 
|
 |
|
When, if ever, has a movie review run on the front page of the Los Angeles Times? (Surely someone will know.) But I'm told that's where Kenneth Turan's take on Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ will be on Tuesday morning, ahead of most papers by at least a day.
Making comparisons to The Birth of a Nation and the sensation around The Blair Witch Project, Kenny acknowledges the film is a cultural milestone and writes that he was moved, though probably not in the ways Gibson hoped.
The film left me in the grip of a profound despair, and not for reasons I would have thought. It wasn't simply because of "The Passion's" overwhelming level of on-screen violence, a litany of tortures ending in a beyond-graphic crucifixion.And it wasn't because of the treatment of the high priest Caiphas and the Hebrew power elite of Jesus' time — a disturbing portrait likely to give, I feel sure unintentionally, comfort to anti-Semites.
Instead, what is profoundly disheartening is that people of goodwill will see this film in completely different ways. Where I see almost sadistic violence, they will see transcendence; where I see blame, they will see truth.
In effect, aspects of Gibson's creative makeup — his career-long interest in martyrdom and the yearning for dramatic conflict that make him an excellent actor, coupled with his belief in the Gospels' literal truth — have sideswiped this film. What is left is a film so narrowly focused as to be inaccessible for all but the devout.
Those factors have made "The Passion" a film that will separate people rather than bring them together.
Turan accepts that Gibson was completely sincere in making the film, but in the end he doesn't see it fully working.
The problem with "The Passion's" violence is not merely how difficult it is to take, it's that its sadistic intensity obliterates everything else about the film. Worse than that, it fosters a one-dimensional view of Jesus, reducing his entire life and world-transforming teachings to his sufferings, to the notion that he was exclusively someone who was willing to absorb unspeakable punishment for our sins.Despite brief flashbacks that nod to Jesus' other words and thoughts, no hypothetical viewer coming to this film absent any knowledge of Christianity would believe that this is the story that gave birth to one of the great transformative religions as well as countless works of timeless beauty.
And without belief, this film does not add up.
The L.A. Daily News also runs its review Tuesday, by Glenn Whipp. Earlier reviews: Richard Corliss in Time, David Ansen in Newsweek, Todd McCarthy in Variety, Kirk Honeycutt in The Hollywood Reporter, David Poland's Hot Button. A gazillion stories on the film are linked here at Movie City News. The film opens Wednesday on about 4,000 screens.
In a perverse bit of synchronicity, Carl Anderson, who played Judas in the film and several of the stage productions of "Jesus Christ, Superstar" died from leukemia today.
Posted by: Rodger Jacobs at February 24, 2004 10:49 AMJesus said he could cure your thirst. Apparently Mel thinks he meant your thirst for blood . . .
Posted by: Robert Fiore at February 24, 2004 01:56 PMMore emotional porn than in any Spielberg movie?
Posted by: Roberto at February 24, 2004 03:24 PMMy review's up now too:
http://www.lytrules.com/archives/00000250.html
Posted by: LYT at February 25, 2004 12:27 AMInappropriate to run a movie review on the front page of the LA Times. I think it shows poor judgment on the part of its editors, and is somewhat in sync with how they handled, or didn't handle, allegations about Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarznegger.
Posted by: Pete at February 25, 2004 02:24 PMEvery major metropolitan area has an industry that is the dominating force of the economy. In Detroit it's the auto industry, in L.A. it's the entertainment industry. Makes perfect sense to me that Ken's review of such a controversial product would end up on the front page of the Times.
Posted by: Rodger Jacobs at February 25, 2004 03:09 PMThanks, Luke. OK Pete, I'll bite: how is running a front page film review like investigating accusations against a first-time candidate for governor?
Posted by: Kevin Roderick at February 25, 2004 06:00 PM/\ I don't know what that person would say, but I'll bite based on how I see things: If an outright opinion piece (referring to a review that, after all, is a reflection of the personal tastes of a movie reviewer) is seen as a perfectly OK thing to insert into a part of the paper where objectivity is supposed to be paramount, who knows what other lines between biased writing and straight news reporting will be, or have been, blurred?
Posted by: Ginelli M at February 25, 2004 07:23 PMMost, if not all, newspapers have a particular slant politically that is reflected in the way they report the news on the front page -- what stories get positoned above and below the fold, etc., and how the story is relayed to the reader. It's all editorializing, you see, so, again, I have no particular problem with LAT putting Turan's story on the front page.
I say bring William Randolph Hearst back to life and in the paper business again. At least then the bias was more direct and honest and obvious.
Posted by: Rodger Jacobs at February 25, 2004 07:42 PMGinelli, one clarification. It's not uncommon for the LAT (or the NYT and other big papers) to run front page stories labeled as "news analysis," or less often full-on commentaries. Even occasionaly editorials. They are identified separately from the news stories. If you regard the movie review as akin to those, and I do, it's not unprecedented. I don't think it's likely anyone mistook the Turan review for a news story.
Posted by: Kevin Roderick at February 25, 2004 08:45 PMI saw no problem running the Turan review on the front page. Like it or not, the Passion is a big story. Did $20 mil in it's first day. I think the only other non weekend openers that opend to more are The Matrix, LOTR, Star Wars and a couple others. Not that how much money it was going to make necessarily makes it a big story, but for a subtitled pic, financed outside the studio system, the religious/historical issues, etc--not to mention all the publicity surrounding the pic (motly free). All that made it a big story. And it was in box that set it apart from the rest of the front page.
Speaking of the front page, tell me what the Chicago Cubs cursed ball story was doing on the front page of the LAT.
Posted by: ben at February 26, 2004 08:13 AMI don't really think your thoughts are right. Maybe you need a loan?
Posted by: payday loans at July 15, 2004 10:57 PM
of LA Observed
Betty Bowers hit the nail on the head: /Passion/ is emotional pornography.
http://www.bettybowers.com/melgibsonpassion.html
Posted by: Sean M. Burke at February 24, 2004 03:51 AM