The final post (I hope) will be after I see the movie (don’t make me tell you how busy I am). But I can’t resist commenting anyway. 

First, Robert Musil passes along a great comment: “If you didn’t like the movie, you probably didn’t like the book.”. I bet that accounts for the skew between viewers and critics he reports – 99% positive for movie goers, 54% rotten for critics.

OK, can we officially close the Jew-hating aspect of the movie? All those religious fanatics have seen it, and yet no Jew-hating incidents — although the other fearless leader heard a claim by someone from the ADL during a panel discussion that a nice Jewish person was distressed at seeing a poster for the movie posted at a school and the person who posted it didn’t promptly remove it despite the distress. If that’s the complaint, time to move on to real outrages.

And now we have pundits (like Page and Safire – they don’t agree to often) going on record that the problem with Jew-hatred and the movie will be overseas, and not here. OK, in Europe and the Middle East there is already a lot of Jew-hatred, and the materials that float around in those locals are far more inflammatory — and unambiguously filled with Jew-hatred — than the movie The Passion. And it’s not like either of those two places are very Christian anymore, although I grant that they once were. But it’s odd that the thrust should be The Passion, and not the existing Jew-hatred in those places, like so called art, literature, or entertainment. I mean, if we’re going to talk about Jew-hatred overseas, lets be honest about it, and let’s talk about the virulent home grown stuff over there that really is far, far worse than anything Mel or his movie have even been accused of. Try Little Green Footballs if you want to find links to some real live breathing Jew-hatred. 

And how about Hollywood. After giving Mel and his movie the cold shoulder, they gave a nice big wet smootchie to Leni Riefenstahl, Nazi filmmaker extraordinaire. Nice to know principle still counts for something.

When Bill O’Reilly asked him what he learned from all this, Gibson joked “have another Bible script handy because the studios are all going to want to do it now.” After the weekend the The Passion just had, they aren’t laughing at that remark in Hollywood – they’re too busy looking for Bible scripts to shoot. But not just any Bible scripts after the box office failures of Dogma and Last Temptation of Christ, but ones that ordinary Christians can identify with.

Tags: Passion

While there’s a natural tendency to defend what you believe in, I don’t have a problem with people not liking The Passion. It’s a powerful movie about a powerful subject, so it’s to be expected that the reaction to it varies. People are entitled to the reactions and emotions. A movie shouldn’t and can’t be a test of your faith. 

But I have come across some stupid stuff. The review in the Post-Dispatch about its accuracy was particularly stupid – ignoring real instances of inaccuracy it nevertheless lambasted the movie as generally inaccurate while only citing an error in the press guide. 

The review also had this doozy: “One problem with filming the Gospels is that they all contain many ambiguous statements, statements that can be interpreted in more than one way. But the act of committing them to film commits the viewer to understanding them as the director does.” I’ve seen a similar sentiment expressed in several other reviews, including Leon Wieseltier’s. The problem is that the Gospels don’t contain many ambiguous statements — it’s the rest of the New Testament that does. The Gospels consist of descriptions and dialogue of the form: Jesus went here and the following statements were made. It isn’t ambiguous about what happened or what was said. The ambiguities come from what does it mean. For instance, we have the parable of the sower — there is no ambiguity about what Jesus said, but until He explained it, not even the disciples (they had to ask) understood it. Now I understand that Gibson didn’t include only what was written in the Gospels (hey it’s a movie, not the Bible), but its not like the movie consists of Gibson sitting on a stool telling you what he thinks the Gospels mean. 

Wieseltier outdoes himself: “The ending is happy, which has the effect of making the viewer, or at least this viewer, feel like he has been duped.” I know Leon’s not a Christian and all, but if you’re surprised by the resurrection, you know absolutely nothing of Christianity. Leon has no trouble speaking about the history of Christianity, yet oddly misses it’s central tenet. I don’t expect him to believe in it, I just expect an expert like him to know that Christians do.

Tags: Passion

Who knew that a movie about Christ’s death would be a murder mystery. A lot more gory than my favorite, Miss Marple or her Americanization, Jessica Fletcher, but a murder mystery nevertheless. I suppose the whole “Who Shot J.R.?” thing was so unpopular, certain Jewish groups figured turning The Passion into “Who Killed Christ?” would hurt it at the box office. Based on the press, it reminds me of The Jagged Edge, in that even when the killer is revealed, my wife and I couldn’t tell if it was Jeff Bridges or not. What these groups failed to realize is that I, along with nearly all other Christians, already had an answer to that particular mystery from around the time of my acceptance of Jesus as Lord, and the answer is we all did.

Reviews are all over the map – some were intellectually engaged, more than one thought it profound, some some moved by it, some hated it, and some don’t want to see it at all. Oddly enough, none of them saw it as a murder mystery.

One of the interesting things about the movie is how people describe Gibson’s take on Pontius Pilate. Andrew Sullivan proclaims “Pilate, the Saint”. Others are more nuanced in that they say Pilate stands in for us – if he were a brute, we couldn’t identify with him. When Mel Gibson talked about Pilate in his interview with Bill O’Reilly, this is what he said:

“He actually condemned a man to death who he had proclaimed he thought was innocent. … He’s a monster.”

I’m both looking forward to seeing it, and dreading it at the same time.

Tags: Passion

I think Michael Medved has a great take on the controversy (including some important history) surrounding Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ:

“If nothing else, the bitter disputes and free-floating anxiety over The Passion of The Christ should help enlighten the Jewish community to the identity of our true enemies today—and our truest friends. A sane perspective on the public reaction to the movie’s artistry and message may yet help Gibson achieve his original goal of promoting unity, rather than division, among Christians, Jews, and the rest of humanity.”

I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I think two groups are going to be proven wrong – Jews who are worried about it causing anti-Semitism, and Christians who are hoping it will help with outreach.

I think anti-Semitism (which we ought to just call Jew-Hatred which is both clearer and more correct) is the mark of stupidity, ignorance, and malice all rolled into one. It has no place in Christianity, and isn’t taught by the Bible. The people who are going to be moved by The Passion are not going to be turned to anti-Semitism. And by the same token, the people who are going to be moved by The Passion I think will be people who are already believers. I see the upside of the movie to be that it will help foster Christian (and Jewish) unity, and that it will deepen and strengthen current believers’ faith. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think it’s going to pack the pews.

Tags: Passion

I got a good laugh at Andrew Sullivan’s blog this morning (yes Virginia, he’s required reading):

“Gibson is not in the mainstream of Catholic thought; his emphasis on the Jewish priests in the Gospel narrative violates official Catholic concern about fomenting anti-Semitism. And his focus on the physical suffering of Christ may be excessive. … But I don’t trust Gibson an iota.”

Um, Andrew, near as I can tell, you yourself are not in the mainstream of Catholic thought, and when did you start to take notice of official Catholic concern? Andrew’s remarks are in response (support?) of sometimes contributor to National Review, Ed Kilgore, whose statements about Evangelical Christians bear little resemblance to the reality I know. Somehow, I don’t think he considers himself one. But he’s down right loopy in this sentence: 

“And third, I’m a bit concerned, though not surprised, by the sort of Popular Front thinking that has so many conservatives from every religious background expressing total solidarity with Gibson’s faith, which is by any standard a bit eccentric, and by Catholic standards specifically, heretical or at least schismatic. “

I don’t think any conservative are expressing total solidarity with Gibson’s faith – what I’ve heard is an expression of solidarity with his movie in so far as and so long as it is a faithful rendering of the Gospels. And perhaps Protestantism isn’t too worried about schisms – having been born in schism from the Catholic church, and further subdividing almost beyond counting subsequently. I think what heartens Christians, leaders and rank and file, is that here is a movie which unites all Christians, liberal and conservative; Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox: all Christians. Apparently though, not all we Christians are happy about that.

But then I hit Chris Johnson’s blog and had my perspective restored by his take on The Passion:

“Two thousand years on, many of us shake our heads in disgust at the fear and cowardice of Jesus’ inner circle who left Him alone at the end of His earthly life. We would be brave, we think; we would never desert our Lord. In a very small and indirect way, Mel Gibson is giving us a chance to stay with our Savior during His most terrible hours. And it’s interesting that lots of alleged Christians still prefer to run away.”

Thanks Chris.

Tags: Passion