TheAgitator.com
Reviewing The Passion
Wednesday, February 25th, 2004Just about what you’d expect from all quarters.
At NRO, they’re killing thesauri. “Unlike anything in the history of film,” “a harbinger for America’s third great religious awakening,” “it should help us love one another,” “it’s for all time.”
Odd how quickly the “there’s too much violence in movies” crowd hushes when they approve of the subject matter in the violent movie in question.
Meanwhile, the NY Times’ AO Scott manages to work Homer Simpson into his largely negative review. But did you really expect the Times to take the movie seriously?
Most honest review I’ve seen? Surprisingly enough, from Roger Ebert, who as a relapsed Catholic had no dog in this fight. His review was pretty positive.
Shortest review? A commenter at Hit & Run: “The book was better.”
I plan to see it, but probably not until video.
I plan to see it, but probably not until video.
Same here. Just as with most other movies, I’d rather not fight the throngs at the theater.
I think you have it wrong Radley. It is not so much the violence that they criticize but the glorification of violence, the “its cool to be a gangsta” type violence.
Saving Private Ryan was very violent but it did not get reemed from the “religious right”.
I agree with Michael. The violence in this movie is in context and is definitely not glorified. We plan on watching it this weekend.
My 10-year old wants to see this, but Roger Ebert said it is the most violent movie he’s ever viewed. I’m not sure she can handle it – has anyone seen it yet?
A lot of the negative reviews I have read take great issue with the violence, especially the scourging of Christ. However, a lot of these same critics fell all over themselves to praise ‘Kill Bill’, a movie filled with decapitations and torrents of arterial blood spraying all over the screen. So, Radley, isn’t it odd that those that really dig violent films like ‘Kill Bill’ change their tune when they take issue with the subject matter?
The violence in this movie is in context and is definitely not glorified. We plan on watching it this weekend.
Ummm…not to be a nitpicker or anything, Ms. Dani, but how do you know the violence is in context if you haven’t seen the movie yet?
M.Smith, I would not take a 10 year old to see this film. The torture and violence endured by Jesus in this film is unrelenting and very intense. I do not know if you and your daughter are believers, but this would be a very harsh movie for a child to see. Most portrayals of the crucifixion are somewhat sanitized, this movie brings the what Cicero called “the cruelest and most hideous punishment possible” to life in vivid detail and horror. See the movie without her first and then judge whether or not your daughter can deal with it…my impression is that she may still be too young…but you may not want to watch the movie again either.
M. Smith, I have an 8 year old who believes in and loves the Lord, but I am not taking her to see this movie. I just don’t feel it would be responsible on my part to lay this burden on her jsut yet.
Jason, I understand why you would ask that question.
I’ve seen enough previews and know the story well enough to know that the violence is in context. Also, some of my close friends have already seen it.
I haven’t yet seen the film. I also tend to enjoy Tony Scott’s reviews, and this part caught my eye:
What makes the movie so grim and ugly is Mr. Gibson’s inability to think beyond the conventional logic of movie narrative. In most movies â?? certainly in most movies directed by or starring Mr. Gibson â?? violence against the innocent demands righteous vengeance in the third act, an expectation that Mr. Gibson in this case whips up and leaves unsatisfied.
On its own, apart from whatever beliefs a viewer might bring to it, “The Passion of the Christ” never provides a clear sense of what all of this bloodshed was for, an inconclusiveness that is Mr. Gibson’s most serious artistic failure.
That sounds to me like there is no context, or at rather, the film is lacking one. Then, to what end, violence? I guess it’s okay because it’s Jesus. But if Gibson wanted to make this version as widely powerful as possible (notice I didn’t say a box office sucess), he, like any bringer of a religious message, has a duty to preach not just to the choir, so to speak.
I also resent the notion that other films using violence implies said violence is necessarily glorified. Scott briefly brings up Tarantino’s Kill Bill: Volume 1 and Noe’s Irreversible, and perhaps wrongly focuses on the former rather than the latter, which was so brutal to watch I’m not sure I could ever lay eyes on it again, but I still thought it an unbelievably powerful statement about, among other things, a human’s need to define the boundaries of their world (here, a sexual world) and an inherent need for revenge at all costs, particularly when mixed with those boundaries being violated (and the further rage that ensues).
I don’t think Gibson should be let off the hook (particularly by the religious folk) simply because what he is presenting may be *realistic*. At the end of the day, it’s still a cinematic and artistic statement, and one that can and should be judged as such.
That said, I skimmed Ebert’s piece as well, and remain open-minded about what the film is able to accomplish.
(Oops. I meant to italicize that third paragraph as well. It’s Scott’s, not mine.)
The most gratuitously violent film I have ever seen is “Saving Private Ryan” yet I never heard any criticism for the violence. It seems like if the event actually happened (or could have actually happened, or is just one guys interpretation of something that could have actually happened) then the film gets a pass.
Also interestingly the first time I ever heard the word “shit” broadcast on network TV was during “ET” and the first time I heard the word “fuck” broadcast (intentionally) on network TV it was during “Shindler’s List”.
What’s so special about Spielberg that he gets a pass on what are otherwise called “important cultural mores?”
I love his movies too, but why the double-standard?
Criticizing Spielberg for anything would be anti-Semitic.
Michael – HAHAHAHAAAA! *snif* Thanks. That was hilarious.
Maybe you didn’t want to toot Fox’s horn, Radley, so I will. The Fox 411 piece on this film makes some excellent points and outlines precisely why I will never watch The Passion. I usually refrain from watching any gratuitous violence if I can – I just don’t like it. Oh well, to each his own.
Fox 411
The 411 piece was interesting to me in that he starts by writing:
“I saw “The Passion” at midnight last night in Los Angeles, since neither Newmarket nor Gibson’s people would accommodate me with a press screening.”
He then proceeds to write quite a sour review, which he clearly has the right to do. It just seems to me that he is largely pissed that his press credentials didn’t score him a free viewing, complete with Mel Gibson himself offering his complementary Press Soda and Press Popcorn.
Then again, maybe he is just grumpy from staying up so late.
Missy, read the book and you’ll understand the context.
Har har.
The violence and gore in this film are more than likely close to the reality of Jesus’s scourging, beating, and crucifixion. Secular and Biblical scholars all agree that the Romans were particularly cruel to the condemned. Scourging (or flogging) entailed being beaten by a whip with metal-tipped leather thongs. This whip ripped the flesh of the victim, often exposing bones, veins, and internal organs. Many prisoners died from this beating. Crucifixion killed it’s victims by asphyxiation. In order to breathe a crucified individual would have to pull up with their arms and push with their legs to relieve the pressure on their chest cavity. This struggle to live resulted in excruciating pain. That’s why Jesus’s legs were to be broken when his execution began to edge closer and closer to the Sabbath. Jewish law forbade bodies to hang on the cross on the Sabbath. To expedite Jesus’s death and to honor the Sabbath, Jews in attendance of Jesus’s execution asked Pilate to break Jesus’s legs…making it impossible for him to continue to breathe. However, Jesus was already dead when the Roman Centurion approached to carry out his orders, and instead he pierced his side with a spear to make sure he was dead, fulfilling Scripture that ‘not one of His bones shall be broken’. The Gospels do not really paint the gruesome picture of what Jesus had to endure. Reading them makes one think that Jesus got slapped around a little, called some names, had to wear a crown of thorns, and then hung on the cross for a bit until ‘it was done’. The graphic portrayal in this film of Jesus’s trial, scourging, crucifixion and death is uncomfortable to watch, but that may very well be the closest depiction of the carnage that was Jesus’s death.
well said
You said:
“Odd how quickly the “there’s too much violence in movies” crowd hushes when they approve of the subject matter in the violent movie in question.”
I have been making this argument among friends for some time now. The hypocisy of some of this crowd never ceases to amaze me. This is much of what I find wrong with this country.
As referred to Tony Scott’s review that “violence against the innocent demands righteous vengeance in the third act, an expectation that Mr. Gibson in this case whips up and leaves unsatisfied.”
Um, unsatisfied how? In my mind and heart, the satisfaction is the resurrection.
Also, to copy Ms. Dani, well said, Jesse.
Um, unsatisfied how? In my mind and heart, the satisfaction is the resurrection.
But that has absolutely nothing to do with Mel Gibson and everything to do with your faith. The problem is that neither Gibson nor anyone without critical distance is willing to assess the film’s artistic merits (or lack thereof), and readings of and conversations with us godless folk has indicated that Gibson fails to follow-through with any attempt at insight. Sure, the story can and does speak for itself for many people with faith, but there are also those of us who wish that Gibson had the intelligence to to give the picture weight to *anyone* who sees it, and I don’t mean that in the sense of converting them. Scorsese’s LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, for example (though it’s been a decade since I’ve seen it) gives thematic weight to what is, undeniably, an amazing story.
(I’m still partially talking out of my ass since I haven’t yet seen the film.)
while this is a movie, it was made to show the last 12 hours of his life. its artistic merit can be debated, but that’s not the main goal of this film. that’s like saying an essay on the subject lacks appeal to non-believers because of its lack of artistic merit. not really the point.
oh, and regarding the violence. the violence-hating hypocrisy goes both ways. but having just seen the movie, saving private ryan and blackhawk down were both just as violent, in bloodshed terms. and there are plenty of other movies that are more so. people are only so shocked by this because of the sanitized view we’ve been given – white light and holiness – for so long. i haven’t heard anyone argue that the romans (or the times, for that matter) were not as violent as they are portrayed here, only that they’re upset that it shows the violence. perhaps by showing it for what it most likely was, people can truly understand.
people would be much less inclined to support the death penalty if it was shown for what it really is, after all.
Let’s all write our reviews to include a lot of rantin’ and ravin’ and speculation on how it’s gonna’ make jew hatin’ KKK march through the streets again. Then go home, see the movie and see if we can live with our first assesment.
that’s like saing an essay lacks appeal to non-believers because of artistic merit.
Sorry to resort to harsh words, but have you ever seen a film in your life? Good films are good because the filmmaker knows the viewer has something invested in it (besides 2 hours & $10). Why should I care that Gibson diplays a lot of blood for two hours? Simply because it’s Jesus? Sorry, unconvincing on those terms. If I want last the last hours of Jesus’ life, I want something akin to the humanity of Last Temptation. Give me something to believe in, for christ’s sake. Why is it so hard to deal with the fact that people find Gibson’s film lacking on those terms?
As for violence in films, I don’t get upset by it, except when there’s no means to an end. Again, to what end, violence? I’ve seen plenty of violence put to celluloid that turns my stomach, but it’s not necessarily because of the sheer gore, but because I leave the theater with a context in which to think about it.
it’s not hard to deal with the fact that the movie is lacking in those terms (for some and not others). i understand that completely. i understand why some would find it lacking. i actually don’t have a problem with that. perhaps i’m not expressing myself well. this movie moved me greatly, and i see it’s artistic merit. that others don’t is just fine. people always disagree on movies. it’s just that people seem to be having arguments about different things than it’s artistic merit while claiming that’s all the argument is about. i just don’t buy it.
grrrr. i’m just not saying this well. anyway, as radley says, read roger ebert’s review. he is much more articulate than i am at saying what i’m trying to say.
Actually, that was me that was the anon poster above. That’s what happens when once drinks & comments.
Anyway, you might appreciate the of a Catholic cinephile acquaintance of mine.
I saw this movie last evening and can only describe it in one word.”stunning”. I`m not an overly religious person but I have read he book and I found the movie to be very accurate in relation to the book. I can understand why some people feel hat there was no victory or closure at the end but that can be found in the ressurection. By the way if its real closure your looking for I would reccomend the last book of the book.
You do not have to be a christian to understand and appreciate this movie or to even comprehend Christ’s message.
Thats like saying The Lord of the Rings sucked because I am not a hobbit.
Lol, Michael great point!
I am with Radley, going to wait and watch it on DVD in the privacy of my own flat. Never liked sharing a movie theatre with 100 other people any way.
thank you missy for that link. a great review that covers both aspects of the argument.