Posted on 02/10/2005 8:48:07 AM PST by presidio9
Now that we’re passed the Golden Globes, it’s Oscar time and many Christians around America are hoping - and praying - that Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ will win the Academy Award for Best Picture. The possibility, a major long shot, no longer seems that outrageous now that the film has already won the People's Choice award for Best drama.
Over the past year, I have been a vociferous critic of The Passion. Many of my Christian brothers and sisters have been extremely puzzled that, given my staunch admiration for the morality of the Christian faith in general, and evangelical Christianity in particular, that I should continue to combat a film which they found so inspiring.
Now, aside from the most obvious fact that I simply will not abide a film that resurrects the malicious charge that Jews killed god, I have long felt that this film is an abomination to the Christian faith and to the memory of Jesus. This is so not only because the film’s extreme violence, blood, and gore totally eclipse any sense of the inspirational teachings of Jesus, but because the film commits sacrilege by seeking to entertain an audience purely with Jesus’ suffering and nothing more.
Simply put, The Passion is a movie that trivializes the suffering of Jesus by making it into a form of theatrical amusement.
Some elaboration is in order. The Passion focuses above all else on the unspeakable cruelty that the Romans inflicted upon Jesus. It seeks to hold the attention of an audience by highlighting every blood-spattered detail of his gruesome torture. The suffering of Jesus is not an element of the story, it is the story. Nearly the entire movie is devoted to showing in excruciating detail the utter annihilation of Jesus’ body.
But is the suffering of Jesus so inconsequential that it should be reduced to a form of entertainment? How can believing Christians feel entertained and amused when watching the brutal and sadistic torture endured by Jesus?
Is the torment of the Christian deity really so mundane that two believers can sit watching it in the multiplex and ask one another to pass the popcorn even as another nail is driven into Jesus' hands?
And yes, I realize that there have been other films of consequence, like Schindler’s List, that involve much violence and death. The difference of course is that Schindler’s List is not a two hour movie depicting in the most graphic detail how Jews were gassed at Auschwitz. If that’s all the movie was, it too would be an abomination to humanity. If the all Spielberg gave us was a 120 minute depiction of how the Jews gasped for breath as their lungs filled with poison gas, I would accuse him too of what I believe Mel Gibson if guilty of: the pornography of violence. Fortunately, Schindler’s List is a deeply inspiring movie of one German’s efforts to save Jewish lives. But there is nothing inspirational in The Passion of the Christ. The obliteration of Jesus’ by the Romans in slow motion is the entire movie. The film is designed to entertain audiences with naught but Jesus’ agony.
In the final analysis, every film is primarily about entertainment. Sure, movies can also be informative, inspiring, even awe-inspiring. But that's not why we go and see them. We go to be entertained. We go to films in search of an amusing distraction from the mundaneity of our everyday routine.
But can a Christian commit the sacrilege of treating Jesus' suffering as an enjoyable distraction? And saying that Christians felt the pain of Jesus as they watched the scenes will still not excuse the pleasure that a viewer derives from watching an engaging movie. When Jason cuts people up in Friday the 13th movies, we also get scared and feel the horror and the pain of his victims. But we're still there to be entertained, and even bloody gore can be bloody entertaining.
Doesn't all this belittle the suffering of Jesus?
To be sure, the agony of any human should never be made into an entertaining pastime. But one would think that this is especially so in relation to the man regarded by Christians as the son of G-d. But that's what The Passion is. A movie that seeks to hold the attention of viewers by showing them how Jesus had the skin flayed off his body and got nailed up to a cross.
Imagine if a Hollywood director decided to make a full-length feature about the beheading of Nicholas Berg, dragging out the actual beheading and the horrendous suffering of the murdered American, for two full hours. Would there not be outrage that a Hollywood studio was making a profit on the tragic murder of an innocent victim? Would such a film not be regarded as being in terribly poor and as deeply offensive? Then why should the suffering of Jesus be treated any differently?
Some will no doubt argue that the two are not comparable, that The Passion is more than just a film, it's a religious statement. But dare we elevate any Hollywood movie into a religious sacrament? Are we really going to equate going to see a film with prayer in Church?
I fully understand that the suffering of Jesus and the horrific anguish of his final hours plays an absolutely central role in the Christian faith. But that does not mean that it ought to be reduced to a DVD that a couple takes out from Blockbuster when they're bored on a Saturday night.
Well, I don't think the movie was intended as "entertainment" - which kind of undercuts the Rabbi's whole argument.
When was this written? I couldn't find a date on the website.
If The Passion wins the Oscar for big picture, it will be more than a long shot, it will be a miracle, since it's not even nominated.
This guy must run in a different crowd from mine. I can't imagine watching "The Passion" for entertainment. My best friend and I cried through the whole thing. A family that bought popcorn quietly put both the popcorn and the soda on the floor about 15 minutes into the film.
The first time I saw this movie in the theatre, there was a woman behind me loudly sobbing, and a man in front of me nonchalantly eating an Italian Ice. What you get out of the film is subjective and probably based on faith.
If they are bored perhaps this work of art will re-awaken their interest in life.
Just how stupid does the good Rabbi think Christians are? His article is tripe. He is either ignorant or pretending to be ignorant of the theological meaning of Jesus' suffering, death and resurrection. (which is more important than his message)
I suspect that his argumentation is designed to argue to the ignorance of many Christians who do not understand the supernatural reality of the Christian teaching of Christ's Passion.
Piss off, schmuely! Until your headline reads something like "I'm sorry for slandering the Christians", you have no credibility.
I don't think he thinks Christians are stupid or meant to insult them in any way. He has a point of view that, while perhaps wrong, is sincere on his part.
I hope this thread doesn't turn into a general all-out bashing of Jews. I don't think the Rabbi intended to blaspheme or insult Jesus.
I think he's a liar, and I hold him in contempt. He's je$$e jacka$$ or mark morford in a yarmulke.
He hit on all the popular leftist criticisms of the movie; 'pornography of violence', that we saw it for entertainment, it didn't show Jesus' teachings, etc.
Grow up. I'm bashing schmuely boteach because he's an idiot. To think that he represents Jews is as stupid as to think that bill the impeached represents Baptists or that rembert the pervert weakland represents Catholics.
Why would you assume this might turn into a Jew bashing thread?
She's trying to deflect criticism of this moron.
Many of my Christian brothers and sisters have been extremely puzzled that, given my staunch admiration for the morality of the Christian faith in general, and evangelical Christianity in particular, that I should continue to combat a film which they found so inspiring.
The Rabbi admires the morality of the Christian faith. He says nothing of doctrine of the Christian faith (particularly Catholic) which he wants to change if one judges his television appearances. Perhaps the Rabbi should pay attention to just "what" it was that "they" found so inspiring.
Now, aside from the most obvious fact that I simply will not abide a film that resurrects the malicious charge that Jews killed god,
This is a flat out lie. There is no malicious charge. Except the one charged by Rabbi Boteach. In fact, objectively this film make a greater effort to make a distinction about the collective guilt of all mankind and placing the blame on an individual group. Gibson departs from the Gospel account in order to underscore with a multiple repetition of Christ's prayer for the forgiveness of those persecuting and crucifying him. Simon the Cyrene is also fleshed out, the occupation by the Romans is more imposing than in any previous film. And the scene at the end "the Pieta" scene, shows Jews and Romans caring for the body of Jesus with Mary.
Why does anybody pay attention to this guy, anyway? Whenever I see him all I can think of is Michael Jackson. It does not do much to polish his credibility.
I've seen it happen on some other threads. I don't really care about deflecting criticism of the Rabbi; I thought he was sincere in his opinion. Maybe he wasn't. It certainly isn't worth a flame war. And hardly worthy of being discourteous to me for advancing an opinion.
How can it win "Best Picture" when it's not even nominated?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.