This isn’t simply “oh, I’m not that interested so I think I’ll skip it”. Oh sure, I’m not that interested in the movie, but that’s not why I’m skipping this one. And it’s not because of the uproar over whether or not the movie’s anti-Semitic. Nope, it’s all about marketing and cynicism…
I don’t have any problem with Gibson making a movie about his beliefs, nor ultimately with his ultra-traditionalist take on Catholicism. It’s problematic to me that he may believe that the Jews deserve blame for the death of Christ, but I’ve already talked about my take on that whole topic, so I’m not going to into that here.
(On KROQ earlier this week, they spoke with a theologian who pointed out that the early Christians—Peter, the rest of the apostles, etc.—were all Jews and that the blame for Christ’s death, if it was to be laid anywhere, was Rome’s. It wasn’t until several centuries later, when the Christians were attempting to convert the Romans that the blame was shifted to the Jews, since you can’t really blame the people you’re trying to convert for killing your God.)
But, the more I read about the movie, the more I’m bothered by the manipulative way that it’s been marketed, by the way that the controversy has been used to generate interest in the movie and the way that it’s now been turned into an event movie, used to proselytize another narrow-minded view of religion in this country.
Let’s look at it realistically… a graphic depiction of Christ’s last day on earth, filmed entirely in the original Latin and Aramaic (both dead languages) which was originally going to be presented without subtitles should have sunk like a rock at the box-office, attended only by those ready to work themselves into a state of religious ecstasy over the weekend following Ash Wednesday. Gibson financed it with his own money and couldn’t get a distributor to touch it until Newmarket (this year’s hot new indie producer) opted to give it a go. Now it’s being released on more screens than Tom Cruise’s Last Samurai and is almost guaranteed to make back Gibson’s 25 million in the first weekend, thanks in part to the controversy surrounding the movie, but thanks also to an aggressive campaign to Christian groups across the country to come out in support of the film, with an encouragement to use it in their proselytizing efforts, especially to teenagers.
(If you'll allow a little "god, I'm fed up with religion today" rhetoric for the moment… can you imagine any other life-altering addictive behavior being targeted specifically to teenagers and someone, somewhere, not getting concerned? And don’t tell me “it’s a good thing because it’s Religion”! Ask the Jews how they’ll feel about it if their worst fears about the repercussions of this film pan out and see how “good a thing” they think it’ll be.)
As for the controversy itself, it’s hard to argue that Gibson doesn’t have an agenda in his storytelling. He defends his story by simply stating that it’s based on the Bible (and, in a Diane Sawyer interview last week, pointing out that there were only Jews and Romans in Jerusalem at the time—there were no Norwegians. Yes, he’s still witty.) But there are four Gospels in the Bible, each with its own tale of the Crucifixion. Gibson apparently chose the most militant of the Gospels, the one that specifically lays the blame for Christ’s death on the Jews. He’s a smart man and a shrewd businessman—there’s no way this choice wasn’t intentional and, I believe, calculated.
As for the calculated marketing moves, here's how I see it…
Knowing that he was going to catch hell over the tone and potential underlying message of his movie (whether he intended that message or not), knowing that it would be hard to draw a broad audience into his film, he chose a campaign that never denied the charges. He then refused to meet with Jewish leaders expressing concern over the movie’s message and refused to speak to anyone (until the Diane Sawyer interview) that was not already predisposed to approve of his film. He had screenings of the film for church leaders across the country, but refused to answer or even discuss any questions from anyone outside his select group of invitees. (And yes, I fully understand that none of these things are inherently wrong and he’s perfectly justified in doing this.)
Now, less than a week before the movie opens, word comes that the scene where the Jewish leader calls down the blame for Christ’s death on his people for all eternity has been edited and the offending line has been cut. Not so soon that the controversy could have diminished, but early enough that the film, as it’s now released, is, ostensibly, less offensive than it would previously have been.
So what Gibson's done here is left in the overtly controversial content just long enough to make sure that everyone knows about the movie and now HAS to see it, then drops it at the last minute, so he can play the martyr and say, "see, I've complied with your demands… will you leave my movie alone now?" The inherent cynicism I see in this—the opportunistic manipulation of controversy and religion—is reason enough for me to stay far away from this film, no matter what else might be said about it.
Interestingly, the reviews I've seen so far have been unimpressed with the film overall. It's graphically violent (some might think gratuitously so)… it’s strident and heavy-handed… it's arguably anti-Semitic, or at the very least, paints the Jewish people with a very broad brush that leaves them hostile, uncaring and unsympathetic…
These are just the impressions I've taken away from the reviews. Mel's passion, his crisis of faith, has led him to make an aggressive, angry film that succeeds only in preaching to the choir… those who will see it and embrace it are those who already share his beliefs. Maybe that's enough for him. Maybe that was his intent all along. Whatever the case, I won't have anything to do with this one.
Review/commentary:
New York Times: Good and Evil Locked in Violent Showdown
Dave Poland's Hot Button: Where does one start with The Passion of The Christ?
I don’t have any problem with Gibson making a movie about his beliefs, nor ultimately with his ultra-traditionalist take on Catholicism. It’s problematic to me that he may believe that the Jews deserve blame for the death of Christ, but I’ve already talked about my take on that whole topic, so I’m not going to into that here.
(On KROQ earlier this week, they spoke with a theologian who pointed out that the early Christians—Peter, the rest of the apostles, etc.—were all Jews and that the blame for Christ’s death, if it was to be laid anywhere, was Rome’s. It wasn’t until several centuries later, when the Christians were attempting to convert the Romans that the blame was shifted to the Jews, since you can’t really blame the people you’re trying to convert for killing your God.)
But, the more I read about the movie, the more I’m bothered by the manipulative way that it’s been marketed, by the way that the controversy has been used to generate interest in the movie and the way that it’s now been turned into an event movie, used to proselytize another narrow-minded view of religion in this country.
Let’s look at it realistically… a graphic depiction of Christ’s last day on earth, filmed entirely in the original Latin and Aramaic (both dead languages) which was originally going to be presented without subtitles should have sunk like a rock at the box-office, attended only by those ready to work themselves into a state of religious ecstasy over the weekend following Ash Wednesday. Gibson financed it with his own money and couldn’t get a distributor to touch it until Newmarket (this year’s hot new indie producer) opted to give it a go. Now it’s being released on more screens than Tom Cruise’s Last Samurai and is almost guaranteed to make back Gibson’s 25 million in the first weekend, thanks in part to the controversy surrounding the movie, but thanks also to an aggressive campaign to Christian groups across the country to come out in support of the film, with an encouragement to use it in their proselytizing efforts, especially to teenagers.
(If you'll allow a little "god, I'm fed up with religion today" rhetoric for the moment… can you imagine any other life-altering addictive behavior being targeted specifically to teenagers and someone, somewhere, not getting concerned? And don’t tell me “it’s a good thing because it’s Religion”! Ask the Jews how they’ll feel about it if their worst fears about the repercussions of this film pan out and see how “good a thing” they think it’ll be.)
As for the controversy itself, it’s hard to argue that Gibson doesn’t have an agenda in his storytelling. He defends his story by simply stating that it’s based on the Bible (and, in a Diane Sawyer interview last week, pointing out that there were only Jews and Romans in Jerusalem at the time—there were no Norwegians. Yes, he’s still witty.) But there are four Gospels in the Bible, each with its own tale of the Crucifixion. Gibson apparently chose the most militant of the Gospels, the one that specifically lays the blame for Christ’s death on the Jews. He’s a smart man and a shrewd businessman—there’s no way this choice wasn’t intentional and, I believe, calculated.
As for the calculated marketing moves, here's how I see it…
Knowing that he was going to catch hell over the tone and potential underlying message of his movie (whether he intended that message or not), knowing that it would be hard to draw a broad audience into his film, he chose a campaign that never denied the charges. He then refused to meet with Jewish leaders expressing concern over the movie’s message and refused to speak to anyone (until the Diane Sawyer interview) that was not already predisposed to approve of his film. He had screenings of the film for church leaders across the country, but refused to answer or even discuss any questions from anyone outside his select group of invitees. (And yes, I fully understand that none of these things are inherently wrong and he’s perfectly justified in doing this.)
Now, less than a week before the movie opens, word comes that the scene where the Jewish leader calls down the blame for Christ’s death on his people for all eternity has been edited and the offending line has been cut. Not so soon that the controversy could have diminished, but early enough that the film, as it’s now released, is, ostensibly, less offensive than it would previously have been.
So what Gibson's done here is left in the overtly controversial content just long enough to make sure that everyone knows about the movie and now HAS to see it, then drops it at the last minute, so he can play the martyr and say, "see, I've complied with your demands… will you leave my movie alone now?" The inherent cynicism I see in this—the opportunistic manipulation of controversy and religion—is reason enough for me to stay far away from this film, no matter what else might be said about it.
Interestingly, the reviews I've seen so far have been unimpressed with the film overall. It's graphically violent (some might think gratuitously so)… it’s strident and heavy-handed… it's arguably anti-Semitic, or at the very least, paints the Jewish people with a very broad brush that leaves them hostile, uncaring and unsympathetic…
These are just the impressions I've taken away from the reviews. Mel's passion, his crisis of faith, has led him to make an aggressive, angry film that succeeds only in preaching to the choir… those who will see it and embrace it are those who already share his beliefs. Maybe that's enough for him. Maybe that was his intent all along. Whatever the case, I won't have anything to do with this one.
Review/commentary:
New York Times: Good and Evil Locked in Violent Showdown
Dave Poland's Hot Button: Where does one start with The Passion of The Christ?
Comments