Saturday, 6 March 2004 02:14 pm
Love it with a passion
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deckardcanineLast night I finally saw Passion , with four Christian friends, one of whom had already seen it (!) and knew enough Hebrew and Latin to translate some of the unsubtitled parts. The friend nearest to me was noticeably affected for much of it. I'm passive enough that I seldom reacted visibly or audibly, but I did feel an internal frown that would prevent me from smiling until minutes after the movie ended. Strangely enough, the crucifixion is not the most visually disturbing part.
That said, I give it at least a 9 out of 10, and I think that those who criticize it just don't get it. Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, whom I usually like to read, had warned that it was "tawdry, cartoony, badly acted," and of course subconsciously anti-Semitic. The first three of these critical details all stem from a perception that it's a historical documentary. But certain scenes depicting events not mentioned in Scripture -- secret appearances to people by Lucifer, a flashback of Jesus as a jovial carpenter -- indicate that this movie is really not The Gospel According to Mel, but art. You might complain that the characters are exaggerated (Barabbas did win chuckles with his ribaldry), but they are supposed to be. And you can't accuse it of melodrama, because a story this serious can never be made melodramatic.
As for the accusation of anti-Semitism, at least Cohen is man enough to state explicitly that he is not a Christian and that he finds the same flaw in parts of the New Testament. Neither the NT nor the movie ever makes it apparent that the Jewish nationality is to blame. Most of Jesus' sympathizers and devotees are Jews, and none of the opposing Jews are as savage as most of the Roman soldiers. In fact, the Gospel line that has most often been used to justify persecution of the Jews -- roughly, "His blood be on us and our children" (unsubtitled in the film) -- need not refer to a curse: the blood of Jesus is supposed to purify! Some say, "Well, yeah, the movie's not anti-Semitic, but it'll inspire anti-Semitism in others, so we boo it anyway." You might as well boo the passage on Ham in Genesis because it's been manipulated to justify African slavery.
Cohen's main complaint, however, was that the violence disturbed him by not disturbing him (how zen!). He found its excess inuring, to the point that he feared the movie had the same emotional effect that fascism has on a soldier. I didn't find that at all, and I think he reveals why: if you don't see Jesus as the Christ, even just for the purpose of appreciating the movie, then you're left with the torment and execution of a virtuous schmo, and the gore has no more power than it does in Gladiator.
Passion will probably not convert anyone to Christianity. It may increase the devotion of those who already have it, but I expect that to be a rather temporary effect. Above all, see it for the artistry. I had no idea Gibson could direct like that.
That said, I give it at least a 9 out of 10, and I think that those who criticize it just don't get it. Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, whom I usually like to read, had warned that it was "tawdry, cartoony, badly acted," and of course subconsciously anti-Semitic. The first three of these critical details all stem from a perception that it's a historical documentary. But certain scenes depicting events not mentioned in Scripture -- secret appearances to people by Lucifer, a flashback of Jesus as a jovial carpenter -- indicate that this movie is really not The Gospel According to Mel, but art. You might complain that the characters are exaggerated (Barabbas did win chuckles with his ribaldry), but they are supposed to be. And you can't accuse it of melodrama, because a story this serious can never be made melodramatic.
As for the accusation of anti-Semitism, at least Cohen is man enough to state explicitly that he is not a Christian and that he finds the same flaw in parts of the New Testament. Neither the NT nor the movie ever makes it apparent that the Jewish nationality is to blame. Most of Jesus' sympathizers and devotees are Jews, and none of the opposing Jews are as savage as most of the Roman soldiers. In fact, the Gospel line that has most often been used to justify persecution of the Jews -- roughly, "His blood be on us and our children" (unsubtitled in the film) -- need not refer to a curse: the blood of Jesus is supposed to purify! Some say, "Well, yeah, the movie's not anti-Semitic, but it'll inspire anti-Semitism in others, so we boo it anyway." You might as well boo the passage on Ham in Genesis because it's been manipulated to justify African slavery.
Cohen's main complaint, however, was that the violence disturbed him by not disturbing him (how zen!). He found its excess inuring, to the point that he feared the movie had the same emotional effect that fascism has on a soldier. I didn't find that at all, and I think he reveals why: if you don't see Jesus as the Christ, even just for the purpose of appreciating the movie, then you're left with the torment and execution of a virtuous schmo, and the gore has no more power than it does in Gladiator.
Passion will probably not convert anyone to Christianity. It may increase the devotion of those who already have it, but I expect that to be a rather temporary effect. Above all, see it for the artistry. I had no idea Gibson could direct like that.
