Friday, February 27, 2004
'Tis time
It's that time of year again, the time when I bite the bullet and go for a haircut. Actually the haircut is usually quite painless, and I feel pretty sexy afterwards, so the "biting the bullet" part only has to do with money and time. I don't have enough of either to make a haircut a guilt-free and hassle-free experience. But it must be done!
Talked to my mom yesterday. She's a theologian, and she was on her way out to see you-know-what movie. She didn't want to see it, but she's the sort of person who gets asked about things like this in popular culture, and so she felt an obligation. I haven't got her review yet, but we had a good pre-viewing conversation about it.
One thing that kills me is that Mel Gibson is a "literal biblicist", who even said on the interview with Diane Sawyer that, basically, you either take the bible as literal truth in its entirety or you don't accept any of it. To me, in saying this he basically said "I'm willfully ignorant", because it only takes a little reading and thought to realize that nothing written is ever literal truth -- that everything written is written through -- and read through -- a filter of cultural context and personal and societal experience.
But that's not what gets me. What gets me is that he makes that claim, and then takes total license with the biblical story of Jesus' passion, adding elements that were not in the Gospels and embellishing. Now, embellishment and embroidery are good things in film-making, but you can't exactly claim that the bible is the literal truth and then do whatever you want to it to tell the story. You can't have it both ways. A movie shouldn't be a slave to the text, but you can't deny that your own bias enters into it when you add to and distort the text.
I was pretty shocked to hear that it is also very violent and dwells on the pain and suffering of Jesus almost throughout. This is a legitimate choice, if that's what you want to focus on, and that's obviously what interests Gibson about the passion. But it seems to me that Jesus' suffering is not what Jesus was about. The importance of the Jesus story for Christians is in the teachings and in the resurrection. Also in the fact (or belief) that Jesus died for the sins of humanity. Thousands of good, gentle, wise people have been tortured and killed in the most brutal ways imaginable and unimaginable. That Jesus is a martyr is not what makes his story special.
Damn. It think I'm gonna have to go see this thing now. I thought I'd wait for the DVD, but I can't exactly spout off about it and not see it, right?
It's that time of year again, the time when I bite the bullet and go for a haircut. Actually the haircut is usually quite painless, and I feel pretty sexy afterwards, so the "biting the bullet" part only has to do with money and time. I don't have enough of either to make a haircut a guilt-free and hassle-free experience. But it must be done!
Talked to my mom yesterday. She's a theologian, and she was on her way out to see you-know-what movie. She didn't want to see it, but she's the sort of person who gets asked about things like this in popular culture, and so she felt an obligation. I haven't got her review yet, but we had a good pre-viewing conversation about it.
One thing that kills me is that Mel Gibson is a "literal biblicist", who even said on the interview with Diane Sawyer that, basically, you either take the bible as literal truth in its entirety or you don't accept any of it. To me, in saying this he basically said "I'm willfully ignorant", because it only takes a little reading and thought to realize that nothing written is ever literal truth -- that everything written is written through -- and read through -- a filter of cultural context and personal and societal experience.
But that's not what gets me. What gets me is that he makes that claim, and then takes total license with the biblical story of Jesus' passion, adding elements that were not in the Gospels and embellishing. Now, embellishment and embroidery are good things in film-making, but you can't exactly claim that the bible is the literal truth and then do whatever you want to it to tell the story. You can't have it both ways. A movie shouldn't be a slave to the text, but you can't deny that your own bias enters into it when you add to and distort the text.
I was pretty shocked to hear that it is also very violent and dwells on the pain and suffering of Jesus almost throughout. This is a legitimate choice, if that's what you want to focus on, and that's obviously what interests Gibson about the passion. But it seems to me that Jesus' suffering is not what Jesus was about. The importance of the Jesus story for Christians is in the teachings and in the resurrection. Also in the fact (or belief) that Jesus died for the sins of humanity. Thousands of good, gentle, wise people have been tortured and killed in the most brutal ways imaginable and unimaginable. That Jesus is a martyr is not what makes his story special.
Damn. It think I'm gonna have to go see this thing now. I thought I'd wait for the DVD, but I can't exactly spout off about it and not see it, right?
# posted by becca : 7:28 AM
