An R-Rated Gospel!

January 22, 2004 | 17 Comments
An R-Rated Gospel!

The Moral Dilemma of Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ

This spring a movie will be released that will contain an excessive amount of graphic violence, an extended torture sequence, and an abundance of blasphemous charges directed against the living God. Due to these excesses, the film has earned an R-rating. Strangely enough, most evangelical Christians will applaud the movie, and many will attempt to use it as an evangelistic tool to bring people to Christ.

The movie is Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Recently, the film has been the subject of intense controversy, largely due to allegations of anti-Semitism. Hardly anyone has complained about the excessive violence in the film.

In the past months, Gibson has held private screenings of the movie for pastors and religious leaders. Most have come away from these screenings noticeably touched by the film's realism and intensity. Some recount how the graphic display of the bloody horrors of crucifixion moved them to tears. Through Gibson's efforts, it appears that he has successfully garnered the overwhelming approval and support of the evangelical community. Currently, many churches are gearing up to take full advantage of the movie's release as an opportunity for evangelism.

I am happy for this support and look forward to seeing the movie. However, I am curious how some evangelicals will navigate the moral trap they will set for themselves by endorsing this film. What trap is this? It is the moral dilemma of supporting a film filled with excessive violence, torture, and blasphemy - a film so bloody it has earned an R-rating simply for its gory content.

When evangelical Christians want to keep other Christians from participating in something but can't quite muster up enough proof-texts to make their point, they pull out the old reliable "slippery slope" argument. That is, if one accepts a morally questionable premise or practice, then they are almost certain to slide over the edge of a moral precipice to certain doom below. Personally, I do not accept or teach the slippery slope argument. I find it dreary, unhelpful, and frankly, boring. Certainly there is great danger at the utmost heights, but one also obtains the best view there. But allow me to use the argument against those most likely to resort to it in other circumstances.

Christian leader, if you endorse The Passion as an evangelistic tool in spite of its R-rating, how will you keep your parishioners from attending other R-rated films? How can you justify the excessive violence, brutal torture sequences, and repeated blasphemies directed against God? Are not these things - violence, torture, blasphemy - inherently immoral? If such evil things can be used for a good end, how is your justification any different than the ends-justify-the-means argument you often denounce and decry? If you are able to excuse the violence, torture, and blasphemy for the sake of the evangelical possibilities, how can you then forbid these things in other movies? Finally, if we Christians see R-rated movies, how will we be distinguished from the rest of the world?

You may reply that the effective telling of The Passion warrants the excessive use of graphic violence (and I would agree). But if this is true for The Passion, why can't this also be true for other stories? And how much is too much? Where do we draw the line? The Passion not only has violence, but it contains an excessive amount of graphic violence. It not only has torture, but an extensive amount of torture. It not only has blasphemy, but the worst blasphemy of all - the betrayal, denial, and rejection of the living God in Christ.

There is no denying that one of the unique aspects of Gibson's rendition of the Jesus story is its graphic portrayal of the crucifixion. Jesus will be pictured as suffering immense physical anguish. His body will be battered, bruised, beaten, whipped, punctured, and speared. He will be crushed into a bloody pulp by the end of the movie. What is the line between this and gratuitous violence? The degree of violence in this movie will certainly be excessive. If the same level of violence was performed in another film, would you call it gratuitous, evil, and unredeemable? Or would you justify it in the same way you will justify it in The Passion?

If they are willing to admit it, many evangelicals, if they are to remain consistent in their stated convictions concerning movies, will have to reject The Passion. Those who believe that the morality of a story ultimately has to do with its details (Does it contain sex, violence, or profanity?) rather than with its overall message will be forced to sanction this film with an unclean conscious.

Don't get me wrong, I will be one of the first in line to see this movie. The difference between me and many evangelicals will be one of integrity. I will be able to view the film without any compromise of my convictions in regard to the use of immoral elements in the telling of a story. I do not believe that the rating of a movie is a reliable indicator of the value, morality, or quality of a film. I do believe that good movies may include scenes of violence, sex, and the use of profanity without compromising the overall message of the film. The bloody violence, torture, and blasphemy in The Passion - all immoral and ungodly acts in their own right - do not detract from the overall redemptive message of the movie. Since the rating of a movie is not significant to me in regard to the value of a movie, I will not suffer any pangs of conscience by purchasing a ticket. In other words, my actions on the day I view The Passion will be consistent with my actions and philosophy throughout the entire year. In contrast, many evangelicals will prove inconsistent to their convictions when they purchase a ticket to an R-rated movie full of bloody violence, extended torture sequences, and repeated blasphemies. In short, I won't be compromising my convictions when I view The Passion, but I think many Christians will.

My simple point directed primarily to Christian leaders is this: If you have preached against attendance at R-rated movies, or if you have declared that a movie is immoral if it contains violence, sex, or profanity, then you are inconsistent and lacking integrity if you endorse this film. If you constantly complain about the level of violence, disturbing images, or blasphemous actions in other films, then you should do the same for The Passion. You have a moral dilemma on your hands, whether you are willing to admit it or not. My hope is that this inconsistency would cause you to rethink your position.

Why have I belabored this point? It is simple to take a holier-than-thou stance and remain distant from popular culture. It is much harder to truly yet critically engage our culture. Christians who attempt to interact with their culture are more likely to be labeled as worldly or unbiblical than those who remain within the comfortable confines of the Christian ghetto - the place where cheap imitations of pop culture are offered stripped of embarrassing acts of violence, sex, or profanity. Those in the ghetto condemn so-called "non-Christian" movies as immoral simply because they are not made by and for Christians. Even the "evangelistic" movies supposedly made to win unbelievers to Christ must not contain anything truly offensive or objectionable, lest they offend the true audience - conservative Christians.

The morality of a story does not consist in the story's details, but in the overall message of a story. Too many Christians have a simplistic concept of morality that allows them to justify or condemn a movie based on how many times it does or does not contain acts of violence, sex, or profanity. This is an unhelpful, and even more importantly, an unbiblical standard of judgment. If the measure of a story's morality has to do with the amount of violence, sex, or profanity it contains, then the Bible is certainly an immoral book, for it is filled with these things!

In the pages of the Bible one will find adultery (2 Samuel 11), incest (Genesis 19:31-36), masochism and satanic worship (1 Kings 18:25-28), orgies (Exodus 32:3-6), prostitution (Genesis 38:12-26), rape (Genesis 34:2; 2 Samuel 13:6-14), and even gang rape (Judges 19:22-25). One will also find people burned alive (Numbers 16:35), cannibalized (2 Kings 6:28), decapitated (1 Samuel 17:5), disemboweled (Judges 3:21-22), dismembered (1 Samuel 15:32-33), stabbed (Judges 3:16-26), stoned (Numbers 15:36), and sacrificed (2 Kings 3:27). [For a more extensive list see Brian Godawa's Hollywood Worldviews, page 190.] Add to this the steamy sexuality of The Song of Songs or the graphic description of Israel's unfaithfulness, comparing her to an unfaithful whore (Ezekiel 16) who lusts after the enlarged members of her adulterous lovers (Ezekiel 23:19-21) and you begin to realize the extent of R-rated material in the Bible.

Obviously, the morality of a story does not consist in the story's details, but in the overall message of a story. All accounts of violence, sex, and blasphemy are not intrinsically immoral. To reject any story - whether it is The Passion or any other movie - simply because of a few immoral details is to reason in such a way that ultimately leads not simply to the rejection of most films, but also to the Bible itself. In short, the way many Christians use the Bible to endorse their rejection of movies is not biblical. Godawa's warning is helpful in this regard:

[W]e must be careful in our appeal to the Good Book when analyzing the morality of stories. For in its pages are detailed accounts and descriptions of every immoral act known to humanity. A cursory perusal of these depictions of vice is enough to make any concerned reader blush. But it only proves that sex and violence are not always literary taboo in Holy Writ. In fact, the acknowledgment of evil is treated as the necessary prerequisite to redemption. (Brian Godawa, Hollywood Worldviews, p. 188)

The real reason that Christians are so easily offended is because we have forgotten that offense is at the heart of our faith. The cross is a scandal. It is an inhumane, bloody, torture device created to inflict the maximum amount of pain and humiliation. The horror of the cross was so great that it was not spoken about in polite civil circles within Greco-Roman society. And yet the church made this scandalous event the heart of its proclamation. The church boldly declared that the true power of God was demonstrated in the weakness of Christ on the cross. At no other time in human history was the fullness of God's love more evident than in the self-giving love of God in Christ.

We have conveniently removed the scandal from the cross. Indeed, most Protestant crosses don't even have a human body on them to remind us that the cross is the place of torture, misery, pain, and death. Our faith is sanitized, clean, moral, and comfortable. We want it to be family-friendly rather than R-rated (children under 17 must be accompanied by a guardian). We forget the filth of the garbage heap called Golgotha littered with human debris and filth, the profanity of the soldiers, the blasphemy of the crowds spurred on by the hypocrisy of the religious leaders, the abuse of power - both religious and secular. When we reduce Christianity to a sweet, nice religion for good people who never cuss, fight, or think of sex, we lose the bloody mess that is the cross, and in doing so, we lose Christ.

We are easily offended because we have removed the offense at the heart of the Christian proclamation. The Christian faith is R-rated. It is for real men and women who find grace, love, and truth in the midst of the bloody chaos of the violent world in which we live. It is not for people who seek to escape from violence, sex, and profanity, but for people who realize that all the violence in the world cannot overthrow the power of the cross, all the sex in the world cannot come close to revealing the depth of love demonstrated at the cross, and all the blasphemous human expressions in the world cannot speak more loudly than the silent suffering of the crucified king.

© Richard J. Vincent, 2004


Notice the "striking image"! What is noticeably absent? A body, blood, pain, etc. This calm "ThomasKinkadian" picture may be the only peaceful scene in the entire movie! Leave it to evangelicals to suggest that one of the most "striking images" in Gibson's movie is an empty cross against a peaceful, calm sky. Guaranteed not to offend!

Categories:

17 Comments

Matt | January 23, 2004 1:35 AM | Reply
The most astounding thing about this movie is that while so many evangelicals are embracing it, they do not stop to consider Mel Gibson's theological stance. For those who don't know, Mel Gibson is a pre-Vatican II Catholic who is not in communion with the Roman Catholic church. Most Protestants don't really care about this but it's tantamount to heresey for our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters. Furthermore, Gibson's film is not only influenced by the gospel accounts but also by the visions of a 14th century Catholic nun. Is there anything else that remotely involves mideval Catholic mystics that modern evangelical Christians will enthusiastically support as a powerful medium for the gospel? I highly doubt it. Please understand, coming from a Weslyan faith tradition I have a profound respect for Catholic mystics, just as John Wesley did. I just find the whole situation fascinating and humorous.
Paul | January 24, 2004 4:05 AM | Reply
I don't see a contradiction. If watching R-rated films is inadvisable it's because they have gratuitous violence and cheapen violence through familiarity. Neither of these charges can be made against The Passion, as far as I'm aware. And Matt, for anyone that sees Gibson being a pre-Vatican II Catholic as a problem, Luke 9:49-50 may be appropriate. Rich: Movies are not rated R because they have gratuitous elements, but simply because they contain adult elements such as profanity, sex, or violence. The Passion certainly has an extensive amount of violence, bloodshed, and torture -- enough to warrant an R-rating. My point in the article is simply this: Those who judge the morality of a movie based on the number of instances of sex, violence, or profanity (usually counting the times each act is committed, revealing what their true focus is on) rather than by the overall message of a movie must certainly deem The Passion immoral because of its excessive use of violence. Since I don't judge the morality of movies by this simplistic (and unbiblical)standard, I don't have this problem. Thanks for visiting the site and commenting!
Joe | January 27, 2004 6:54 PM | Reply
Gibson's faith has not to my knowledge ever been spelled out, i may be wrong but I have never heard him say he was a part of his Father's involvement in this pre-vatican two sect. In fact he has distanced himself from it, and shows, not suprisingly rather humanistic sorts of views now and again whenever he does talk about his distninctly christin faith, it has been as broad as possible. Now i didn't know the film uses revelations of a 14th century nun.. that is interesting at least.
Ben Shobert | January 29, 2004 9:25 PM | Reply
Congrats on Hollywood Jesus posting your article Rich! Great write-up!
JD | February 2, 2004 1:36 AM | Reply
I don't find an inconsistency if an evangelical endorses an R-rated film like the Passion vs. other R-rated movies on the sole basis of the movies message. If we use your argument, it's like comparing apples and oranges. If you claim all R-rated movies are to be treated the same, then you are making a fundamental fallacy in logic. Just because two things have one thing in common, does not necessarily mean they have everything in common. (i.e. My brother has ears, elephant has ears, therefore my brother is an elephant. Jesus claims to be the Messiah, Jones claims to be the Messiah, therefore they are the same. Gandhi was a political leader, Hitler was a political leader, therefore they are the same. Bad Santa is an R-rated movie, The Passion is an R-rated movie, therefore they are the same.) If an evangelical would embrace your position, he would then have to show you can watch any R-rated film you want, but for the immature Christian, or a non-believer for that matter, the content of an R-rated movie will have an impact (consciously or subconsciously) on that individuals life. You must understand that what a person sees on the screen becomes a reality to them. Why then would companies spend millions of dollar in advertising on TV. It's because they know how easy it is to influence people to sell them their goods or services. It's the same way with movies. Most R-rated film (not all), do not have Jesus in mind, but if it does (i.e. The Passion), then you have an R-rated film that becomes an exception rather than the rule. Rich:I never claim anywhere in my article that "all R-Rated movies are to be treated the same." You are arguing a point that I did not make (and never would). I merely suggest that a movie's moral message is not to be judged by the amount of times sex, violence, or profanity is found. A movie can have all these things and be a "good" movie. A movie can have none of these things and be a "bad" -- even immoral -- movie.
Brad | February 3, 2004 6:29 PM | Reply
It intrigues me to observe us as Christians once again being confronted with the same Hebrew-Gentile Circumcision Salvation Theory. Not that we should avoid all such discussions for the sake of simply keeping peace within the confines of our sometimes modern day Politically Correct (PC) Dogmatic Christianity (elsewise we might truly become dead), but we should consider the value of trying to create a spiritual-maturity- bar that begins to place us into the same stagnate lifestyle of legalism which Jesus challenged in His day. The reality of the suffering adds truth to the story. I do agree that we often water down or dilute the reality of the bible simply because we don't want to offend anyone. My goodness even King Solomon's life is filled with some of the same filth that Richard mentioned in his editorial. The reality is that the reason behind Jesus' persecution was to completely fulfill the prophecy�s that define the messiah. He had to suffer as Gibson graphically (should I say welcome to the real world) depicts. If Jesus hadn't suffered as such, he wouldn't have been the Christ. I have also heard that Gibson edited-out the selfish driven covenant (blood statement) that I am thankful was fulfilled by Jesus. The purpose of his blood was to �be on us and our children� (not limited generationally) to be the sin offering for all of us for our eternity. It is my hope that we don't continue to dilute an eternal value with man-defined criteria. Even the movie rating system doesn't take into account the significance of a movie, just how it makes the select group feel when it is done. So whether we will run and hide when the opportunity for sharing the Christ's passion presents itself, so as not offend another (quite frankly, I agree that the gospel is offensive and thank God), or use every opportunity to proclaim the Christ's passion in all things, I just hope we seek God before making our wisest decisions. Quite frankly, I don't believe Jesus ever lived his life as one that valued the color of skin (nationality) or the violence in which the skin was torn away in determining the value of his salvation.
Tola Ositelu | February 8, 2004 10:16 AM | Reply
I find your article interesting probably because Im one of those 'holier than thou' christians you speak of who choose not to see films of a certain rating. However I will happily rub shoulders with those in the world (homosexuals, criminals etc)that some holy folk would avoid, if it means I can sew a seed of salvation in their lives. I do not say this to boast, its by the grace of God I do anything for Him, but Im trying to make a point. Do not get me wrong, I like to check what a film is about first, simply because a one off scene could render a film with a higher age rating without inherently being a profane film itself. However I do not see myself compromising my standards or principles because I see it like this 'All things are lawful but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me but not all things edify' (1st Corinth.10 v23 and 24 NKJ). The bible is my standard. In my less discerning past I never saw a sex or violent scene in a film that edified me and I find it hard to believe that in the context of most Hollywood films, I ever will. Hence I steer clear from films that have a 15 or 18 rating (I live in the UK) as I know the majority of them have these scenes in to draw in the punters. We know who the 'god' of this world is and that he is the influence behind most Hollywood films. A film about the Gospel will always be an exception, and hence a film like 'The Passion', because Jesus as U rightly pointed out was a controversial character and the Gospel is a controversial message. In a nutshell, if I know a film will contain enough negative images to in my mind, does not edify me or glorify God then I do my best to avoid them. I don't always succeed and I duly repent. I just find the tone of Ur article far more sanctimonious than 'holier than thou' people who choose to avoid certain things. Rich: It's interesting that I can be considered both "worldly" and "sanctimonious" at the same time. An odd condemnation, if I do say so myself.
Russ Irwin | February 12, 2004 7:58 AM | Reply
1--your lenghty (wordy) description of the film's R-rating almost kept me from reaching the end of the treatise. 2--the reoccuring thought as I read through was that people will also have to be reminded not to read the R-rater Book called the Bible. You did pull yourselve out of the water a bit in last paragraph when you stated that the Christian life is R-rated. Thanks for your thoughts, anyway. I haven't decided whether to view the film or not. I saw one in Pakistan produced in India that was as gory as I'm sure this one is. It was the only true representation of Isa. 52-53 I ever saw on film--something which the Jesus film goes overboard trying to avoid, it seems to me.
Don Duncan | February 12, 2004 7:40 PM | Reply
In our vision-oriented society, I welcome this movie as a tool. We didn't start displaying crosses until we quit crucifying people. We are so far removed from what happened that this will get our image of the dying Savior burnt into our minds. I pray this will remind us what God went through for our justification while we were still sinning [r-rated sinning THAT is]. Read 2 Corinthians 5:21 before watching the film, friends.
Ben Shobert | February 12, 2004 7:57 PM | Reply
Our view of Christ has lost its resemblance to his actual life on this earth. We forget to whom his most damning comments were made and to whom his grace was most obviously experienced by. To the extent that this movie forces us to rightly re-examine our view of Christ's suffering, it will be welcomed. Rich's point (not that he needs me to defend him), is that it is illogical to view stories with components of violence, passion (not in the sense it is used in this discussion), envy and immorality as constructive in this case, but to view it as wrong when used to tell stories that are not Christ-centric. The human experience is messy, and stories of humanity are going to be at times vile and messy as a result of this. From Martin Marty (bear with me Rich, I'm going to try and make a point): "The previewers who like violence if it shows Jesus suffering, on the grounds that savagery moves people to appreciate his sacrifice, are measuring the wrong thing. In Holy Week I'll be listening to Bach's Passions, singing about 'Was there ever grief like Thine?' and meditating on the wounds of Christ, but not in the belief that the more blood and gore the holier, a la Gibson. Today, all over the world, people are suffering physically as much as the crucified Jesus. The point now is not to accept grace because we saw gore. The issue is not, were his the worst wounds and pains ever, but, as the gospels show, the issue was, and is, who was suffering and to what end." I could not agree with him more. But that is just the point! A movie that shows the suffering of Christ and a movie that shows the suffering of man, whether emotional, spiritual, sexual or physical, are equally valuable. The events certainly are not, but our debate seems to be less about the magnitude of the event than it does the imagery with which it is portrayed. Rich: GREAT QUOTE by Marty!
Tracy Meyer | February 23, 2004 4:27 PM | Reply
"THE PASSION - A Challenge to the CHURCH" -by Andrew Strom. I had the privilege of seeing an advance screening of the 'Passion' movie at a local cinema last night. It is strange, because yesterday I started getting emails from Christians claiming that the film is a kind of 'Catholic conspiracy' and vowing that they would never see it. What hogwash! GO SEE THE MOVIE!! Sure, there is the odd moment when there is a slight 'Catholic' tinge to things, but it is almost nothing. This film is a majestic and powerful viewing experience that will cause a lot of people to truly consider the claims of Jesus - perhaps for the first time. Could it cause backslidden believers to turn back to Christ? Yes, I believe so. Could it cause a whole lot of people to start checking out their local churches? Yes, I can certainly see that happening. It is a very powerful film, and I believe God desires to use it greatly. But here is the crux of the problem. The churches simply cannot carry the 'weight' of this movie. By and large, they represent a different "Jesus" altogether from the one that we see torn and battered in the gospel accounts. A church that has bent over backwards to make its services a "Seeker-friendly" mix of warm homilies and entertaining slickness, has nothing to say to a generation that is seeking the true Jesus of the Bible. It is just like what happened after 9-11. The people came flooding into the churches seeking a faith that could bear the 'weight' of the momentous events unfolding around them. And they found we had erected a plastic imitation - a shallow, lightweight "Jesus" - complete with ambient 'muzak' and mindless appeals for money. A comfortable Western counterfeit of the real thing. They did not stay for long. And why should things be any different this time? Every day we hear reports of big churches buying up large blocks of tickets and urging their people to use this film as an "outreach opportunity". I believe it is an 'inreach opportunity'. -A chance for us to look into the face of Christ and find that our shallow pretense of Christianity bears no relation to the real thing whatsoever. We are nothing like Him - we really aren't. How incongruous that we plan to use this blood-spattered, shatteringly 'real' movie to invite people back to our comfortable, plush-seated crematoriums - there to be wooed by our utterly "unreal" Sunday pantomimes. I don't think they will be staying long this time either. As I said, today's Western church simply cannot bear the 'weight' of this movie. It stops our mouths, just as it stops theirs. Our "Jesus" comes out looking like a cheap used-car salesman - for that is what we have made him. We invented him to perfectly fit our 'Laodicean' lifestyle. And so we sit in our lovely buildings with our lovely music and our lovely smiles, wondering why the world cannot get as excited as we do by this plastic Jesus of ours. Meantime, all the earth sighs and groans for the real thing. Tell me, church, don't you think it is possible that God intends this movie to challenge us,just as it challenges the unbelievers? Will we be deaf to the voice of God, or will we allow him to begin to dismantle this plastic edifice that we have built - this prison of our own making that prevents us from representing the real Jesus as He really is? Surely the time has come for another 'Great Reformation' in the church. May this movie be just one of many "shakings" that is sent to remove the blinders from our eyes. God bless you all
Sherrie | February 24, 2004 2:24 PM | Reply
The difference with this r-rating is simple. In other r-rated movies the blood the gore, the violence was all ficticous and only included to lure more veiwers. In this film all the violence, hatred, blood, beating, and gore really occured. It's not put there for shock value. Jesus Christ actually endured this pain for me and you and everyone else and it's about time somebody but it in plain veiw maybe more people will have some understanding of the literal torture that He endured.
Sarah T | February 25, 2004 1:11 PM | Reply
Why Why Why...I have been asking myself this question all day..I find it hard to believe that the same people that promote sex, drugs, and violence are stating that this movie is "gory". But the bottom line is that at the end of the movies title the word Christ appears...And so it begins. I understand why the secular world disagrees with this movie. I have been there and understand the view point. However, I am troubled why so many in the Church are in an uproar. Let the TRUTH of JESUS finally be told! Because if you want to pick apart every little detail that Mel Gibson put together, do so. But in so, you are pushing Jesus out of the spotlight. And that is exactly what satan wants you to do. The reality of who killed Jesus is this. We all did!
Jeff | March 2, 2004 9:36 PM | Reply
Thank you Rich, Well said. We must remember all of life should be lived in this way. Nothing can be put into a box and labeled. I have been guilty in the past of throwing labels on someone or something because it had this or that, only to later have God rip that label off before my eyes. I love the trailer to "Return of the King" (watch it at www.lordoftherings.net) "There can be no triumph without loss; No victory without suffering; No freedom without sacrifice" many great "R" rated movies play on these themes. And are not these themes those of our Lord Passion? Maybe that is why they move us so much? It matters not to me whether a movie with such themes is rated "R".
Jon | March 6, 2004 7:58 AM | Reply
Sorry, Mel, not into movies, walked out on Loser of the Rings in 7 seconds, so I wont be going to your movie to walk out on it. I wouldn't see the passion if I was paid to! As for churches pushing this slop, I walked out on my pastor praying for it and will not attend my church as long as they push movies.. Sorry, Hollywood, I read and pray and skip the screen. Rich: Your Christlike compassion and deep thoughtfulness are overwhelming... NOT!
Jim | March 9, 2004 9:46 PM | Reply
Rich, Church wont have a problem with any film that truthfully portrays what our Lord and Saviour endured for us all on the cross. It is by HIS STRIPES that we are healed. Hence because of humanities cruelty, factually put on display by Mel Gibson, God receives GLORY! That my friend is the differnce between gratuitous violence portrayed in your typical action movie and The Passion of the Christ. Its just that simple, no spin needed.
Ben Shobert | March 16, 2004 3:35 PM | Reply
Stephen King recently wrote his thoughts about "The Passion" in a recent column. His comments suggest he views the Christian willingness to view gore, regardless of contextual issues such as age as dubious when contrasted to the seemingly absolute "moral" standards by which they judge other "secular" works. It is an interesting perspective on the dialogue taking place on this site. "I wanted to find out if Christians eat popcorn with their crucifixion (turns out they do, usually in the big tubs). In some ways, you could tell this was no ordinary afternoon crowd; there was a fair selection of Christian wear (my favorite T-shirt read JESUS IS THE BIG ONE), and absolutely nobody was giving anyone else hell for cutting the refreshment line. These are people who take hell seriously. The folks I talked to didn�t seem concerned about the movie�s purported level of violence. One elderly woman said, "If Jesus suffered it for me, the least I can do is watch it." She spoke as if we were discussing the Zapruder film. I went on Sunday, the fifth day of the film�s release, ordering tickets ahead of time from Fandango for the first time in my life. The theater was nearly packed, with only a few empty seats scattered way down front. I thought The Passion was a pretty terrific film, full of emotion and commitment. Is it uneven, sometimes going way, way over the top? You better believe it. It�s easy to imagine Mel Gibson deciding it would be worth $25 million just to show the people the crucifixion The Way It Was, down to the last broken bone, gaping wound, and buzzing fly. He�s delivering the very painful truth of a particular form of execution. And his enthusiasm � or religious fervor � for the task takes him again and again into a world of hyper-violence: Sam Peckinpah does Good Friday. Which brings us, finally, to the sweet little girl of the column. To Alicia. The Passion is rated R: children under 17 not admitted without a parent or guardian. The unstated corollary is that if they are so accompanied, they will be admitted. I saw no kids in the mob scene at the multiple advance screenings, but there were plenty at the show I attended on Sunday afternoon, most still dressed for church and clearly under 12 (Gibson himself has said the film is probably not suitable for children under 12). About 10 minutes before the movie started, a well dressed woman of about 30 entered the rapidly filling theater with a girl and two boys in tow. The boys looked about 6 years ago. I didn�t get a chance to observe them; I was on the wrong side of Mom for that. The little girl I�ve chosen to call Alicia, however, sat on my side. Cute little thing, you bet. Blue dress; spandy clean kneesocks; matching white ribbons in her dark hair. I�d say she was no more than 10, and probably only 8. Mom, meanwhile, had whipped out her cell phone and was calling a friend. Mom wasn�t happy. The theater manager, she told her friend, had had the nerve to suggest to her that the level of violence in The Passion wouldn�t be good for children as young hers. "I told him," Mom said, "that if it gets too bloody, they can just close their eyes." I kept sneaking glances at Alicia as the movie played. She did okay until the scourging of Christ. Then she did indeed close her eyes, and buried her face against her mother�s side. The little body inside the blue dress was all angles, an exclamation mark of horror. Gibson�s version of the scourging seems to go on forever as the Roman punishment detail uses first a whip and then a spiked lash to literally peel the flesh from Jesus� body, spattering the cobbles around him with gore. Alicia hid her face for 15 minutes . . . but that left another 50 minutes of punishment, torture, cruelty, and death still to go. And was I ashamed to be in that theater, even though the film Gibson has made is, if taken on its own artistic and religious terms, good � perhaps even great? I was. I feel that shame heating my skin even now, days later. Because 50 minutes is a long time to hide your eyes when you�re only 8. So after a while, you see, our sweet little girl stopped doing it. The child I�ve chosen to call Alicia looked. And looked. And looked. I think she�ll be looking for a long time to come in her dreams. In those dreams there will likely be no redemption, no victory over sin, no scripture, no eternal life. I think in Alicia�s dreams there will only be a skinless nightmare Christ with one eye swollen shut."

Leave a comment