...it appears is to post a negative review of the movie. The brother of Bill Cork wrote a negative review, which apparently has been fisked.
I was wondering if there were any other Christians out there who objected to the movie, because just about everyone I know has disagreed with my stance on it (which is fine with me, since I'm not going to back down.)
Sunday, February 29, 2004
A link from across the pond
In case I needed to be reminded of the international character of the internet, Adrian Warnock, who has a blog in the U.K., didn't agree with some of my ideas on redemption, though I'm not sure if he read my later post clarifying my ideas based on John 3:16.
Also, it seems risky to imply that God's logic is foolish. Is it possible for God to do something that is illogical?
He didn't mention if he had any objections to me being a Manchester United fan...though if he's like most Brits, he probably despises them.
Also, it seems risky to imply that God's logic is foolish. Is it possible for God to do something that is illogical?
He didn't mention if he had any objections to me being a Manchester United fan...though if he's like most Brits, he probably despises them.
A review by a British NT scholar
This article by a New Testament scholar points out the problems with claiming that the film is historical. Here's the key quote:
"Having claimed that his film is historical rather than devotional, Gibson runs into serious trouble: he has invited the viewer to watch the film in a very specific way, and pays an according price. It is true, for instance, that the Gospels depict Pilate as queasy and conscience-stricken, cajoled into crucifying Jesus by the Jewish mob. But - if it's history we're talking about - this simply does not chime with what we know from other sources about the brutal and rapacious prefect, whose inhumanity forced Tiberius to recall him.
Again, there is no contemporary or near-contemporary source for many scenes in the film: none of the Gospels say that Caiaphas, the high priest who tried Jesus, was present at the Crucifixion, taunting him. There is no historical basis for the claim that Pilate's wife comforted Christ's mother and Mary Magdalene while he was being flogged. It is historically illiterate to show Jesus and Pilate conversing in Latin rather than the Greek which all civilised Romans used in such circumstances. In crucifixion, the nails were driven through the wrists, as archaeological evidence has shown, rather than the hands, as has been the convention in Christian iconography. And so on."
Additionally, notice the grace with which Gibson addresses his opponents....
NOTE: You may need to register to get access to this article, but it is free.
"Having claimed that his film is historical rather than devotional, Gibson runs into serious trouble: he has invited the viewer to watch the film in a very specific way, and pays an according price. It is true, for instance, that the Gospels depict Pilate as queasy and conscience-stricken, cajoled into crucifying Jesus by the Jewish mob. But - if it's history we're talking about - this simply does not chime with what we know from other sources about the brutal and rapacious prefect, whose inhumanity forced Tiberius to recall him.
Again, there is no contemporary or near-contemporary source for many scenes in the film: none of the Gospels say that Caiaphas, the high priest who tried Jesus, was present at the Crucifixion, taunting him. There is no historical basis for the claim that Pilate's wife comforted Christ's mother and Mary Magdalene while he was being flogged. It is historically illiterate to show Jesus and Pilate conversing in Latin rather than the Greek which all civilised Romans used in such circumstances. In crucifixion, the nails were driven through the wrists, as archaeological evidence has shown, rather than the hands, as has been the convention in Christian iconography. And so on."
Additionally, notice the grace with which Gibson addresses his opponents....
NOTE: You may need to register to get access to this article, but it is free.
Friday, February 27, 2004
I hate it when players I like play against Manchester United
Saturday morning my favorite soccer team, Manchester United, plays against Fulham. I'll be cheering for United, but Fulham just added two Americans to the team, Brian McBride and Carlos Bocanegra. I want both of them to succeed (though I don't know when Bocanegra's suspension is to start), but not at expense of United! So I guess I want McBride to score one fantastic goal, for Tim Howard to repel the rest of his shots, and for United to win 2-1. But given our recent form, I'll take any kind of win.
All of my soccer this weekend will be vicarious, as I pulled a hamstring last night and won't be able to play.
Oh, did you wonder if I was ever going to stop writing about that movie and start writing about important things?
UPDATE: A terrible result from a 1-1 draw. Tim Howard didn't play and I think he would have stopped Fulham's goal. Bocanegra did start his three game suspension, so it turns out the only American on the field was Brian McBride, who had a pretty good game, I thought. But this means that Arsenal are almost sure to win the title. They are playing fantastic football right now, but I still hate it.
All of my soccer this weekend will be vicarious, as I pulled a hamstring last night and won't be able to play.
Oh, did you wonder if I was ever going to stop writing about that movie and start writing about important things?
UPDATE: A terrible result from a 1-1 draw. Tim Howard didn't play and I think he would have stopped Fulham's goal. Bocanegra did start his three game suspension, so it turns out the only American on the field was Brian McBride, who had a pretty good game, I thought. But this means that Arsenal are almost sure to win the title. They are playing fantastic football right now, but I still hate it.
A myriad of reviews
Blogcritics.org has a bunch of different reviews in one place. Also, Blogs4god is linking to a host of different reviews.
And Andrew Sullivan has some additional thoughts. He notes in an earlier post that most of the big media reviews are aligned politically.
And Andrew Sullivan has some additional thoughts. He notes in an earlier post that most of the big media reviews are aligned politically.
An interesting take on the movie from the Wall Street Journal
This article in the Wall Street Journal mentions that the Jesus in the movie is lacking in personality too.
One thing I've been wondering, in general, is whether we often equate physical courage with moral courage, especially among men. I have met many people with plenty of the first, with little of the second. Certainly action films focus more on physical courage as a substitute for moral courage. Did Gibson get caught in this trap?
One thing I've been wondering, in general, is whether we often equate physical courage with moral courage, especially among men. I have met many people with plenty of the first, with little of the second. Certainly action films focus more on physical courage as a substitute for moral courage. Did Gibson get caught in this trap?
One Hand Clapping
Rev. Donald Sensing has written a thorough review that is very good.
In reading his review, I realized that my main problem with the violence was with the scourging, not the crucifixion. As he points out, tradition says that Jesus received 39 lashes (and indeed, you can hear the centurions counting in Latin as they beat him). I had been so influenced by this tradition that when I saw the movie I started counting along, expecting to get to 39.
But the Gospels do not tell us how many lashes Jesus received. The only New Testament mention of the number of lashings is when Paul talks about himself in 2 Corinthians 11:24. And the Gospel accounts do not all agree that Jesus was flogged (see Luke's account).
The additional violence, the beatings from the Garden to the meeting with the Sanhedrin, and the beatings as he carries the cross, are also products of theatrical license, and are not mentioned in any of the four gospels.
In reading his review, I realized that my main problem with the violence was with the scourging, not the crucifixion. As he points out, tradition says that Jesus received 39 lashes (and indeed, you can hear the centurions counting in Latin as they beat him). I had been so influenced by this tradition that when I saw the movie I started counting along, expecting to get to 39.
But the Gospels do not tell us how many lashes Jesus received. The only New Testament mention of the number of lashings is when Paul talks about himself in 2 Corinthians 11:24. And the Gospel accounts do not all agree that Jesus was flogged (see Luke's account).
The additional violence, the beatings from the Garden to the meeting with the Sanhedrin, and the beatings as he carries the cross, are also products of theatrical license, and are not mentioned in any of the four gospels.
Thursday, February 26, 2004
bacon boy
In case you are wondering, I love bacon. If you are interested in all things bacon, including the world famous Bacon-of-the-Month club, go to the Grateful Palate website. Yum!
Are we worth redeeming?
Some people have questioned my ideas about redemption, when I said, "For Jesus' sacrifice to be meaningful, humans have to be worth redeeming." Notice that I did not use the word, "deserve." And I think there is a difference. God's grace is something we do not merit -- our sin keeps us from a relationship with God. So we do not deserve the sacrifice of the cross in that sense. However, when I think of John 3:16, I'm struck by the idea that God is completely in love with us, in spite of everything. He thinks we are worth saving, and so he saved us. So God must have believed we were "worth" saving. I am not implying at all that salvation is something that comes from humans, but I think that God can find something worth redeeming, perhaps we should too. And I don't think Gibson tried at all to portray humans -- including the worst of them -- as worth redeeming. I think one can have a realistic view of humans that acknowledges and confronts the things we do wrong, while still believing that there is enough worth saving.
An evenhanded review
Here is an evenhanded review from the United Methodist website. I think that he hits on the importance of the personal response of each person to this. And one thing is for sure, it is a provocative movie that is creating a lot of discussion. I've had a handful of discussions about it today. And even people who have read my review are still curious to see the movie.
Another negative review
This article, in The New Republic Online also uses the snuff film analogy. He comes from a non-Christian perspective. But I think it is important to differentiate the critique of a movie from a critique of Christianity. I am not rejecting my faith by rejecting this movie.
Also, he points to what one of my professors called "the conversion test." That is, if you were not a Christian, would this inspire you to become a Christian? I can make sense of it only from within the faith, but I really wonder if those outside of the faith will be able to make sense of it.
I'm not saying that the crucifixion and resurrection are not important -- they are the most important events in human existence. Rather my objection is to the portrayal of the cross in this movie.
Also, he points to what one of my professors called "the conversion test." That is, if you were not a Christian, would this inspire you to become a Christian? I can make sense of it only from within the faith, but I really wonder if those outside of the faith will be able to make sense of it.
I'm not saying that the crucifixion and resurrection are not important -- they are the most important events in human existence. Rather my objection is to the portrayal of the cross in this movie.
A negative review by Andrew Sullivan
He seems to have the same concerns as me, though I'm not sure I agree that it is anti-Semitic.
A positive review by Michael Novak
Here is a positive review by Michael Novak, my favorite Catholic theologian.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
The Passion of the Christ -- a review
First, before I get to the main review, I want to advise parents to take the R rating very seriously. In my opinion, no child under the age of 14 should see this movie, and older teenagers should only be allowed to see it after their parents have viewed and made a judgment about how well the child will be able to handle this movie. Now, onto the main review.
I’m deeply ambivalent about this movie. Since I’m working on a masters degree in theology, I have been following it for almost a year, reading the sniping between some New Testament scholars and Mel Gibson’s spokespeople. The more I read, the more I felt like scholars were nitpicking, mostly because that’s what scholars do (and I hope to join their ranks one day). I wanted to like this movie and had shared information about it with friends of mine. I eagerly anticipated its arrival.
I read some fairly scathing reviews of the movie this week, but wrote them off as the rants of anti-Christian media who are automatically opposed to any kind of vigorous Christian expression. And to some degree, I still sense plenty of that opposition in the reviews. However, some of their objections have merit and I think they deserve consideration.
The film is extremely violent. In fact, if someone had produced a two hour film detailing the abuse and torture of a human being whose name wasn’t Jesus, my guess is that Christians would roundly denounce such a film as sadistic depravity. And rightfully so. The phrase that went through my mind right after watching the movie was, “it’s a religious snuff film.” I am in no way saying that is what it is intended to be, for I believe that Mel Gibson’s intentions were benign and I very much appreciate that he was seeking to get us to face up to the real sacrifice of the cross. And after reading the reviews, I was actually expecting more violence. Still, I just had this vague sense that the only point of the movie was for us to watch this man die at the hands of inordinately cruel humans. While scripture clearly points to the redeeming nature of Christ’s sacrifice, there was no real redemption in this movie at all – including the brief resurrection scene. In short, I think Marquis de Sade would have loved this film.
Which brings me to my second objection, which is that there is little about humans that are worthy of redemption in this movie. I take human sin and evil very seriously, including my own, but I also believe that there is a reason that God loved us enough to send Jesus to the cross. There are attempts at kindness in the movie, but rather than verifying that humans are worth saving, all they do is underline the cruelty of everyone else. Frankly, after viewing this movie, one wonders why God didn’t just wipe the planet clean and start over again. For Jesus’ sacrifice to be meaningful, humans have to be worth redeeming.
A third concern I have is the lack of character development in the movie. I experienced this Jesus as human shell built to take great abuse. There was very little sense of his divine personality on view, even in the midst of the suffering. Indeed, I felt the same way about almost all of the characters in the film, virtually all of whom were portrayed as caricatures of themselves. The soldiers were a little too cruel, the Sanhedrin a little too manipulative, Mary was an overly pitiful mother, Judas was hallucinating, Peter was too much of a bonehead, etc. The Gospels mostly give us two dimensional characters, but it seems that if you are going to put a story on film, at least the characters should be portrayed with some kind of third dimension. The only character with any depth was Pilate, with Satan a close second (and he looks a lot like the evil emperor from Star Wars).
In response to that, one might say that Gibson was only seeking to be true to the Biblical story. But, of course, there are lots of Hollywood style embellishments that are not based on Biblical sources at all. There are entire conversations that have sprung from Gibson’s imagination and the role of Mary is played up in ways that just aren’t a part of the Gospel narrative. I do not object to this, for if Gibson relied only on the Bible the film would have been devoid of much discourse at all. However, I wish that he would have made the characters more human in the process, as he did with Pilate. By avoiding human nuance, Gibson risks giving the audience the opportunity to view the sin of the Sanhedrin and the Romans as something that we are not capable of, for surely none of us would do the same thing today. We can take secret pleasure in the relative depravity of others. The justification that he was holding to the Biblical description does not hold up when so much of the vision is his own.
In fact, in viewing this film, I was reminded of the Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius (for all of you Protestants, he was the founder of the Jesuits). Ignatius outlines a four week series of meditations and prayers for Christians to use in spiritual formation, a program that is still used today. The third week is a meditation solely upon the Passion. You are to imagine the event as if you were actually there. I get the sense that is exactly what Gibson has done and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he has been part of an Ignatian retreat. The problem, of course, is that Gibson only gives us week three of the retreat, without the benefit of weeks one, two, and four. This is a movie that badly needs a prequel. Let’s be clear, this movie is the result of Gibson’s imagination working with the material of the Bible.
One movie critic wrote something to the effect that Gibson seems to hope that we felt each blow of the whip and each hammering of the nails as if we are there ourselves. I think it worked, because I could hear the intake of breath throughout the theater as the nails were being driven in. There is a bit of a theological problem here, however. While my sins are responsible for Jesus being nailed to the cross, the very reason he went to the cross was so that I wouldn’t have to feel the equivalent pain. That is, if Jesus went to the cross to spare me that pain, what right does Gibson have to subject me to it now? There was something both manipulative and abusive about how this movie was supposed to work with the audience.
Reading back over this essay, I guess I’m not all that ambivalent about the movie. I found it deeply disturbing and lacking in any presence of God’s grace. I am glad that it was made, for this is an important, challenging, and relevant vision of Christianity. And I applaud Gibson for having the courage of his convictions and for the great artistry behind the movie. It takes real guts to make something that many people are going to criticize. But for me, the violence was too gratuitous and lacked the redemptive nature that is such an important part of the story.
I’m deeply ambivalent about this movie. Since I’m working on a masters degree in theology, I have been following it for almost a year, reading the sniping between some New Testament scholars and Mel Gibson’s spokespeople. The more I read, the more I felt like scholars were nitpicking, mostly because that’s what scholars do (and I hope to join their ranks one day). I wanted to like this movie and had shared information about it with friends of mine. I eagerly anticipated its arrival.
I read some fairly scathing reviews of the movie this week, but wrote them off as the rants of anti-Christian media who are automatically opposed to any kind of vigorous Christian expression. And to some degree, I still sense plenty of that opposition in the reviews. However, some of their objections have merit and I think they deserve consideration.
The film is extremely violent. In fact, if someone had produced a two hour film detailing the abuse and torture of a human being whose name wasn’t Jesus, my guess is that Christians would roundly denounce such a film as sadistic depravity. And rightfully so. The phrase that went through my mind right after watching the movie was, “it’s a religious snuff film.” I am in no way saying that is what it is intended to be, for I believe that Mel Gibson’s intentions were benign and I very much appreciate that he was seeking to get us to face up to the real sacrifice of the cross. And after reading the reviews, I was actually expecting more violence. Still, I just had this vague sense that the only point of the movie was for us to watch this man die at the hands of inordinately cruel humans. While scripture clearly points to the redeeming nature of Christ’s sacrifice, there was no real redemption in this movie at all – including the brief resurrection scene. In short, I think Marquis de Sade would have loved this film.
Which brings me to my second objection, which is that there is little about humans that are worthy of redemption in this movie. I take human sin and evil very seriously, including my own, but I also believe that there is a reason that God loved us enough to send Jesus to the cross. There are attempts at kindness in the movie, but rather than verifying that humans are worth saving, all they do is underline the cruelty of everyone else. Frankly, after viewing this movie, one wonders why God didn’t just wipe the planet clean and start over again. For Jesus’ sacrifice to be meaningful, humans have to be worth redeeming.
A third concern I have is the lack of character development in the movie. I experienced this Jesus as human shell built to take great abuse. There was very little sense of his divine personality on view, even in the midst of the suffering. Indeed, I felt the same way about almost all of the characters in the film, virtually all of whom were portrayed as caricatures of themselves. The soldiers were a little too cruel, the Sanhedrin a little too manipulative, Mary was an overly pitiful mother, Judas was hallucinating, Peter was too much of a bonehead, etc. The Gospels mostly give us two dimensional characters, but it seems that if you are going to put a story on film, at least the characters should be portrayed with some kind of third dimension. The only character with any depth was Pilate, with Satan a close second (and he looks a lot like the evil emperor from Star Wars).
In response to that, one might say that Gibson was only seeking to be true to the Biblical story. But, of course, there are lots of Hollywood style embellishments that are not based on Biblical sources at all. There are entire conversations that have sprung from Gibson’s imagination and the role of Mary is played up in ways that just aren’t a part of the Gospel narrative. I do not object to this, for if Gibson relied only on the Bible the film would have been devoid of much discourse at all. However, I wish that he would have made the characters more human in the process, as he did with Pilate. By avoiding human nuance, Gibson risks giving the audience the opportunity to view the sin of the Sanhedrin and the Romans as something that we are not capable of, for surely none of us would do the same thing today. We can take secret pleasure in the relative depravity of others. The justification that he was holding to the Biblical description does not hold up when so much of the vision is his own.
In fact, in viewing this film, I was reminded of the Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius (for all of you Protestants, he was the founder of the Jesuits). Ignatius outlines a four week series of meditations and prayers for Christians to use in spiritual formation, a program that is still used today. The third week is a meditation solely upon the Passion. You are to imagine the event as if you were actually there. I get the sense that is exactly what Gibson has done and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he has been part of an Ignatian retreat. The problem, of course, is that Gibson only gives us week three of the retreat, without the benefit of weeks one, two, and four. This is a movie that badly needs a prequel. Let’s be clear, this movie is the result of Gibson’s imagination working with the material of the Bible.
One movie critic wrote something to the effect that Gibson seems to hope that we felt each blow of the whip and each hammering of the nails as if we are there ourselves. I think it worked, because I could hear the intake of breath throughout the theater as the nails were being driven in. There is a bit of a theological problem here, however. While my sins are responsible for Jesus being nailed to the cross, the very reason he went to the cross was so that I wouldn’t have to feel the equivalent pain. That is, if Jesus went to the cross to spare me that pain, what right does Gibson have to subject me to it now? There was something both manipulative and abusive about how this movie was supposed to work with the audience.
Reading back over this essay, I guess I’m not all that ambivalent about the movie. I found it deeply disturbing and lacking in any presence of God’s grace. I am glad that it was made, for this is an important, challenging, and relevant vision of Christianity. And I applaud Gibson for having the courage of his convictions and for the great artistry behind the movie. It takes real guts to make something that many people are going to criticize. But for me, the violence was too gratuitous and lacked the redemptive nature that is such an important part of the story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
