I’ve been very ambivalent about the release of Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion. On the one hand, as a professing Christian, I’m happy that people are actually talking about Jesus Christ again. But I’m also deeply uncomfortable with the way the film is being relentlessly marketed to the Christian community. The filmmakers have basically teamed up with the churches, telling them that this will be the greatest outreach opportunity in many years. Or, in other words, selling our film will help you sell Jesus, too. I’ve never been comfortable with sharing my faith in this way. Big events are not conducive to real thought and discussion of serious issues like faith. I think I’m going to wait until this film is out on DVD and then I’ll watch it. If I think it will be a thought-provoking way to discuss Christianity with my skeptical friends, then I’ll invite them over to my home.
Another issue that I have with the film (and of course I’m aware that I haven’t yet seen it) is its focus on just the most gruesome aspects of Christ’s incarnation. From the reviews I’ve seen, even the Resurrection is given little screen time. Instead, it’s a bloody, violent depiction of the last twelve hours of Christ’s life. I’m aware that people will tell me that it is necessary to see what Christ suffered for us. On the other hand, I’m also aware that violence sells movie tickets. And that a suffering Christ is, perversely, more “macho” than the one who heals the sick and tells us to love our enemies. When I was a teenager, every Easter our youth group would gather and our youth pastor would read us an account of Christ’s suffering on the cross. Part of me was rightfully humbled, but another part of me always felt like I was being manipulated. I think I feel the same about the premise of this film. The Catholicism of Mel Gibson is of an old and conservative bent, and guilt has always been one of its tools. Something about that just makes me squirm.
David Van Biema writes about this aspect perceptively in the March 1 issue of Time:
With due respect for his desire that Christ’s sacrifice be understood by all and for the gratitude among Christians that a Hollywood deity has finally made an accomplished and utterly unironical Christian film, one can only hope that he has it wrong. The Christian story includes joy, astonishment, prophecy, righteous wrath, mystery and love straightforward as well as love sacrificial. The Passion of the Christ is a one-note threnody about the Son of God being dragged to his death. That may be just the ticket for some times and for some benighted places where understanding human torment in terms of God’s love is the only religious insight of any use. But in a culture as rich, as powerful, as lucky and as open-minded as ours — one might even say, as blessed — it is, or should be, a very bad fit indeed.
I welcome the film as a starting point. The fact that people are actually discussing Christ’s death again around the water coolers is great. But I don’t think we all have to march in step in our views of the film. One thing that isn’t really addressed in the film is the whole purpose and place of the Crucifixion in the Christian faith, and so I hope that the hype around the film encourages people to delve into that a little bit.
Note: I’m hoping that I don’t need to turn off comments on this entry. While I like discussion, I’m not intending this entry to be the basis of a flame war. My own discussions of my faith take place with my friends and so I won’t be engaging in much of that here. Please keep it civil and I’ll be as hands-off as possible. Thanks for your understanding.