« Miami Vice | Main | "Hamsterdam" »
Passion Revisited
I went to see The Passion of the Christ when it came out, and it seemed pretty anti-semitic to me. It also seems to me that evaluating the film based, in part, on anti-semitic things Mel Gibson said long after its release is a fallacy. I'm just old-school like this, but it seems to me that the work is the work and the author is the author and the one thing has very little to do with the other -- if we discovered tomorrow that The Birth of a Nation was actually directed by a talented African-American looking to make some cash by making a film that D.W. Griffith could put his name on that wouldn't alter the fact that it's a racist movie.
What's more, anti-semitic or otherwise, it's still a good film in my opinion just as various other (usually significantly older) literary or dramatic works have recognizable quality notwithstanding the existence of discernable objectionable views. The Great Gatsby, after all, is not without its anti-semitic moments.
July 31, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
How is the Passion of the Christ a good film? The acting is stiff and the "native tongue" conceit is tiresome-- and flawed as most of Jesus' fellows probably spoke colloquial Greek. The torture scene is horrifically overdone. You simply could not torture anyone for that long with that intensity. Your arm would get tired. And-- oh yeah-- he would bleed to death/ pass out at least for chrissakes [pun intended]! Anti-semitism is almost forgettable amidst this film's numerous flaws. Accepting all the terrible choices Gibson made, one cinematic sin is inexcusable: casting Monica Bellucci and not baring her incredible rack (passionate rending of garments in agony after her son's crucifixion?) I mean come on, I know she's portraying the Mother of God, but I'm not asking for penetration. Just a peek.
PS: How dare you profane the Gatsby by comparing the two. I think GG is overrated, but equating FSF's early 20th century jew-belligerence with Gibson's wetbrain crackpot fundy Catholofascicm (not to mention grossly inferior product) is insulting. For shame, MY, for shame!
Posted by: F. Greg Fitzgibson | Jul 31, 2006 3:58:20 PM
I'm just old-school like this, but it seems to me that the work is the work and the author is the author and the one thing has very little to do with the other
Is that really "old-school"? It sounds like saying that authorial intention can be disregarded in interpreting a work, which is an idea I associate with post-structuralism, deconstruction, etc.
Or maybe you're saying those schools are old now, in which case my hat is off.
Posted by: huh | Jul 31, 2006 4:13:24 PM
And yet another reminder of why Matt Yglesias is more authoritative on foreign policy (or even basketball) than on pop culture.
Posted by: F. Tps Fitz12 | Jul 31, 2006 4:14:13 PM
Monica Bellucci ... I mean come on, I know she's portraying the Mother of God
No, she's not. She's playing Mary Magdalene. There's three different Marys in the Gospels.
Posted by: Christmas | Jul 31, 2006 4:34:34 PM
wtf, it's all aramaic to me..
Posted by: Greg | Jul 31, 2006 4:43:45 PM
The torture scene is horrifically overdone. You simply could not torture anyone for that long with that intensity. Your arm would get tired.
It's a little weird to complain about the lack of realism in a movie whose central premise is that a dead guy comes back to life. The violence in Kill Bill wasn't realistic either -- it was stylized, as was the violence in the Passion. Stylized in very different ways, of course, and to very different ends. I thought the Passion was pretty successful at presenting the Christ-myth with a certain sublime bloodiness, a carnal sacrificiality, a theme that's pretty common in Christian art though admittedly not something most Christians like to play up these days. And not something I'd like to see more of in everyday life. But then again I'm also against Deadly Viper Assassination Squads and scalping people after swordfights in snow-covered Japanese gardens, yet I liked Kill Bill.
Posted by: Christopher M | Jul 31, 2006 4:51:48 PM
Long live anti-intentionalism. To Huh: that was Yale New Criticism long before Derrida, Paul de Man, et al. Not to say that the two are totally distinct--Northrop Frye ended up borrowing a lot from Derrida and de Man (I think) ended up at Yale before being exposed as an ex-Nazi--but it predates deconstructionism.
Posted by: Spencer | Jul 31, 2006 5:05:07 PM
Yaaa dude totally bro right on! PARTY!
Posted by: George W. | Jul 31, 2006 5:22:26 PM
Spencer: poking around a bit, I see that you are correct; thank you for the tip.
Posted by: huh | Jul 31, 2006 5:37:54 PM
I watched the first half hour for the first time last night, and what struck me was how schlocky it is. Everything is big and overstated and underlined, and when they played Judas' kiss in slow motion they crossed the line into unwitting self-parody.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Jul 31, 2006 5:51:21 PM
"The Great Gatsby" also has anti-black moments.
Posted by: Steve Sailer | Jul 31, 2006 6:06:11 PM
I hated Braveheart.
Posted by: keatssycamore | Jul 31, 2006 6:27:20 PM
Everything is big and overstated and underlined
That's true, and god yes you're right about the slow motion. (Is slow motion in movies ever a good idea?) In its best moments, the Passion approaches something like the Isenheim alterpiece's presentation of the crucifixion as a moment of sublime bloody death. In its worst moments, it feels like a cheesy sunday school video.
Posted by: Christopher M | Jul 31, 2006 6:27:48 PM
casting Monica Bellucci and not baring her incredible rack
So, an actress's performance is utterly worthless if you don't see her tits?
Or, an attractive woman should really be employed only be if she's willing to offer "just a peek"? Do you carry that attitude over into your office environment, too?
Heaven help the beautiful-breasted woman who wants be more than a sex object!
Sorry, but this is honestly one of the most offensive comments I've read on this blog.
Posted by: flippantangel | Jul 31, 2006 6:36:04 PM
Actually, there is more-or-less universal agreement among scholars that ordinary Jews in Judea and Galilee in Jesus's time did indeed speak Aramaic.
And please, do your homework before making dumb posts. Monica Bellucci is only four years older than James Calviziel. While I concede that the history of film is littered with impossible parents (e.g., in NORTH BY NORTHWEST, THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, and THE GRADUATE), you should have at least thought twice before assuming that Bellucci played Jesus's mother.
Posted by: James Kabala | Jul 31, 2006 9:03:01 PM
Interesting, Matt, I'd never heard anyone argue that it was a good movie before. (I guess I heard that it was a Good movie...)
Posted by: neil | Jul 31, 2006 9:14:06 PM
Hey James, Angel etc.-- if you can't appreciate a humorous post, I have a three hour ancient Mayan epic you might enjoy watching.
Posted by: Greg "Hutton" Gibson (Misogynist) | Jul 31, 2006 9:24:56 PM
Oh yeah and Jesus spoke jive you turkeys...
Posted by: G-d | Jul 31, 2006 9:29:41 PM
Hey James, Angel etc.-- if you can't appreciate a humorous post, I have a three hour ancient Mayan epic you might enjoy watching.
Well, it might have helped if it had actually been funny...
Posted by: flippantangel | Jul 31, 2006 9:50:30 PM
I'm always confused when people defend comments that are sexist, racist, or whatever on the ground that it's just a joke (or a "humorous post"). Do they think the people complaining are utter morons who've somehow failed to develop the humor-recognition systems that the rest of our brains possess? That sort of defense totally misses the point, which is that the sexism or racism or whatever consists in the fact that the derogatory comment passes for "humorous," that it's understood (or expected to be understood) as a proper subject of humor.
Posted by: Christopher M | Jul 31, 2006 9:51:11 PM
"Do they think the people complaining are utter morons who've somehow failed to develop the humor-recognition systems that the rest of our brains possess?"
Yes.
Posted by: Steve Sailer | Jul 31, 2006 10:36:13 PM
I must quote P.J. O'Rourke, from the intro to Republican Party Reptile:
Radicals and liberals and such want all jokes to have a "meaning," to "make a point." But laughter is involuntary and points are not. A conservative may tell you you shouldn't make fun of something. "You shouldn't make fun of cripples," he may say. And he may be right. But a liberal will tell you, "you can't make fun of cripples." And he's wrong -- as anybody who's heard the one about Helen Keller falling down a well and breaking three fingers calling for help can tell you.
(I don't know if the fact that the Helen Keller joke isn't funny ruins his point. Probably not. Point is, offensive and funny often go together.)
Posted by: Steve (not sailer) | Jul 31, 2006 11:18:42 PM
How is the Passion of the Christ a good film? The acting is stiff and the "native tongue" conceit is tiresome-- and flawed as most of Jesus' fellows probably spoke colloquial Greek.
It's highly unlikely from the ancient evidence that they spoke Greek with any particular fluidity. There are a number of Aramaic phrases preserved in the Greek gospel literature (they're all in Greek), which strongly suggests that they carried an older Aramaic tradition into Greek.
However, there is no fucking way that Jesus could speak fluent Latin with Pilate.
And that's not even to mention Jesus' miraculous invention of the table.
And the anti-Semitism, of course. You can't merge Satan's face with the face of Everyjew, twice, in the goddam blood libel scene, and not be trafficking in anti-Semitism.
And in regards to the old-school, I'd say that definitely qualifies as old-school. Derrida said "there is no outside-the-text" - in other words, you can't separate the work from its context, even the term "context" is misleadingly absolute. Evidence of rabid anti-semitism on the part of the director is now a part of the text of The Passion, and it will be read slightly differently from here on in. It's not about intention, but about the vastness of historical context that always becomes part of the text.
Posted by: DivGuy | Jul 31, 2006 11:26:58 PM
Radicals and liberals and such want all jokes to have a "meaning," to "make a point." But laughter is involuntary and points are not.
Define "involuntary."
Jokes are funny not because of some inherent quality of humor to which people react naturally, but because they play on cultural codes, becuase we are taught humor.
Jokes are always already cultural. No, you can't "choose" to laugh, but if you want to be a responsible citizen, you should choose to examine what about the joke was funny, why you liked it, and whether the fact that others didn't like it constitutes a valid objection.
That doesn't mean that offensiveness and humor don't go together, and it certainly doesn't mean I don't love me some Naked Gun or Chris Rock or Sarah Silverman. But I think it's facile to claim that it's just "involuntary" and not ask about the cultural and political setting and meaning of humor.
Posted by: DivGuy | Jul 31, 2006 11:32:46 PM
Susan Sontag could never quite pin down whether Leni Riefenstahl was a Nazi punk or a great auteur, but there is no such dilemmas with Gibson and his film. The Passion can’t even hold a candle to Victory of Faith, so one should have no qualms about dismissing it wholesale.
The only reason it got all the hoopla is that American Christians are desperate to see "faith" expressed in the mass media. Be it cartoons about vegetable-people or a blood-bath, all that matters is that they get to hang their shingle.
Posted by: jeff | Jul 31, 2006 11:43:39 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
