Maphet has a couple interesting posts on The Passion of the Christ. He raises an interesting question about the reviews, and the sensitive nature of this film that makes it hard to evaluate objectively. It does seem like many reviews carry a hostile undercurrent that precedes critical evaluation of the film.
I think it's a reminder of just how divisive Christ (was and) still is. We all have seen people roll their eyes at fundamentalist Christians. I roll my eyes whenever Pat Robertson makes another proclamations. In our culture--and by that I primarily refer to liberal urban semi-sophisticates that generally control secular media outlets--the born-again bumpkin is an easy target.
I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment on whether it's any good, but much of the stuff I've read seems unhappy with the story itself or the Main Character, not the quality of the film. The review at salon was a great example of this. Unabashedly liberal as they are, I expected it. But to be so snide in your review betrays a knee-jerk bias that runs deeper than your reaction to the presentation.
It seems that Gibson has tapped into a pretty deep well of resentment, and I think the fact that he has 'come out of the closet' and said that he actually believes it has opened him up to this criticism. It would have been very different if the film were merely an academic or speculative artistic venture. Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ, for example, was greeted much more warmly by the media.
And of course the core offense is Christ himself. Nobody likes to be told that He is the only way, and so when someone appears to do this, we all get self-protectively dismissive. But it's awfully hard to get around Christ's words, which I suppose is why He was crucified in the first place.
Roger Ebert's review of The Passion of the Christ is especially interesting in relation to your observation that it is a divisive film that cannot be reviewed or critiqued using customary methods. Ebert takes an ironic approach by admitting that any review of the movie is somewhat irrelevant, all the while attempting a justification for his four-star rating. His conclusion:"Many will disagree. Some will agree, but be horrified by the graphic treatment. I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it."
What I find interesting is his statement that he no longer considers himself "religious," and yet he is able to respond to and respect "the power of belief" that is displayed. He seems to be straddling this divisive line in a way and to a degree that I have not seen elsewhere. On one hand, I appreciate his lack of hostility and his ability to see and assess this whole issue clearly; on the other hand, I would prefer that he choose a side -- that he, in fact, hate the film, its message, and its Main Character. I don't want people to respect the power of my belief or even respect Christ himself, if their respect is void of understanding and obedience. To me Ebert's review is reminiscent of those scholars who divorce the knowledge of the bible from the truth of the bible. One scholar who comes to mind is John Dominic Crossan, who in his Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, imagines a conversation with the historical Jesus:
"I’ve read your book, Dominic, and it’s quite good. So now you’re ready to live by my vision and join me in my program?"
"I don’t think I have the courage, Jesus, but I did describe it quite well, didn’t I, and the method was especially good, wasn’t it?"
"Thank you, Dominic, for not falsifying the message to suit your own incapacity. That at least is something."
"Is it enough, Jesus?"
"No, Dominic, it is not."
And to this end, it is not enough that Ebert gives the movie account of the passion of Christ four out of five stars. And the fact that he can do so saddens me.
This is just one more problem that arises with any attempt to review this movie; and maybe it's one more problem with the movie itself.
On the other hand (is that the third hand?), the movie -- with the help of Ebert's thumb's up -- has everyone in the country talking about Christ, and that can't be that bad… Can it?
That's a good point, Erin. But I'm afraid your post violates your Lenten vows.
As for Ebert's ability to evaluate the film semi-objectively, it intuitively makes me glad that he's not hostile, but this is only my feeling. These ideas sort of ask another question, and that is, "is this movie supernaturally powerful in any way". In other words, we tend to view scripture as powerful, blessed, potent, inerrant and there are some good reasons for this. But it could be argued that this is only a movie (not scripture), and thus fallible, and with no more power to transform than "Spaceballs".
Or is it the CONTENT that we view as powerful? (And if so, then are the OT lineage accounts would seem less valuable than Romans?) If the content of the story of Christ holds the power, then yes, you would think Ebert would have to take a side.
So how is it Crossan has so much insight into his own idolatry?
Posted by: abe at March 4, 2004 05:59 PMThanks for your concern about my Lenten vows, Elder Abe, but commenting and communicating are not the same thing. Although I suppose this comment counts as communication (crap!), so I'll stop here.
Posted by: Erin D. at March 5, 2004 07:12 AMits good and it really help for my study
Posted by: teresa cansino at March 3, 2005 09:48 PMNoli me tangere - is anyone aware of a 1993 film of this title which features Auch Cathedral in sw France ?
Posted by: Philip at May 1, 2005 10:04 AM