Month: March 2004

I’ve yet to see Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. There’s at least a small part of me that’s interested in the film, but there’s a lot that I find troubling about it. It seems that Glen shares some of my reservations:

I was actually quite looking forward to the movie – until the marketing (not the buzz – the actual marketing) became, “True believers! Drag your heathen friends to see this movie so they may convert and be saved!”

From nearly all accounts, the film seems to think religious faith is some kind of endurance test; if you don’t have the stomach to watch two hours of painful, unspeakable torture, you’re not a good believer. The why of Jesus’ crucifixion, much less his life and lessons, are all but absent from the film. It’s some two hours of brutal violence, with little hint of the surrounding story or meaning. It’s all suffering and no sacrifice.

Some critics have been impressed by the film — Roger Ebert, for one, writes in his four-star review that he “prefer[s] to evaluate a film on the basis of what it intends to do, not on what I think it should have done.” — but few without a vested interest in getting people to church have called it a great spiritual experience. If anything, it’s been regarded as a great leap backwards for Christianity.

As David Denby writes in The New Yorker:

The movie has been hailed as a religious experience by various Catholic and Protestant groups, some of whom, with an ungodly eye to the commercial realities of film distribution, have prepurchased blocks of tickets or rented theatres to insure “The Passion” a healthy opening weekend’s business. But how, I wonder, will people become better Christians if they are filled with the guilt, anguish, or loathing that this movie may create in their souls?

That’s a very valid question. It’s not, as Gibson seems convinced, “anti-Christian sentiment”; (there are, in fact, clergy who have strongly criticized the film). From what I’ve seen and read, I have reservations about the film and problems with its (quite possibly dangerous) theology, or lack thereof. I’m not sure I want to go see it just to prove those reservations were well-founded.

I started watching the Academy Awards last night until I realized, much to my surprise and relief, that I really didn’t care — certainly not enough to sit through the tedium of actually watching the entire show. I gave up not soon after Tim Robbins won for his supporting work in Mystic River. (Which isn’t to say I didn’t think he deserved it.) Looking over the list of winners this morning, as well as some of the endless commentary and lame morning news roundups of last night, I can’t really say I made the wrong decision. I don’t think I missed too much.

A couple of observations on what little I saw, however:

I realize that Barbara Walters’ credibility as an actual journalist went out the window years ago — and certainly around the time she started asking people what kind of tree they’d be — but c’mon, interviewing Shrek? That’s the sort of thing that gives fluff pieces a bad name. That and the lame half-hour countdown (as oppossed to E!’s lame all-day countdown) made me wish I’d turned the television off even before Billy Crystal — who probably should be permanent host, if only because he’s probably got nothing else to do — came on stage.

And, more importantly: Sofia Coppola is actually the first American woman nominated for Best Director? What is wrong with the Academy? She’s certainly not the first American woman to direct a film, fellas. Geez.

A technician came this morning to fix my cable modem. And by “fix”, I basically mean “give me a new one”. It seems to be working now. The little activity light, which on this one is orange instead of green, only flashes when there’s…well, y’know, activity.

I guess this means I finally have to go in to work now.