when in it opened in the 1988. It was declared blasphemous by some, citing a scene in which Jesus has sex with Mary Magdalene. Upon actually viewing, one discovers that the scene occurs during a vision Jesus has while on the cross of what his life may have been had he chosen to become the savior but instead live a normal human life. In the end, for this viewer, the film fully illustrated the sacrifice Jesus made as he gave his life for the sins of man. Despite the claims made against the film it remained true to the themes of the New Testament scriptures. With King of Kings and Temptation, one that was once respected and the other reviled, it safe to believe The Passion of The Christ, which has been treated as both, will share the same attributes regardless of whether it is a good film or not.

So if it’s not controversy or faith keeping persons like myself from seeing this film than what is it? Well, can we talk about taste now?

My own reservations for seeing The Passion Of The Christ come from Gibson himself as a filmmaker. As an actor and director I have consistently found his films to fall within the range of “just okay” to bad. Unless you count that his excellent self-parody on The Simpson’s a couple years back I have to stretch back 20 years to The Road Warrior and Gallipoli to find a film I would rate as good (and yes, I’m including Braveheart). Gibson is certainly a very skilled artist with a clear vision. However, as an actor his choice in material leaves me wanting; as a director I feel he’s pulling at my emotive strings in both obvious and hard directions. Eventually I choose to leave his films to video rentals or avoid them altogether. But what that comes down to is personal taste. His taste and vision dictates how he utilizes his talents while mine decide whether I will like his final product or not. The pulse of the movie-going audience over the past ten years tells me that a large number do not share my taste in his films. His consistent box office appeal must take some of the credit for that $125 million opening because the audience trusted him to deliver based on their own history with him.

Upon release of the film the nations critics appeared to be mixed over the film. Anyone paying attention over the years have come to know that this usually means the film is… okay. I will see the film, yes, on video or television. If anything maybe The Passion IS the Chicago of religious themed films, making audiences more open to presentations on screen of spirituality which plays an important role in many people’s lives. At worst, the next one is the You Got Served of the genre. Maybe then we’ll get some perspective.

Scott Jones Jones grew up Baptist… So there!

Read Tony Liccardello’s Rant on M. Night Shyamalan Hate.
Read Tony Liccardello’s Rant on Going to the Movie Theatre.
Read Tony Liccardello’s Rant on Titanic’s Box Office Success.
Read Tony Liccardello’s Rant on Lou Lumenick’s Comments on Heath Ledger.
Read Tony Liccardello’s Rant on 24 (again).
Read Tony Liccardello’s Rant on 24.
Read Tony Liccardello’s Rant on The Writers’ Strike.
Read Tony Liccardello’s Rant on Video Games.
Read Tony Liccardello’s Rant on Entertainment Weekly.
Read Clint Fletcher’s Rant on The Last Mailbag Ever!.
Read Clint Fletcher’s Rant on Mark Steven Johnson.
Read Clint Fletcher’s Rant on The 6th Annual Doughboy Awards.
Read Clint Fletcher’s Rant on Shut the Fuck Up and Shoot!.
Read Clint Fletcher’s Rant on New Year’s Resolutions – 2007.
Read Clint Fletcher’s Rant on Eddie Murphy.
Read Tony Liccardello’s Rant on The Academy Awards.
Read Clint Fletcher’s Rant on 9/11 Movies.
Read Clint Fletcher’s Rant on Kevin Federline.
Read Clint Fletcher’s Rant on The Wayanses.
Read Clint Fletcher’s Rant on Sylvester Stallone.
Read Clint Fletcher’s Rant on Nuggets from the Latest Mailbag.
Read Michael Jones’s Rant on “But I want to…”.
Read Clint Fletcher’s Rant on Snakes on a Plane.
Read Clint Fletcher’s Rant on Jessica Alba.
Read Clint Fletcher’s Rant on George Lucas.
Read Clint Fletcher’s Rant on The Fifth Annual Doughboy Awards.
Read Clint Fletcher’s Rant on New Year’s Resolutions – 2006.
Read Clint Fletcher’s Rant on Santa Fletch’s Mailbag.
Read Clint Fletcher’s Rant on Release Dates.
Read Clint Fletcher’s Rant on Chris Tucker.
Read Clint Fletcher’s Rant on R-Rated Comedies.
Read Clint Fletcher’s Rant on Gems from the Mailbag, Part 2.
Read Clint Fletcher’s Rant on Remakes.
Read Clint Fletcher’s Rant on Paris Hilton.
Read Gary Schultz’s Rant on Superhero Films - Results.
Read Gary Schultz’s Rant on Superhero Films - Call to Vote.
Read Gary Schultz’s Rant on Assholes in the Movie Theatre.
Read Scott Jones’s Rant on The Passion of the Christ.
Read Paul Rosenblum’s Rant on 28 Days.
Read Yancey Strickler’s Rant on movie music.
Read Jon Bastian’s Rant on making box office smashes.

Got a problem? E-mail us at filmmonthly@gmail.com