Not a member? Sign up now
March 5, 2004
t
the moment, our news is tangled in the wreckage of unintended
consequences. Unrelated matters are so excruciatingly examined
that they start to blend into some nonsequitur mobius strip.
And I have come to believe that the Martha Stewart trial and
the crucifixion of Christ are the same story: Martha is in
Jerusalem,
Jesus is selling well at Kmart, the Jews are demanding the
death penalty for securities fraud, the Christians are being
unfairly persecuted by prosecutors with their own agenda, Jesus
should have plea bargained, Martha should cater the Last Supper,
Jesus was betrayed by his assistant, Martha is betrayed by
a disciple, Jesus should have testified.
See what I mean? The two stories mix and match pretty well.
|
And I
am quite certain that if Martha Stewart had any idea how it would all turn out,
she never would have sold her ImClone stock. And if the people whose actions
brought about Jesus' crucifixion had any idea what that transaction
would cost for the next two thousand years, they might have let Jesus
continue
to make messianic claims. They would have adopted the ACLU logic — the cure
for free speech is more free speech — and
just let it go. If the Blood Libel, the Holocaust, Vichy France, current
France — and most likely future France — could have been foreseen, the
high priests of Jerusalem would have let the threat of Jesus run its race. If
they could have
seen The Passion of the Christ, that in itself might have been reason
enough to just let him be. I would like to think that to avoid bad art, a lot
of decisions would have been made differently.
Forgive me for reducing securities fraud and the
crucifixion to the same level, but in a week in which Mel Gibson's mere existence — Does
he have a Christ complex? Does he deny the Holocaust? Will he ever eat lunch
in this town again? — has been granted more gravity than any man who
has appeared in a movie with blue paint on his face deserves, I do think some
levity is in order. After all, I am Jewish. Jesus is not my lord and savior.
I don't have to speak about him in serious, sententious tones. And
I
am
shocked that Gibson's film has been granted every manner of thoughtful criticism,
and not enough suggestion that it is the work of a crackpot and ought to have
been dismissed long ago.
The Passion of the Christ is really just a snuff film. If Mel Gibson had gone to a Chilean prison and filmed a man being tortured to death, he would not have produced a terribly different movie. This is death as pornography. Amazingly, Evangelical Christians are taking their kids to see it, as if the blood and guts are somehow more sanctified than sanguinary — as if children's nightmares can distinguish between divine punishment and Freddie Krueger.
|
Something
about this movie is more of a conversation piece than an experience. |
Now, I understand that reveling in Jesus' suffering
is a Christian thing I will never truly appreciate. But it is fair to ask if
this passion play is appropriate, because it seems impossible to deal with Christ's
death without confronting the contentious issue of who killed him. If one is
going to accept the Gospels as gospel truth — and not seek out the historical
record — it is impossible not to show the crucifixion as a hate crime, and
hence to use it to inspire further hate crimes. Jesus was, in fact, executed
for political reasons, in the context of a cruel Roman prefect, and in
expectations of imminent insurrection that were finally realized with the Masada
uprising in 66 A.D. In A History of the Jews, Paul Johnson explains
that "men claiming to be the Messiah sooner or later rose in rebellion — Messianic-claimants
were usually packed off to the Roman authorities if they became troublesome enough." Without
including this information — and there is no reason for a religious fanatic
like Mel Gibson, who does not even believe in the Vatican II reforms, to bother — all
you get are a bunch of hook-nosed Jews with snaggled teeth and bushy beards,
screaming, "Crucify him!" The blame game has been the source of such historical
horror that one would hope Gibson, the son of a writer who claims the Holocaust
is mostly fictional, would
recuse himself from this particular story. He cannot be trusted to be a reliable
narrator.
And it is entirely appropriate here to speak of reliable narrators, because despite Gibson's wild attempts at sincerity, he is a victim of his own overdetermination. The Passion of the Christ — right down to its clumsy titling in the guise of academic precision — is a truly postmodern, cynical piece of work. Its meaning is its final flaw: it has none. Gibson's innovation is his lack thereof; his artlessness extends to the fact that no one in the movie appears to be acting. During filming, star Jim Caviezel sustained a dislocated shoulder, was struck by lightning, obtained a fourteen-inch scar and was apparently left hanging on a cross instead of an effigy — perhaps so he could experience Christ's crucifixion to the extent that it was humanly possible. Hearing about this, I was reminded of the story of Dustin Hoffman preparing for his role in Marathon Man. For weeks, he starved himself and ran long distances — all
kinds of method masochism. Sir Laurence Olivier observed this and
finally asked, "Why don't you try acting, young man? It is so much easier."
|
You
don't feel the pain of the crucifixion, but you do get the urge to study the details. |
But then, everything in Passion appears to be a big
boast,
signifying nothing. I happen to be fluent in Hebrew, and I'm able to understand
Aramaic. (I say understand Aramaic, because at this point in time, no one speaks
it; it's the written language of the Gemarra, but it is a shock to hear it aloud.)
So for much of the movie, I focused on how well the actors mastered words they
likely could not understand. In case you're interested, they did it pretty well.
But it adds up to very little: Jesus talks to God in Hebrew, the Jews speak to
each other in Aramaic, the Romans talk in Latin, and as far as I know, none of
this is accurate. Evidently, Gibson's labor-intensive effort to install these
ancient languages into his film was unnecessary. Except as a plodding detail.
Something about this movie is more of a conversation piece than an experience, despite the intense immediacy of all that is happening. Because The Passion is so hollow deep down, you don't feel the pain of the crucifixion, but you do get the urge to study the details. In my case it was linguistic eccentricities, but another person might become enthralled with the wounds, the foliage, the birds flying overhead. The "spiritual experience" many evangelical Christians talked about with Katie Couric or Diane Sawyer might have been their response to seeing any film. These were people who said that they otherwise never went to the movies.
Full disclosure: I do live in a Christian world, and of course I have been exposed
to Jesus' teachings. While The Passion of The Christ was earning $117
million last weekend, I was busy reading the four Gospels. Yes, I spent Friday
night at home with the Bible.
|
Somebody
ought to do Jesus the dignity of an honest historical masterpiece. |
And truth be told, I was sold. I was ready to
sign up for whatever. The Good Book really is good. Even before that, I'd always
loved certain fragments — I have had the "love thine enemies" speech, as it is
recorded by Luke, hanging over my desk for several years now, right along side
Portia's "quality of mercy" monologue from The Merchant of Venice.
Both of them remind us of what we're all up against, what the best of the good
can be. Jesus was a Jew — most of his teachings from the Sermon
on the Mount were derived from Jewish ideas. He was a student of the great Rabbi
Hillel, and it is obvious that Jesus presented his teacher's top pop hits to
his followers. But Jesus' special genius was that he assembled it into one lecture,
one religion, one faith. This brings to mind the cinematic possibilities for
anyone willing to make a movie about Jesus' real life, his intellectual perambulations,
his true relationships. Somebody ought to do him the dignity of an honest historical
masterpiece.
The Passion flashes back to bits of Christ's
life, but at no point does it reveal the humanistic view of Jesus as a revolutionary,
as a man
who saw the harshness of the Old Testament and wanted to respond with mercy,
who
softened the vengeful and jealous God of Moses by greeting hate with love.
He preached charity — material and spiritual. That this message
has been transformed into occasion for so much bloodshed over the centuries
seems divinely improbable.
In fact, I find it heartbreaking: accepting Jesus seems to have offered many
people enlightenment that has been squandered in violent, hateful ways. It's
hard to make sense of.
But thanks to films like Gibson's, I am beginning
to see the light — and it's the kind that makes you want to squint and
look the other way. In The
Passion of the Christ, we are presented with a violent situation in which
Jesus becomes the impetus for violence. We don't hear anything Jesus says
during the Sermon on the Mount (although he is shown standing there, conveniently
enough, on a mount). When Jesus protects the adulteress from those who would
stone her to death, we don't hear him say, "He who is without sin, cast the
first stone." Jesus is the star, but he has no good lines — as if that
might adulterate the purity of purpose of the film itself, which is to show
him
as an object of obliteration and nothing more. This is the most nihilistic,
Nietzschean
version of Christianity I have ever encountered: God really is dead. And
all we know is that he died a bloody death, that blood is blood is blood,
the Crusades
are blood, Bloody Sunday is blood, the Blood Libel is blood, wine is blood,
the scarlet letter is blood red, everything that happens in Ireland and Lebanon
and Alabama in the name of Christianity is blood. Jesus might be the one
who turns the other cheek, but his followers seem to be the ones who want
to punch.
On Ash Wednesday, the day The Passion of the Christ opened,
the misnomered Loving United Pentecostal Church of Denver arranged the letters
on its marquee
sign to read, THE JEWS KILLED OUR LORD AND SAVIOR. I don't get the feeling
this is meant as a thank-you note.
It would appear that Mel Gibson agrees
with the Loving congregants. But you'd think, as a decent person, as a good
Christian,
he'd want to refrain from doing further harm. n°
| ABOUT THE AUTHOR: | |
 |
Elizabeth Wurtzel is a lawyer in New York and the author of the books Prozac Nation; Bitch; The Secret of Life; and More, Now, Again. You can follow her at twitter.com/LizzieWurtzel. |
©2004 Nerve.com.
Commentarium (68 Comments)
The best review I've read so far and I've read quite a few both positive and negative. Nice work.
interesting; i like the writer's pace a great deal. but why contribute to the 'material' already printed and heard and seen on the film? it's nearly become inescapable. in most cases, i'd say it's good to make a point about "art" even if the work is problematic. but i'm not sure what the writer is adding here: pointing out mel's crazy (check), the film is gory (check), the film's politics are questionable (check)? raising the word 'pornography' into the piece doesn't - for me at least - mean it merits space at nerve; why feature it when it's already overexposed? cla
Nice work, Elizabeth, thanks for effing the ineffible. I'm going to have to go and read all of your books now. Also, this has gotten Nerve.com onto my radar.
Wurtzel, you are still a coke-nosed moron of the lowest order, and this is just more of the same shit you've always been dishing out.
First Liz Phair, now this. Fucking Nerve.
ive been following articles about this 'accidental' event film for almost a year now, and along with a couple articles by paula fredriksen, this is perhaps the best contextual deconstruction and analysis of the movie ive come across. thanks.
Great review. One of the best reviews of anything, that I've read in a while.
I wasn't planning on seeing the film...but now I think I'll check it out (on video...bootleg video) just to see what you're talking about. By the way...these sentences of yours were probably the best things I've read all year:
"That this message has been transformed into occasion for so much bloodshed over the centuries seems divinely improbable. In fact, I find it heartbreaking: accepting Jesus seems to have offered many people enlightenment that has been squandered in violent, hateful ways. It's hard to make sense of."
Thanks
a little late maybe? "if you can't do something right, don't do it at all". and lay off the tore up, worn out, quasi celebs - phair, moby, etc.
I want to meet Elizabeth Wurtzel when she is in NYC area.
Thanks,
Neal H. Hurwitz
610 West 115th Street
(one block from Columbia University where I taught international affiars, poli sci, etc.)
New York, NY 10025
212-222-9112
Lots of factual errors betray this piece as the amateurish work it is. Second rate analysis. I disagree that the "Old Testament" can be reduced down to a religion of harsh rules (your analysis is somewhat anti-Jewish). P.S. Aramaic is still spoken in some parts of rural Syria. Better luck next time.
I liked it. The relevance of the crucifixion is not who did what to whom. Gibson tried to show what Jesus went through out of love for God and people. It shouldn't matter whether you believe he was the son of God or not. Get over yourself.
its easy to see the light, but i dont know why more people dont. only one man ever died and came back to life 3 days later, only 1 man walked on water, only 1 man perfomed miracles in front of thousands and this man said he was the son of God. no one else has ever done these things. why is it so hard to believe?
Thanks for hitting the nail on the head. And by the way I thought
the "bloody torso" suit looked a little rubbery-like a torn up Gumby...
*grins* exactly. While I'm guessing that you kind of like the sparks that get thrown off of "This is death as pornography," you're still exactly right. But people are wierd, and by observation, I'd have to say that Evangelical Christians are wierder than most. Hopefully some of the kids will have the insight to remember that it's not good to glorify someone's pain.
Brilliant review.
Elizabeth, I'm surprised at you. I, too am a writer. See my nerve profile, kazstory, if you're interested or bored.
I suppose it would be contradict my beliefs to force everyone else to have the same powerful catharsis, I, a cynic going in, had seeing the Passion.
My catharsis was this: sometimes it takes suffering to spread messages of love and forgiveness. I feel I live this everyday and I know many writers share this same belief. Around the world, people are being persecuted for their beliefs and this film helped me pause and reflect and cry.
Turning a blind eye to the deeper, underlying horrifying truth of human nature, which is as horrifying today as it was back then, is in many ways parallel to missing the
truth of this film's message, even if that message was never even intended. Morever, if the mean's to the end may seem self-serving.
But, I forgive you, for today, more than ever, it's become human nature to know not what we do. Please think about this.
joe
Another cold look at a Passion from someone who prollly never enjoyed an orgasm or the joy of drawing the first breath.
Morally coward and spiritually bankrupt, the writer used her Jewishness alternatively as a shield and as an excuse, waffling as her thoughts like waves on an ocean. That one of the jews, broke ranks, and actually attained self-realisation seems to gall and all she sees is red blood everywhere is the fault of her vision clouded by her lineage.
What you see is what you live, and if all you see is blood, all you ever will be is bloody, bloody in spirit and flesh. Beyond the red copper in your veins, you have no redeeming value.
Very good article, I enjoyed reading it.
Your Article was incredible. Thank you for that.
I almost wrote an angry response to this, because I hadn't read carefully and I'm an idiot. Now I've reread and I'm in love. If this "Passion" review could get together for drinks with Christopher Hitchens', the resulting lovechild would bring candy to nuns and put the severed head of that Denver preacher under Mel Gibson's satin sheets. And if I could get together for drinks with Ms. Wurtzel, I'd shut up entirely.
she has no clue what she's talking about-the most arrogantly ignorant review i've read.she has no clue .she is coming from the same guttereral level as the antisemites who put the sign up that said the jews killed jesus. she sounds more like gibsons father ignortanly ranting that the jews weren't the object of geneside. if she dosen't think the romans hated the jews they were ruling or that crucification wasn't a violent act she should do some research. her review sounded more like an attack on gibson and christianity than on one mans vision and interpretation of the gospels.
A beautiful review of an ugly movie.
You are quite right to note the excessive emphasis on "the blood" in the film.
One of the primary problems with Mr. Gibson's film is that it places violence at the center of the redemptive act. It was only after Jesus' death (and apparent resurection) that his followers began to ransack the Hebrew scriptures in order to explain how the career of this messianic figure could have turned out as it did. In order to answer that question they turned to certain of the psalms as well as the "suffering servant" of Isaiah in order to make sense of his suffering (which was a scandal for the first believers in the ancient context).
The Christian doctrine of the atonement (the idea that Jesus death is a propitiation for the sins of humanity) developed slowly over a thousand years and it is theologically problematic for many reasons. Mr. Gibson's film raises no questions or critiques concerning that death's significance but rather flattens it out and drains it of any utility it might have for a person of faith.
I appreciated your review.
brilliant!! fabulous!! i love you elizabeth wurtzel. you give all of us quasi depressive jewish girl writers a whole lot to live up to. your deconstruction of this film, along with the modern contextualization (is this a word??) left my mind racing. really smart, excellent work. thank you.
Is that purty pitcher of Wurtzel taken from a padded, white room?
WOW, Holy Shit is right. That someone can be a film critic and actually not SEE the film before their eyes? That's certainly a divine act. One of the divinities attributable only to the Jews I think. Because only a Jew would allow their personal feelings to cloud thier objective view of art so much that they miss vital messages being expressed before their eyes and ears like a self-immolation in progress. Shit, god forbid someone wearing a yarmelke provides the matches, all this critic would do is complain about the smell of smoke and the unnecessary waste of gasoline.
Here's some free advice, next time you're going to see a movie that MAY criticize your own religion harshly for what you've been told (conveniently) your ancestors are not guilty of, do us all a favor and go to temple instead. We can do without the bullshit-jaded-blind opinion.
"the writer used her Jewishness alternatively as a shield and as an excuse" from a previous review, perfect, thank you reviewer. this "would be" critic needs to chill. curious though, what would her review be of schindlers list? the piano? etc. nevermind, she raved I bet.
oops. i was about to write to tell you that this is a totally kick-ass review-- you're an awesome writer with a powerful mind and huge amount of attitude channeled into a useful place... and, as I read it, I was thinking for some reason that you were a guy, having not read your name before reading the article, and was going to not-very-seriously ask you out. except that i decided to scroll down further to see your name, and saw that you were a woman. a very hot woman, i might add, but a woman nevertheless. anyway, i'm grateful to you for this article for a million reasons. and while i'm at it, if you happen to dig chicks, i'm pretty hot myself, and occasionally...
(susanwriter@nyc.rr.com)
A lot of people who have offered feedback are making Christians look like antisemetic idiots. Their hate is expressed with the kind of inane rehtoric reminiscent of comedians who, in lieu of insightful jokes, attempt to get laughs by cursing all the time. However, it is reassuring to know there is at least one intelligent, honest Catholic woman who agrees with you:
The Passion of the Christ" is not just another movie. No one in America is saying, "What do you want to see this weekend, `The Passion of the Christ' or `50 First Dates'? " None of us can see it innocently. If audiences were juries, there is no possible viewer of this film who would not be rejected by either the defense or the prosecution.
Whether or not we like the 21st century, it is where we live, and we can view this film only as citizens of our time and place. That means me, too. I can look at "The Passion of the Christ" only as a woman who defines herself as Catholic, who also defines herself as someone for whom the creation of story has been a crucial locus of self-understanding, and as someone for whom the Gospels have been crucial texts. So I respond to it as a person formed by my history, as Mel Gibson has been formed by his.
I'm older than Mel, but not by much, and we were both brought up by Catholics who would define themselves as conservative. And yet our visions of both the nature of history, the role of story and the experience of Jesus are miles apart.
So, no, I didn't like the movie. But I didn't like Mr. Gibson's "Braveheart," either. I don't do spectacle. I don't do graphic violence. I didn't lose any sleep, though, about not liking "Braveheart." I didn't care about "Braveheart"; I didn't care who liked it because nothing important was at stake. I didn't imagine that "Braveheart" could do any damage in the larger world. The story of "Braveheart" wasn't precious to me. But "The Passion" has been, for me, a cause of deep distress.
My distress has two sources. The first is my anxiety that it will have the effect of fanning the flames of a growing worldwide anti-Semitism. I accept Mr. Gibson's assertion that he didn't mean to make an anti-Semitic film, but he has to be aware of the Passion story's role in the history of the persecution of the Jews, a story whose very power to move the human spirit has been a vehicle for both transcendence and murder. To be a Christian is to face the responsibility for one's own most treasured sacred texts being used to justify the deaths of innocents.
What, then, is one to do with that knowledge? I believe that one bears witness to it, in one's life and in one's work. Certainly one does not take the risk that one's life or work might contribute to the continuation of a horror.
Can this be read as political correctness with a theological twist? As a writer, I am certainly sensitive to the specter of censorship. But as one who has made a life's work of studying narrative, I wonder why Mel Gibson's vision of the Passion
You Get It. Thanks for having the Nerve to say so. Every movie written about hate crimes, from Holocaust movies, to movies about the black slaves before the civil war, etc balances the atrocities and the atrocious people with kind people of the same race working to save those who are persecuted. Mel didn't bother. Well, he did bother to provide a couple of Roman role models -- as if we need to worry about all the potential anti-Roman backlash. When it came to Jews, it's as if there isn't a naysayer in the bunch. All for one and one for all. Would have been nice to show the hundreds of thousands of Jews, who weren't out on the street yelling at the time-- including the 400,000 OTHER jews besides Jesus who were crucified as well. Mel chose not to. Clearly, Mel is his father's son. Very scary, very sad.
Bullsh*t on the fact she's a Jew reviewing this. I was raised Catholic, nuns, schools, my whole life. I didn't MEET Jewish people until recently. Her points are fair and accurate. The film is messed up. The fact mel condones his dad's actions is pathetic.
>Loving United Pentecostal Church of Denver
It appears the correct church name is "Lovingway United Pentecostal Church." They've posted an apology on their website, for whatever that's worth:
http://www.lovingway.org/
Mary Gordon's letter concluded:
No one has tried to set fire to the Pantheon; Hadrian's Villa has not been ransacked.
It's a bit difficult to understand your point. Hadrian's Villa was a private residence, not a place of public worship. And the Parthenon *was* set fire (blown up, actually) in 1687. It was also twice converted into a mosque. Not that it really matter.
MD ranted: "she sounds more like gibsons father ignortanly ranting that the jews weren't the object of geneside." Hey, but at least SHE can spell and punctuate.
TPOC - who the fuck cares. Wurtzel - show me your tits.
oya, a little late on the review. so last week.
Elizabeth will you mary me? I agree with everything you wrote. I sent an email to friends yesterday connectiong Martha and the Passion. I am an old friend of Larry Gross if that is a +.
Ph.
I'm not planning to see this film. I'm trying to avoid ultra-violent films. They're a bad influence. As far as the "Jesus, the Savior of Man" thing, I guess I'm trying to get beyond that as well. Sorry, but religion isn't the answer. You've seen the bumper-sticker, I'm sure: there are no answers, only questions. Jesse Ventura was right in saying that religion is for the weak. To say, "I am Christian" / "I am Jewish" / "I am Muslim" / etc is just a group-identity move, a way to look for safety in numbers. I'm alone and vulnerable just like you and everyone else, but I'm trying to be strong, and to make it without the opium of the masses. Let's all beware of belief structures.
being Jewish, do you have a guilty conscience? this is a film interpretation of an event in history that was not recorded by any other means than filtered verbal "story-telling" over hundreds of years. take it for simply that: one person's interpretation of the passion and suffering of jesus - a snap shot soley of this event - not about the sermons nor the relationships. that film would be named the "definitive life of jesus".
learned christians know that the roman governor - pilot - was not happy for his posting & consequently quite the iron fisted ruler. he himself condemmed jesus whether or not the religious jews at the time were in favor of it.
your piece is political. you trash it but then, you are interested and invoke an opinion, much like the multitudes who are seeing it, that it has merit for viewing.
so, just say so.
To GBH, on Mary Gordon's point: She was giving her own critique of the film, i.e., why provide an apologetic vision of Roman involvement in the death of Christ? She was pointing out the twisted sense of rsponsibility displayed by Gibson. As for Wurtzel, despite the fact that I agree with many of your points, the overblown rhetoric simply puts you in the same category as Gibson. If you want to be taken seriously do some research and tone it down. I can't help but wonder if you've actually read any Nietzsche and aren't just grabbing hold of that all too well known line from Zarathustra. If you are going to invoke such a powerful figure for support of your argument, know what you're getting into. Do you even know what, "God is dead and we have killed him." means?
Good review. Personally, I thought the languages thing was a nice touch, but other than that, I found it pointlessly gory. As you say, plenty of people have suffered plenty of physical pain in history. Jesus doesn't have a monopoly on it. Try Shusako Endo's _Silence_ to see a literate attempt to understand suffering, sacrifice and faith.
Typical Jewish Response.
You take blame by getting so upset, you read between the lines to find your own guilt, the movie clearly shows that not all the Jews wanted christ dead, that some thought it was wrong, granted pilot was shown to be a little too nice, and his death was as much about politics as faith.
For the sake of fairness I believe you should have a non-jewish person review this film, as no doubt if it were a film about the 2nd world war and the holcast, which definetly happend, and you had a german reviewing it there would be outrage.
well written, articulate review.
Irresponsible, I thought (the PASSION).
not that someone wanted to make a movie about the "good book", but, i mean come'on. to make it in such expected-visuals and to not take a creative walk on the ladder of inspiration? the actors, white. jesus, looking as he does on the laminated oak clocks in ma & pa stores...come on folks.
Mel Gibson, was just irresponsible. again, not because of his desire to tell a story, about a story, that has been interpreted over and over again, but, a large majority of viewers are looking for the validation of this story, and it seems that a disclaimer would have helped a little, saying that this "is one man's (albeit warped and not creative) interpretation. IF the story had an interesting approach to to the story line, or had in fact put some thought into how to use the visuals for showing the sacrificing, and punishment sequences, maybe the audience would have been challanged more intellectually. I watched it and thought, "you're kidding me". it was Braveheart all over again, it was Patriot, it was F'n Lethal Weapon - but more graphic.
then there are the organizations taking children to see this. Now i have seen it all. Yeah, go ahead and send your kids to see this. Its not enough the catholic children have enough to contend with (think church crimes on the rise/or rather, now just coming to the light), then there is the hypocritical, contradictory method of teaching and abiding by the religion. Keep em' coming! There are plenty of therapist's in practice today, so...its just another way to keep the economy on the rise, and to ensure we keep Bush in office, we will just have to see how the whole Osama thing plays out. You know, in less than 4 months, we will see that "we have just captured Osama", and that just like Mel releasing Passion on Ash Wednesday, Osama's news will be released as just as timely.
thanks for such a great review.
P.Cortez
Brilliant review. Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. THANK YOU, Elizabeth, for your articulate, intelligent review and for reviewing this movie like a MOVIE and not the effin' bible itself. Brava!
On the mark. Very good review. I truly fear "Passion" will find it's way into the pantheon of anti-semetic cinema with "greats" like "The Eternal Jew" and other lesser known fascist works. That people--Christians--take their children to see this movie is a deeply unsettling statement about where this democracy of ours may be heading.
Your review makes a lot of good points and I like your style. But be careful when making claims about what is historically acurate or that the details of the "event" were passed down verbally for a hundred years or so. I'm finding that in the many reviews I've read, suddenly writers become biblical scholars or experts on ancient history. I've never seen more misapproapriations and flat out errors about the history of Christianity.
Nonetheless, you are a thoughtful writer, and this is one of the better reviews I've read after Mary Gordon's essay in the NY Times. I'd like to check out your novels now.
Another review: http://www.metafluxus.com/cultura/cinema/art_clt_cin_040304_Passion.htm
that was beautiful.well done.
"That this message has been transformed into occasion for so much bloodshed over the centuries seems divinely improbable. In fact, I find it heartbreaking: accepting Jesus seems to have offered many people enlightenment that has been squandered in violent, hateful ways. It's hard to make sense of."
It really is a shame isn't it. But, I've got a great book for Elizabeth to read to help make sense of it.
"The Lucifer Principle" by Howard Bloom
AKA Justey on nerve personals
Film critics are like defense lawyers; the fewer, the better.
I have never read a single thing Elizabeth has ever written. As an introduction, she's incredibly smart, and eminantly readable. Very interesting take. And... if her picture follows, she's fucking hot as well.
We are ardently committed to free expression, but we do expect Nerve and NerveCenter visitors and contributors to interact respectfully and responsibly. Blatant expressions of bigotry, sexism or hatred may be constitutionally protected on the street corner, but they're not cool here.
Mel Gibson
Quote: "If one is going to accept the Gospels as gospel truth
I try to have an open mind on people's opinions, but I'm sorry, you're wrong in your opinion that this movie shows Christ's death as a hate crime and justification for other hate crimes against Jews in reciprocation. You know what? Those who directly crucified him were Jews. This is true. But if you watched the movie you would have seen several of the High Priest objecting to the trial by night and railroading of Christ by Caiaphus. Christians don't revel in the images of the death of Christ. But we believe that it is through his death that our sins were paid for, so for us this was an incredible act of love by God and THAT is what we revel in. Also, Mel Gibson has explained time and time again that while the Jews present did directly influence Pilate to kill Jesus, it was all of us who carry the blame, since dying on the cross to take on our sin was his purpose. I share your anger at the message on the bulletin board outside whatever church that was. It is completely inappropriate and factually wrong. I also understand that there are some Christians who are anti-semmitic and some people who interpret this movie as provoking such behavior, but I do not believe this was the intention of the movie. I also have to agree that children should NOT be taken to see this movie. In fact, because of the way this movie doesn't explain some things the way they should be, the ideal experience would be to read the Luke or John before ever going to see it. There was no focus on the incredibly important fact that the temple was NOT damaged as shown in the movie, but the veil separating the temple from the Holy of Holines was torn in two, showing the removal of the barrier between God and man.
Thanks for the best assessment of this travesty I have read. It is a snuff film, exactly so. A small point of information... You can hear Aramaic spoken in Bergen County New Jersey, there is a community there of Syrian and Iraqi christians whose children I took care of as a pediatrician. It does sound like hebrew. Thanks a pantload Mel Gibson, for the worst date movie ever. I wonder how they'll like it in Syria.
Dear Elizabeth,
Why did I get the feeling from the minute I started reading this that you were Jewish yourself? And don't dare tell me that YOUR being Jewish had absolutely nothing to do with this article.
I'm neither Jewish or Christian, so I'm not taking sides like that, but I think this was a rather ignorant review. You're only seeing this film in the light you WANT to see it. The fact that it's a violent film does not change the fact that, as far as we understand, the Jews killed Christ.
To the person below:
A. Every film review is subjective - you can't review a film without using your own experience as reference. Read the review before you criticize it - the author IS Jewish, and discusses it as part of her reaction.
B. "The Jews killed Christ"? Well, technically the Romans did. And furthermore, back when Jesus was alive, there WERE no Christians. Jesus was a Jew, his followers were Jewish, and the divisions cropped up only after his death. Christianity is built on the bedrock of Judaism, and the New Testament would not exist without the Old.
As a Christian who actually attempts to practice Jesus' doctrine of love, I am ashamed by the anti-Semitic reaction to this film.
Looking at the whole ordeal from a European point of view, I am surprised at the shockingly low standart of debate in American media. Please. We COULD just discuss this film as a work of art, as it has been done in Europe. My impression is that the tone of the debate in America is generally more emotional, involving a more...primitive notion of religion, and its place in modern society. Such pride is taken in one's faith and identity as a Christian or Jew. It seems so backwards to me.
I mean, just look at the concepts that are up for discussion here - who killed Jesus, are the Gospels a historically verifiable source, has anybody actually ever read Nietzsche - these are not hard questions: c'mon people - grow up as a nation, get some class!
In response to eva: Many racist and stupid comments in response to "Holy Sh*t" have offended me, but classism offends me more than almost everything else. I am truly repulsed by the idea that poor people are somehow inferior, less intelligent, and/or worse mannered than the wealthy. And it seems to me that this idea that intelligence, good manners and wealth must all equal each other is more common in America than anywhere else. It seems ironic to me that in presupposing a stance as a more mature European, you have used an idiotic paradigm that I think is quite American.
after revisiting some of these reviews, i am excited to see such a high level of intellect (for the most part), and the ability to be "passionate" of one's ideals.
i was driving by a church the other day, and on the lit up marque, it said...
"The Book was Better"
I think this says it all.
(of course, this is a church in a liberal community, in Atlanta.)
I am sure, if you drive 20 minutes north...it would be a whole other story.
Hey Elizabeth,
neat review.
I would love you to listen to some of my tunes. If you like the stuff let me know.
jordonrothstein.com
very good Ms Wurtzel,
thank you.
so, it is an obsession...
never saw the flic, no desire
grown to see "it"/christianity as an obsession
exercise in no reason creates an imbalance
the meaning in life?
fundamentalist imbalance
imperial personality disorder (IPD)
war without end
holy shit
Lovingway not Loving
In response to bf - i completely get your point, and i even agree, but i don't think it is relevant to what i wrote. I merely meant it as "c'mon, grow up, get your act together". GEt some class (not A specific class, the upper, but merely some class) is an expression, which is also a bit ironic, since you can't ever "get" class. Coming from Denmark, which is one of the most egalitarian societes in the world, where i cheerfully pay 70 % in taxes, this context was taken for granted by me. I don't blame you for getting me wrong though.
Fighting over these lame issues seem even more incomprehensible to me, as the American society is so classridden, and one of the least socially mobile in the 1. world, compared to its wealth. Those are the issues you need to deal with, and THAT's the real joke here.
Holy Sh*t is right!!!
I went to see the movie just so I could talk about it if it came up with friends and colleagues. The best part is that Evangelists think that this is the best portrayal of Christ ever on film. That's because there isn't anything in the film showing jesus in a different form or fashion that what they are used to reading in the new testament.
Keep writing these types of great articles.
To use comments from poor misguided individuals and say that these represent the message of the Passion of Our Lord is disingenious and duplicitous of the author. He came and died for the sins of the human race. The fact that it happened to be some Jews and Romans of the first century who were used was simply God's will and nothing more. This is simply another attempt by the left wing to disrupt and discredit His message and nothing more.
Your sarcasm sure is boring... I think I read this review earlier in New Republic.
I cannot believe that I just saw the same movie that Elizabeth did.
"...at no point does it reveal the humanistic view of Jesus as a revolutionary, as a man who saw the harshness of the Old Testament and wanted to respond with mercy"?
I saw that very clearly, many times! where Jesus is shown preaching that you should love your enemy, or where he is forgiving those that are torturing him to death. Love your friends? he asks, where is the reward in that?
"The Passion of the Christ is really just a snuff film". How ironic, that Jesus's extraordinary courage is juxtaposed against the cynical self-interest of Caiphas, of Pilate, or the short sighted brutality of the Roman soldiers
against the memories of the mother who raised and cared for a human being with intelligence, humour and the strength of will to question how could things be better? How could we treat people like that which they are: people?
See the movie again, and this time forget that you are a Jew. Remember that you are a human being.
please do another topless shoot
Now you say something