Tuesday, March 02, 2004
The Passion of the box-office
I find it entirely inexplicable that Mel Gibson's Passion should gross $125 million at the box-office in its first 5 days. Inexplicable because it has an R rating, is probably the single most violent movie ever made and is made in languages that noone speaks anymore. I had a friend write in to tell me that he quit the movie after about 50 minutes because the violence was absolutely gratuitous and pointless to anyone who didn't believe the gospels to be, well, the gospel truth. So, whats the story here?
Mel Gibson has of course institutionalised violence in several of his previous movies, the most extreme being that atrocious so-called epic which features the Scots speaking with American accents. From everything I have read, he has completely outdone himself in the new movie in his attempt to convince us that we really, really, really must have sinned big-time to have caused the passion of Christ.
Furthermore, I have been reading about Christian groups taking children to see this movie. What kind of absurdity is this? Isn't the same group of people who denounce violence in Hollywood movies the rest of the year (though this does present a curious problem to a certain Joe Lieberman)? How come they take their children to watch an absurdly violent movie? I cannot even begin to imagine the impact this movie will have on young children. I remember seeing one of these crucifixion movies (can't remember which) and having recurrent nightmares for a long time afterwards. Mind you, what I remember from that movie seems like a teddy bear's picnic compared to this one.
Some critics have praised the sheer power of the violence. I think that's a crazy thing to say. It's pretty easy to make a movie so incredibly and unstopably violent that it would have to seem powerful, since your don't even have the opportunity to wince. Gaspar Noe's violently cruel "Irreversible" comes to mind as an example. And according to most reviewers, Mel Gibson has outdone even that incredibly brutal rape and battering scene in the Noe film. But this violence the church recommends to everyone, including children.
Going back to the point about children watching, why did this movie escape the NC-17 rating? Roger Ebert (who has given it 4 stars) may have, ermmmm, nailed it when he says, "If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic." To paraphrase Kurtz, the hypocrisy, the hypocrisy!!!
Mel Gibson has of course institutionalised violence in several of his previous movies, the most extreme being that atrocious so-called epic which features the Scots speaking with American accents. From everything I have read, he has completely outdone himself in the new movie in his attempt to convince us that we really, really, really must have sinned big-time to have caused the passion of Christ.
Furthermore, I have been reading about Christian groups taking children to see this movie. What kind of absurdity is this? Isn't the same group of people who denounce violence in Hollywood movies the rest of the year (though this does present a curious problem to a certain Joe Lieberman)? How come they take their children to watch an absurdly violent movie? I cannot even begin to imagine the impact this movie will have on young children. I remember seeing one of these crucifixion movies (can't remember which) and having recurrent nightmares for a long time afterwards. Mind you, what I remember from that movie seems like a teddy bear's picnic compared to this one.
Some critics have praised the sheer power of the violence. I think that's a crazy thing to say. It's pretty easy to make a movie so incredibly and unstopably violent that it would have to seem powerful, since your don't even have the opportunity to wince. Gaspar Noe's violently cruel "Irreversible" comes to mind as an example. And according to most reviewers, Mel Gibson has outdone even that incredibly brutal rape and battering scene in the Noe film. But this violence the church recommends to everyone, including children.
Going back to the point about children watching, why did this movie escape the NC-17 rating? Roger Ebert (who has given it 4 stars) may have, ermmmm, nailed it when he says, "If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic." To paraphrase Kurtz, the hypocrisy, the hypocrisy!!!
