Alix Palmer endures The Passion of the Christ The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson's supposed epic, is, without exception, the worst film I've ever seen. It has no plot, no tension, no drama, no ideas - in short, nothing to recommend it.
Gibson claims that his point was "to stimulate serious thought and reflection among diverse audiences of all backgrounds". If only The only people i could be of any interest to r - new are sacists. maschochists and torture aficonacos and there are undoubtedly more interesting films to be seen in those categories).
Horror buffs, I suppose, might find something in it - although my limited knowledge of the genre suggests that it has little to recom mend it in that category either. Tedious torment
Basically, the film gives us the last hours of Christ's life, focussing in gory detail on the destruction of his body as it is spat at, flagellated, abused to the point that he would surely have been dead long before the nails were hammered in. Virtually the entire 'action' of a film of over 2 hours in length is this, him carrying the cross and his death on it.
It's been argued that the horror is the point and that it's hard not to be moved by its cumulative effect. For me, to say that watching this becomes as tedious as watching paint dry is to hugely under-state the case. For a while I waited for 'the point' and then, realising it wasn't going to emerge, clung on to the bitter end with a mixture of ter.
The point seems to be that the faithful tionally affected by the extent that Christ 'suffered' for us. Tales from the US abound of cinema-goers coming out of the pictures uttering statements like, "The whole world on what Jesus did for us."
In Texas it's claimed that a man was film! out, is that there is nothing in this movie of the teachings of Christ (the few flash-backs give us very little), nor any sense that Christianity is a religion founded on love, compassion and forgiveness. The hope of the resurrection is nowhere. classes, to whom it's convenient that the escalating resentment and suppressed laugh(and those yet to be converted) will be emo- viewer's intelligence. needs to see this film to give us a perspective moved to confess to murder having seen the
The problem, as many critics have pointed
This pain.
An emphasis on 'suffering' within religion has, of course, always been useful for ruling masses believe that they'll get their reward somewhere else - not in this life. Also, the monstrous fact is that through 1000s of years, and now, torture takes place
Suffering through torture and dying is far from the experience of one individual, nor worth worshipping for its own sake. Offensive overtones
There has been much media debate around whether or not the film is anti-semitic. Its biggest insult, in my view, is to the
fathom
However, it isn't impressive to see jews, in as much as they are portrayed, depicted as a mob baying for Christ's blood and given responsibility for a decision that clearly 'historically' rested with Pontius Pilate. It could hardly be claimed to be likely to foster understanding across faiths
Other offensive touches include an androgynous, bald Satan figure hovering around (upsetting those important gender stereotypes?) and some kind of reactionary idea of the nurturing qualities of women -lots of female grief and an extended role for Pilate's wife in pleading his case and feeling Cultural phenomenon
On a more serious note it's the phenomenon not the movie that's the problem in the States. It is unashamed propaganda on behalf LUDL of a particular form of Christianity
Outreach, a Christian marketing organisa tion, has described the film as "perhaps the best outreach opportunity in 2,000 years." Evangelist Billy Graham has likened it to "a lifetime of sermons"
Gibson has travelled around the US presenting the film to church groups and these groups have block-booked screenings. How it fits in with fundamentalist Christian opposi tion to violence on the big screen is hard to
It's to be hoped that in the UK, where, thankfully, Christian fundamentalism has less of a toe-hold, it will have less of an impact.
The other point, cynically, is that if you ca create controversy in the media you can rake in the mega-bucks
Saying, as Gibson did, of New York Times critic Frank Rich, "I want his intestines on a stick. I want to kill his dog", may not be very Christian but it helps those column inches that keep the dollars rolling in. The film is predicted to take $30-40m in the US alone.
Curiosity will doubtless bring the audiences out on the back of the media furore it has whipped up (unfortunate phrase, perhaps, for a movie that gives you 20 minutes literally, of Christ's body being whipped)
All I can say is - 'don't be tempted'. I gave my £6 so that you don't have to. Avoid at al
page 23 of the scan
SO caistre ance April 2004 23
Socialist