The Passion of Mel?

I realize that I am approaching the obsession level on this film. For whatever reason, as I have noted elsewhere on this blog, this film has touched some serious issues for me. Issues I have with the Christian church I grew up in and how now I find it annoyingly smug and self-righteous. The film's defenders seem to vacilate between saying it is a religious experience and then pointing out that it is a movie in the face of criticism. Ok. And I recognize two things: that I bring a lot of conflict of my own to this film, and 2, that I recognize that despite my objections to this film, it will often be a deeply moving and powerful experience. None of the objections I have negate that.

So where am I now? I think that both sides got played here. I don't know if this is all conscious on Mel Gibson's part, but we all got played. Mel understood that the film would not be welcomed in Hollywood for a wide variety of reasons--some of which might actually be frustration with christianity--and knew that he had to find another way to recoup his investment. His desire to make the film probably came from a earnest belief. I have no problem with that. But deep down, this is still a hollywood process and a hollywood film complete with merchandizing and crass crap to buy. He had to find a way to generate interest and make an ultra-violent film about Christ marketable.

In many ways, this is an odd vehicle for evangelicals to rally behind. Remember, Mel is a traditional Catholic, and historically and even recently, the evangelical protestant community has not looked favorably on the Catholic faith. I know many who consider Catholicism a cult and consider them not even christians. Likewise, Mel holds the same view of the evangelical community. And, on top of that, this is an intensely catholic film(not that there is anything wrong with that). I remember as a child asking my mother for a cross to hang around my neck, and she went into great detail about how the cross was not our focus. That Catholic view (though she did not dismiss catholicism in this discussion) focused on the death of christ, while our church and belief focused on the resurrection and message. A better symbol, she said, would have been a necklace that reflected that, maybe a rolled stone or empty tomb. She rejected the obsession with Mary, the fixation on the bloody Christ on the cross, and the emphasis on his death over those other key theological issues.

Protestant evangelicals rejected (and I would argue still do) the fixation on the suffering of Christ. Implicit in that theology is a very Catholic idea--that works are important. Works involve proving your worth to God and earning your salvation. I think the obsession with suffering in this film connects the works doctrine to Christ's sacrifice. In this, Christ has to suffer for our sins, and if he doesn't suffer enough the sacrifice is rejected and our sins are not forgiven. Mel's God, even though he sends his son to die, is still a vengeful and angry god who must be appeased. Someone must be sacrificed. And, evidently suffer more than anyone else could suffer.

But I was taught was that this story was about Jesus being enough human to feel pain, not that he felt more pain or suffering than anyone ever could. The unique nature of this story was not his suffering, but that he was also God and that he rose again. Remember, crucifixion was a common execution method, so Christ experienced what so many other Jews and enemies of the Romans had. That is the story, not this obsession with suffering. To make the suffering the focus makes the point of Christianity the death of Christ, rather than the life.

So, how do conservative evangelicals who distrust Catholicism come to promote this film that, in my mind, represents a pretty serious theological departure. In fact, I would contend the connection between these two bedfellows is not theological at all. On the story of the crucifixion, conservatives share more in common with their more liberal protestant counterparts. The connection, therefore is cultural and political--not theological at all. Mel was able to play on (some) evangelicals fear of a hostile culture--Hollywood (and the Media) we are told, hates Christianity and doesn't want you to see this film. The Jews also don't want you to see this film, and liberal pundits are opposed to it. Now, is it any surprise that evangelicals raised a fuss about this film? It is right in line with the urban legends of attacking Touched by an Angel, or those about Madeline Murray O'Hare, or the recent ones suggesting that the FCC was allowing the f-word, but not any mention of God. And this one had the benefit of being partially true. Hollywood was resistant to supporting this film, and I think that played very well into Mel's plans.

Mel left anti-semitic portrayals in the film partially because I think deep down he is anti-semitic. He is far too coy about his father's insanity and rabid racism to not share some of it. Or, he just allowed his father's insanity to raise the issue--either way, I think is crass and awful. Here is how he played the liberals. He left enough in that allowed the anti-semitism argument to flourish. Could have taken them out and still had the bloodied Christ tortured for 2 hours. Could have had Pilate equally evil and not concerned about Christ's welfare, or could have made the jewish leader conflicted. He did not. Do those elements make it anti-semitic? Probably not, but given the history of the Passion plays and things like, well, the Holocaust, some respect of that fear would have been in order. But it served its purpose. It cemented the opposition and allowed him to go to the evangelical community (remember, he screened the film primarily for only conservatives--which further alienated liberal and jewish theologians) and point out who didn't want them to see the film. Along the way, he talked about dark forces opposed to this film, and about critics who were unwitting dupes of Satan himself. Message? If you oppose this film, you are in league with Satan. Critisize this film, and you demonstrate your loathing for the Christian message.

Likewise, it allowed conservatives to see this film as a political act. If you support this film, you are sending a message to Hollywood that you want more like this and less of Janet. You also send a message to those "dark forces" arrayed against Roy Moore and the Ten Commandments, and against rogue judges and mayors who are sanctioning gay marriage. The connection was political and it allowed a groundswell of support for a film that would have otherwise been a small art-house film.

So, what set me over the edge, you ask? Why did I jump to this conclusion regarding Mel's agenda (note that I am not sure what is conscious and what isn't)? The Pewter Nail Pendant that sent me into a rage yesterday. If, I asked yesterday, you can market the crucifixion, what can't you? Is there anything that is sacred and off limits from crass consumer efforts? I understand that catholics have worn crosses for years, and someone manufactured those, but this feels much different to me. This is an entire discussion about cultural differences and was supposed to be more than "just another movie" with Burger King cups and action figures in Happy Meals. This was supposed to be a church experience--after all, the film was released on Ash Wednesday, a day that some reminded us was supposed to be about going to church, not going to the theater.

But it ultimately is just another movie. And a con job. And a marketing machine that has divided people against each other. And a company that, almost with a wink, is licensing Pewter Nail Pendants (Official Movie Merchandise) just like the LOTR action figures and Star Wars toys.