February 28, 2004
'Passion' Is Just A Movie
Look. This latest Mel Gibson movie, like every other Mel Gibson movie, is a work of fiction. It may even be, to use Christopher Hitchens' denunciations last night on Hardball, a quasi-pornographic horror movie. But you wouldn't know it to read certain accounts that probably shouldn't have made it into print. While they represent a small minority of coverage, it just seems symptomatic of a culture that's fallen prey to the supposedly juvenile-only sin of conflating fantasy and reality.
Realistic 'Passion' will reward viewers willing to experience wide range of emotions
Christians have truer picture of cross, thanks to Gibson
Elite hypocrisy: 'Passion' hysteria proves Christians will always be targeted
...Still, it could certainly be argued that first-century people knew exactly what "scourging" and "crucifixion" meant -- no elaboration needed. In any event, it seems likely that the events as depicted in gruesome detail in Gibson's film are historically accurate. ...
Moviegoers agree: 'Passion' a realistic depiction
Movie deepens the faith of opening-day viewers
But hey, some people really believe that Reagan was a cowboy, and many others made a semi-cult figure out of Charlton Heston after he played Moses. (Movie star adulation: One more thing our generation didn't invent.) I wonder how many of that type will begin the near veneration of Mel Gibson.
Also, and I move on to this topic in apology for having added to the mass of net clutter regarding this movie, someone had the presence of mind to note that Gibson couldn't have asked for better publicity.
Say whatever else you want, Mel Gibson knows how the media game is played. And he has played the media very, very well. Few movies enjoy the stunning bounty of ink and airtime Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" has received leading up to its release Wednesday.
I can't pretend to have seen and read every story on Gibson and his movie in the past month. But it has been overwhelming. We as a culture seem to have accepted the synergy between Hollywood and "news."
The big movie of the week is about to open, and you can bet Diane Sawyer or Barbara Walters has scored an "exclusive" interview with the leading man or lady. Likewise, every newspaper feels obligated to inform its readers of the deep thoughts of the cast. It's a system so cohesive, interlocking and valuable to Hollywood that the networks and newspapers should get checks from the studios. ...
I'm a big Daily Show fan, as is probably clear, but for a while now something has bugged me about the interview segments that I just never had any reason to write about. It crystallized when in an interview with Harrison Ford a couple months ago, Stewart continually suggested that Ford was too big a name to be gracing the humble set of a basic cable comedy show.
Jon Stewart has had senators, congressmen, presidential candidates, former secretaries of state, and at least one former governor, as guests on the show. He has never been that deferential to any of them. Not that kowtowing to politicians is something I'd advocate, but certainly they're more materially important to our daily lives than someone who's only played such a figure.
But of course, it isn't just the Daily Show. It's the way normally respectable CNN Headline News anchors light up all over when talking about big Hollywood stars. It's the way that the Larry King Show's format advances the premise that the rambling life stories of actors are Big News.
It's the way, as I discovered to my horror that at a recent governors' meeting, it was reported that many of the august attendees were so starstruck by the Governor of California that they were itching to get his autograph. Who believes that when those governors sat down to discuss issues, they all put Schwarzenegger's through the same critical filters as they did the rest of their colleagues' arguments?
And why are media pundits so quick to pounce on celebrities coming out publicly in favor of the 'wrong' positions? Maybe they know the truth, even if they won't admit it. The movies, and the people who play in them, have such an elevated status in our society in part because our media and politicians are as starstruck as any giddy teenager.
Hollywood is no more to blame than money for societal ills. It's the cultural worship of both that throws serious discussion out the window. It's an idolatry before which our most powerful people abase themselves, and probably the real reason why religious types complain about Hollywood. It's competition.
Before the Free Market and the Megastar, all kneel in submission.
Update 2/28: Headline added to beginning of the list of shame above.
Posted by natasha at February 28, 2004 08:31 AM | TrackBackNatasha,
I find your points about how we over-value celebrities as compared to others who we should be focusing more attention on to be interesting and right on the money. It goes beyond the media, too. Why does every person in this country know about Janet Jackson's breast or what Britney Spears did today, but such a small minority can even name who their representative in Congress is, let alone his or her positions on critical issues?
The only thing that troubled me about your blog is your comment that "Look. This latest Mel Gibson movie, like every other Mel Gibson movie, is a work of fiction." True. However, as someone who has seen anti-semitism up close and personally, and has seen way too much holocaust footage, as well, it is not fiction to alot of people who will use it as a tool for hatred. That scares me.
Just a thought.
Posted by: Scott on February 28, 2004 10:14 AMAnd isn't it all the more disturbing that a work of fiction can have that effect?
I didn't say that to deny that the film could be used as hate propaganda. But in order to attack the premise which allows it to be used that way. If people really saw this as fiction, it would no more be useful for hate propaganda than an unflattering depiction of Cardassians in Star Trek. Just as if the rest of our entertainment media was really perceived as the irrelevant fiction that it is, it wouldn't have so much weight in society.
But I was glad to note that even with the wall to wall coverage of Janet's breast, the FCC got only 200,000 protest letters. They got 2 million protests over the proposed media ownership expansion regulations without any coverage at all.
*Some* people are paying attention, which means the battle isn't all uphill.
Posted by: natasha on February 28, 2004 02:02 PMI'm curious as to which parts you think are historically inaccurate. (From a glance, all the links you provided appear to be favorable reviews.) I haven't yet seen it, but if there are any specific issues you have I would like to keep them in mind at the theater.
Posted by: vsync on February 29, 2004 01:24 PMHmmm. Point is, they imply that the movie is 'realistic.' You can't have a realistic movie about events that happened 2000 years ago, and were never described in very great detail in the first place. It's logically impossible.
I'm sure someone more historically precise would love to argue about the details of Pilate's role in all of this, but I'm comfortable in asserting that it's just as much of a fake as any other movie ever has been. The fact that they can stir emotions as though they were real events, (heck, I cried during Amistad, along with everyone else in the theater) is a thing that can be used for good or bad. In this case, I think the production is going to be like sparks into a powder keg.
Posted by: natasha on March 1, 2004 12:27 PMOrcinus has two posts about the shortcomings of the movie(part 1, 2). He points us to Bill Cork at Ut Unum Sint, who catalogued much of the non-scriptural material in The Passion.
Judas has been watching all this from the side, at one point wiping his running nose on a pillar. He goes outside, and two kids ask what’s the matter. They begin to heckle him, and tease him. Suddenly, the face of one is transformed, and they are revealed as demons. They shout at Judas that he is cursed, and torment him until he hangs himself.None of these are in the Gospels; there are several other items where the non-scriptural element is more ambiguous.Pilate’s wife urges Pilate not to condemn Jesus, as he’s a holy man. Pilate grouses about the rabble, and being stuck in this stinking outpost.
A large crowd has gathered in the courtyard of the Praetorium. Pilate goes out, and sees Jesus for the first time. He asks the priests, “Do you always punish them before you judge them?”
Pilate muses, “If I don’t condemn him, Caiaphas will rebel. If I do, his followers will. Either way there will be bloodshed.” Soldiers inform him that there is already an uprising. The priests, temple guards, and people are growing ugly. The soldiers are sent to deal with it.
The line, "If I don’t condemn him, Caiaphas will rebel..." is so egregious it pretty clearly convicts MG as a raving Jew-hating fanatic, all by itself. It's the nub of the movie; all historical sources and the Gospels--plus common sense--would point to the Roman track record of violent repression of revolts as the motive behind the arrest of Jesus.
And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish."which is exactly what did happen when Bar Kochban's revolt did occur, touching off a bloodbath. Pilate, by non-biblical accounts, was a notoriously cruel, inflexible leader who massacred 10,000 Jews in a single day. In MG's twisted version of the story, the Romans are merely passive spectators. Posted by: James R MacLean on March 1, 2004 09:17 PM
John 11:49-50
James is absolutely correct, but Mel has simply gone back to old Catholic doctrine which did paint the jews as the very bad guys. Which makes sense as the church became powerful as the Roman official state religion. Very similar to the Communist Party power and position in the Soviet Union.
As to why it matters - Atrios picked up this and I repeated on my blog:
I am a high school teacher and the daughter of Holocaust survivors. Monday morning, Period 1, a student, age 17, comes into my room. She asks me if I had seen the film "The Passion."
I answer, "No."
She continues, "It was so sad. I cried so much. I hate the Jews."
Very, very sadly, that tells the whole story, Mr. Gibson.
Anna Paikow in a letter to the Los Angeles Times