Wired Mesh

from one half-jew to another, i don't care to comment on the film right now, but just to let you know that there are other half-jews out here in chattablogdom. you might be one of the few people i'm acquainted with who would be excited if, when visiting my apartment, i tell you that i'll give you a dollar if you can find the matzoh cracker.

I would indeed. Gelt is always welcome.

I appreciate you taking the time to write a post like this. It's helpful, to say the least. I think I did understand some of your hesitation, but some I also didn't understand. A few comments, and maybe after we both see it, we can talk about it some more.

First, isn't any presentation like this ultimately going to be skewed towards whatever vision the filmmaker has? If you look at the history of these passion films, they seem to overemphasize certain elements of Christ over others. Either he is too human, or too divine. But, one thing that has continually been produced has been the genteel, sweet Jesus in which we are taken out of some of the more difficult elements of our savior. Either the actual character himself is washed thoroughly with soap (Ebert notes that in King of Kings, the actor playing Jesus had his armpits shaved because he looked too hairy and grimy on the cross) or the message itself is. Yet, taken together, as a whole, we do see the many different elements of Christ's life. Mel's movie ends up serving a niche among these films. He is not repeating the others, for one, but rather offering an extended meditation on one single element of Jesus's ministry - an important element, but of course not the only element, nor even necessary the most important element. But an important element nonetheless.

The gospels themselves offer slightly nuanced different perspectives on the same man and sometimes even the same events. Why isn't it legitimate to allow a filmmaker the freedom to do the same? The movie shouldn't have to bear the additional burden of not doing enough, or of having done something differently. Mel wanted to make this film; he made this film. It doesn't have to be the completely, full-orbed gospel. FOr the orthodox, it seems like it should only be true as far as it goes.

This is what it seems to me - again I'm repeating myself - the narratives themselves do. Perhaps it's not possible in one movie to tell the single story of Jesus's life. There are four stories we have of his life, and undoubtedly, we could have had four million other ones, all slightly different told from a different perspective than the others.

As for the concern you have that this could draw an even sharper divide between liberals and conservatives, Jews and Christians - this is understandable. But I guess my response to that is that it seems unlikely that any cultural event could really have that much power. I don't think any single cultural event could have the power to heal those broken relationships, let alone divide them further than they are. At least, not in the public arena. But is it really fair to make a film carry so much responsibility in the first place? And besides, I guess it just seems like anything we make is going to have the potential to be taken the wrong way by some people - especially when that something is produced for public consumption. The previous Jesus films were criticized precisely because they went out of their way to be so openly bland and glib that they did not possess the ability to offend or annoy anyone.

As for the violence - I don't know yet how to respond. Like I said, every interpretation is going to be skewed somewhat, even when it's accurate. It's not called the Gospel of Jesus Christ, though; it's called the Passion. The event probably did happen more or less like how Mel pictures it, with Jesus being genuinely tortured physically. I guess my response to this is much more personal. I honestly don't know what that torture was like, not even what it was kind of like. I can't even picture it. I don't know. I'm curious. I want to see that. And maybe you're right - maybe after I see it, I'll think that this film does accomplish its goals well (or not), but that taken by itself, is incomplete.

I guess I keep going back to the fact that with this addition, we have numerous Hollywood stories that enable us to enter into this story about Jesus. Heck, Magnolia does it as well, if not better, as any of those old passion films. This movie does not, in my mind, bear any responsibility for educating the population about Christ, nor even of telling the entire story. He's a filmmaker, wanting to tell a particular story, and it seems like we should extend him the same courtesy as we would any filmmaker wanting to make any story. Maybe that's naive, but it seems like it's unfair to put so much responsiblity on Gibson to do more than he did.

I only have ten minutes before class, so I'm not sure why I'm trying to talk about this now. If The Passion is what critics say it is then I'm not sure we have a movie of value on our hands. I'm worried that Gibson is essentially making a movie that can only be understood by people who already have a firm grasp of the Gospel. It's like preaching, I think that preaching ultimately needs to come back to the Gospel. If a pastor spent a whole sermon talking about the process of Christ dying for us, if he preached about the last 12 hours of Christ's life, and didn't do anything else. I would not be happy with that sermon. Sure, I, someone raised in the church, could draw great implicit points from a sermon like that. But what about the non-believer sitting on the back row? Would they? I'm inclined to say no. In the same sense I have misgivings that Gibson's movie preaches to the choir.

I feel like you're demanding too much of a movie, Matt. Essentially, you're requiring that a movie about Jesus be evangelistic. It must tell them everything about Jesus, or nothing at all.

Putting aside all disagreements, though, this review of Ebert's is really incredible. For instance, when he ends the review by saying, "It is a film about an idea. An idea that it is necessary to fully comprehend the Passion if Christianity is to make any sense. Gibson has communicated his idea with a singleminded urgency. Many will disagree. Some will agree, but be horrified by the graphic treatment. I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it."

I would've had no idea that Ebert wasn't religious in reading his review. He expounds eloquently on orthodox christology, and in so doing, affected me at a deep level. Yet at the end, he makes a cryptic allusion to his own doubts that leave you wonder what he does in fact believe.

I love Ebert, though. He exhibits unbelievable charity towards all filmmakers. Most critics go out of their way to be showy, or maybe take some limited pride in slamming a movie, but Ebert never does. He brings a kind of hermeneutic of love to every movie he views. I told one of the guys in my program last year that the kind of man I aspire to be - as a friend, as a father, as a husband, as a teacher - is embodied in the way in which Ebert relates to each film. I know that sounds corny, but it's really true. His reviews really affect me at a deep level.

On that point, Scott, we completely agree. And I think our major point of contention over The Passion at this point is whether or not a movie about Jesus' death is valuable outside of any explicit explaination of its redemptive context. Ebert seems to feel that it is still powerful; Denby and to a lesser extent A.O. Scott find it degrading to Christ's meaning. I suspect that both of us will find our opinions molded (and perhaps moderated) by our actual experience of the film. Let's at the very least grant it the charity that Ebert always does. I'm still working on doing that in my reviews. (If I can find a way to unite Ebert's love and Anthony Lane's impassioned wit, I'll be a happy man.)

Though I can understand where Mesh is coming from on most of his points, I think that my current thoughts are along the lines of Scott's. I think that any argument saying that the film is incomplete or only a partial picture starts on the assumption that Gibson was making a film about the Gospel. This movie was not made to be the story of the Gospel. It was made to be the story of the last 12 hours of Christ's life. Obviously, Gibson's story is a part of the Gospel story, but he's never claimed (to my knowledge) that he was trying to present a complete Gospel picture. Criticizing him on this point is like criticizing Carl Boberg for not explaining the our “burden” that Christ gladly bore in his song “How Great Thou Art”.

And why do we not criticize Boberg for not explaining this? Because, as believers, we already understand (hopefully) what Boberg is talking about. Boberg is emphasizing the greatness of God by bringing out specific actions or attributes of God while entirely leaving out others, but as Christians we understand that. In a way Boberg is preaching to the choir because this is a song that a non-believer can't appreciate or even understand.

In the same way Gibson is emphasizing one part of Christ's life without making an attempt to chronicle the whole story. So is Gibson preaching to the choir? I'd say so, but does that make it unfit for mass consumption? I'd say not, and this is why.

Because the scores and scores of non-believers out there who are going to see this film are going to be forced to deal with the reality of what Christians believe (we actually think that someone came back from the dead?), and they, if they care enough, will either draw upon their past teaching (referring here to the Southern states where everyone is a Christian) or talk to those around them (talkin bout the Union states here), or both (er, Midwestern states?).

All that to say, no Gibson's portrayal isn't a complete gospel picture, but I'd hope that the part of the gospel he does show would force people to thoughtfully deal with the reality of Christian beliefs.

It seems like the criticism is saying that the movie fails because it does not failed to be an evangelical tract. But, you could also see this as it's strength.

That should read, "because it failed to be an evangelical tract." In other words, by only telling one part of Jesus's story, it failed. The movie, to be valuable culturally, cannot isolate one part of the story.

I mean, what if Gibson had chosen to make a movie about Jesus's life as a carpenter? Or perhaps the day that the loaves multiplied? It seems to me like we should give artists a bit more freedom. When I was writing poetry a lot in college, I went through a lengthy phase towards the end where I wanted to write devotional poems. Culturally, I didn't think it was at all mandatory for a Christian poet to make explicitly "Christian" poetry. But I felt the need to write those then.

The Passion, as a ritual, has been celebrated as a distinct event by the Catholic Church for two millenia. It's not therefore completely odd that Gibson would make a movie depicting this. It's not asceticism, either, in my opinion. There is precedent.

(On a different front, I completely respect your opinion on this Mesh. I'm mainly just intereted in more discussion).

I feel rather awful continuing to bag on this movie before I see it, so take my concerns as purely theoretical.

That said, I don't think I've been arguing that The Passion isn't a worthwhile work of art unless it serves as an evangelical tract. (If I ever make this comment about any work of art, actually, you may feel free to shoot me, because my intellectual life is over anyhow.) If anything, I'm concerned that The Passion will be a tract of sorts, albiet one that tries to shock and inspire guilt. Churches are using this movie as an evangelical tool, and it seems like an awfully dark, emotionally manipulative one to me.

But you're right, Scott, that Gibson has every right as an artist to focus on one aspect, no matter how small, in the life of Jesus. But if the reports are true, that he has chosen to focus nearly exclusively on Christ's physical torture, then it is valid criticism to say that his scope seems blinkered, life-denying and obsessive. I recognize that there's a mainstream Christian tradition of this sort of thing, but I suspect that the most direct predecessor of the mood of this movie is not Caravaggio but the late-night Christian radio shows that kept me awake at night as a child, as "experts" discussed the possibility that Jesus died because his heart literally burst. I think there's something edifying about meditating on both Christ's sacrifice and suffering, but clinical, protracted studies of such suffering strike me as a modern phenomenon, and one I don't know that I'm comfortable with.

Heck, maybe my problem is that I've never been personlly very comfortable with graphic movie violence. I avoid watching slasher movies, and squirm through a lot of Gibson's other bloodbaths. (When it comes to adult content, I prefer sex. It just seems friendlier.)

I respect your opinions on this as well, Scott, and I think the issues we're tackling are worth discussing, even if some think it's pointless to discuss movies we haven't seen.

This is somewhat unrelated to the current direction of these comments but I offer it up anyway. This is another reason that some Christians are giving as to why we shouldn't support films such as The Passion. I received this link by email (after several forwards) and I therefore do not really know much about the source. All that being said, here is the link. The basic premise of this argument, as best I can tell from the parts that I have read, is that this movie, and all Passion plays by extension, are inherently blasphemous. I'm not sure that I necessarily agree, and as I mentioned before I haven't finished reading it yet, but I offer it up and I am interested in other's thoughts.

While it is certainly true that we shouldn't hold an artist, trying to say something about his faith, to a standard that demands evangelism. However, what if that artist is trying to evangelize? What then? Should that evangelism be a complete gospel presentations. Yes. Is Mel Gibson, as an artist trying to evangelize with this movie? I wouldn't think so, but then there's official web-site places like this

"Perhaps the best outreach opportunity in 2000 years..." Shudder.

Matt seems to be suggesting that Gibson is connected to the website he linked to ("official web-site places"). If this is correct, Matt, can you provide evidence for Gibson's connection to the site? If I'm reading your post wrong then I apologize.

Mesh,
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts behind your shudder.

The encroachment of modern marketing techniques into evangelism has always bothered me. But what makes that sentence so awful is the clever "2000 years" remark, which both ignores church history and (to me) suggests that this movie is almost as important an event as Christ's atonement. It just fels crass.

Thanks, just wondering.

This web site I linked to is part of the Passion family of sites, on the main passion web site, there are four buttons at the bottom, one is titled Support the Film, it takes you to a site that has a bunch of different, equally evangelistic resource pages, that explicitly promotes using this film as an evangelistic tool.

Oh and their is a disclaimer at the bottom of the PassionOutreach site. However, this holds little water with me, if icon productions is willing to give you direct link to this sight, that in going there doesn't give you any reason to think its a link, then in my mind, its an endorsement.

And on that note, I'm off to a Northgate showing with the faculty of the McCaulie School. When I return, hopefully I'll have something more useful to say than "shudder."

I guess matt brought up part of my point. This movie can be used as a tool, in that it gives us (believers) an opportunity to defend the hope that we have to those who have never before questioned why we have that hope. The movie opens up communication lines to those who wouldn't be willing to listen to us in the past. Thoughts?

Yes The Passion can be a tool. The question is if it will be a good one. We'll see. I wouldn't consider myself some dissafected Christian who likes to agree with the liberals out of spite for mainstream evangelical Christianity. However, I am sensitive to their reactions. If these people are reacting negatively, it definately isn't a good tool for them. And I don't mean to refer to liberals who dislike The Passion for political reasons. I don't think you could say that about Denby or the NYT critic A.O. Scott.

to put a bit of cynicism into the mix... I think the evangi-cube is the best evangelical tool in 2000 years, but thats just me.

I used to be Catholic, I grew up going to a church where there was a crucified Christ, life like, life size, complete with painted blood on the body, it scared me at times during mass, at times I thought it was alive. I'm going to the movie this weekend with the inlaws, i really don't want to since I hate opening weekends. I'm not going in with any expectations, except that I'm going to have to read a lot which will require me to focus on the words on the screen not necessarily the action.

Jon Barlow, a graduate student in theology at SLU, has reviewed the movie here. Lots of insightful comments in his review (or analysis; it's more of a play-by-play analysis a straight review, so be prepared for a lot of spoilers). I get the sense, after reading Barlow's review, that Gibson had given a lot of thought to the significance of each scene. He has Herod, for instance, dressed in Egyptian garb - something which Barlow notes would've been particularly abhorrent to the Jews, given that it would reinforce their slavery to Rome. In light of that fact, it makes the mission of Jesus although more paradoxical in the minds of the Jews. They were expecting a messiah like Moses who would politically expel the pagans from power and bring them liberation. They were not expecting a messiah like Jesus.

Barlow also takes issue with Ebert's claim that this is the most violent movie he's ever seen. He notes that Fight Club, Seven, and even Gangs of New York had far more violent and shocking scenes of terror. He notes that for the believer who has grown up in the church (and also the fact that he has an M.Div., is getting a historical theology PhD, has taken numerous christology courses, and has given a lot of thought to the flogging and crucifiction that Jesus endured), the violence isn't at all surprising since you've meditated on it for a long time before this movie was even attempted.

I woke up this morning with a couple of inches of snow on the ground, and an email saying school was cancelled. If I can find a babysitter, I'm going to try and get someone to watch Miles today so Paige and I can see the movie. That is, after Miles has run in the snow like crazy.