Bernell DorroughThe “Passion”: It’s still just a movie
Try Googling “the passion” and you generally get two types of web sites: those dealing with the art of loving, and others devoted to either lauding or profaning Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ,” which opens in theaters today. The Aussie actor/director/sex object for women over 40 has stirred up quite a Biblical brouhaha with his special project, which graphically depicts the last few hours of Jesus’ life. Amid all the accusations of anti-Semitism and ultra-conservative Catholic dogma, all I can say is-Mary Magdalene, what a babe! Monica Bellucci? Best. Mary. Ever. Others, however, see a potential WMD where I see an excuse to polish up my Latin skills. The road has been long and tortuous for Gibson’s brainchild, but its premier today will allow millions to actually formulate their own opinion for our generation’s “The Last Temptation of Christ.”
To recap the chain of events: when Gibson announced his project, people discovered the star of “What Women Want” and “Chicken Run” is actually a radical fringe Catholic who rejects Vatican II, a papal decree from 1965 that cleared the Jews of the long-standing charge of deicide. If this weren’t enough, Mel’s kooky dad Hutton Gibson explained to the New York Times last year that the Holocaust was exaggerated, and in a more recent interview, he talked of a Jewish conspiracy to create “one world religion and one world government.” The younger Gibson added fuel to the fire when he told Peggy Noonan that “World War II killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps.” Jewish leaders took this as a deliberate downplaying of the Jews’ suffering. Gibson then basically dumped the whole gas tank on the fire when he said of the Times’ Frank Rich, who called his father a Holocaust denier, “I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick. I want to kill his dog.” Mr. Gibson, meet Mr. Tyson. I believe he patented that line.
The scary thing about all this back-and-forth B.S. is that “The Passion of the Christ” actually has the potential to cause one person to harm another. There is no doubt that people will argue about this movie after they actually see it. But if people extend the film’s influence on them onto others by force-through violence, for example-well, then they’re just stupid. But can Gibson be held accountable for this? No, because he brought his vision to life through his own personal funding. It’s up to the adults to who see the movie (it’s rated R for violence) to react responsibly.
Some of us don’t really give a monkey’s petoot about these issues. The question still remains to those who haven’t been able to see the film yet: is it quality cinema? If so, what can we appreciate about its form and content? If it’s horse crap, we can go about our lives and forget all about Gibson’s turkey. Here’s hoping that it’s good, though, and that it’s not anti-Semitic. (Most recent reports from screenings say the most potentially offensive content has been removed.) Gibson may have proved himself to be a weirdo, but Howard Hughes was insane, and Klaus Kinski was an asshole, but they both made great movies. That’s what I go in hoping for in a case like this: a great film, and not a tool for either evangelical tent revivals or anti-Semitic hate groups. Just grab your popcorn and watch it like any other film.
The Predecessors in controversial
It has been quite some time since a movie has generated a barrage of both favorable and unfavorable criticism that would compare to Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.” In the last few weeks, the film has been called everything from anti-Semitic to the most accurate depiction of the Crucifixion. This, however, is not the first time a movie has caused such controversy in the religious world. In recent memory, Martin Scorsese’s controversial work, “The Last Temptation of Christ” in 1988 and Kevin Smith’s religious comedy, “Dogma” in 1999 stand out as the best example of movies that have conjured up religious debate.
“The Last Temptation of Christ,” directed by the great cinematic visionary Martin Scorsese, premiered in the United States and Canada on August 12, 1988 under an onslaught of overwhelming criticism. Scorsese depicted Jesus (played by Willem Dafoe) as fully human, possessing God’s gift of free will and capable of succumbing to the weaknesses of all humans. Although it was clear to critics that the film was one of Scorsese’s greatest movies and one of the best cinematic achievements that year, Christian fundamentalists thought otherwise.
According to reporter Aljean Harmetz, Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association wrote to Sidney J. Sheinberg, the president of MCA and “accused the studio of deliberate anti-Christian bias and asked: How many Christians are in the top positions of MCA/Universal? How many Christians sit on the board of directors at MCA?” On the day of the premiere, demonstrators led by the Rev. R.L. Hymers of the Fundamentalist Baptist Tabernacle in Los Angeles, formed a tableau outside Universal in which Lew Wasserman, the chairman of MCA, was represented as nailing Jesus to a cross. Harmetz also went on to write that “these fundamentalist extremists even went so far as to attempt to buy the negative of the film, so that they could destroy it.”
Kevin Smith, the director who has produced such cult-classic comedies like “Clerks” and “Chasing Amy,” took his shot at religion with the film “Dogma,” which certainly did not fail in attracting attention from Christian fundamentalists. Filmfour, the British filmmaking company, received hate mail in a storm of protest at its involvement with the controversial “Dogma.” The film company, which handled the movie’s British distribution, received around 100 letters from Christians upset by the film’s “blasphemous” content. One of the letters complained that “Dogma” attacked “everything Roman Catholics hold dear.” It also said the film, “insults the virginity of Holy Mary and St. Joseph, compares the holy sacrifice of the Mass to sexual intercourse and has a female rock star (Alanis Morrisette) playing the role of God.”
These movies exemplify the type of pressure that “The Passion of the Christ” has undoubtedly faced these last few weeks. When a film comes along that is able to stir up dispute around the country from all circles of thought, it is no different from any piece of artwork that has had its share of controversy throughout history. From this aspect, “The Passion of the Christ” has already succeeded.