Media, entertainment, speculative fiction -- it's all here at the City of Kik. Discuss movies, television, theater, books, music, comics. Everything from mainstream pop culture to fringe cult delights.

HOME

Archives:

Subscribe to City-of-Kik
Powered by groups.yahoo.com

The New CITY OF KIK



After a lot of planning and a lot of work, the new City of Kik Web site is finally ready for public eyes. Special thanks to Vincent Forgione for designing the site and contributing so much to it, to Michael Forgione for being our first writer, and to my lady Juliana Pires for being so patient with me everytime I say "I'm working on the City of Kik." I hope the site grows and becomes a destination for original content. And most importantly I hope it serves as a showcase for all the contributing writers involved. So bookmark http://www.cityofkik.com and spread the word. Enjoy the fiction stories and non-fiction essays, check out the links and celebrity interviews, and keep tuning in for more. Also, the old City of Kik newsgroup still exists -- you can sign up for it and discuss all the latest news and buzz in the world of media and entertainment. We hope this is the beginning of something great. Thanks for being a part of it.
posted by Nick at 11:28 AM [edit]

Review of The Passion of the Christ

Never have I seen a more polarized reaction to a film than the public and critical response to Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. It is amazing that one movie can draw such extremely different emotional retorts from viewers. It reinforces the notion that all humans have different tastes and opinions, and hopefully this film will lead to intelligent discourse on serious issues and not to finger-pointing and heated ignorance. I respect those with different opinions, those who saw this movie and had a totally different reaction. I do not support those, however, who call for censorship of this film, who wish to silence film-makers from presenting their own personal visions and ideas in their creative work, who wish to keep others from viewing the subject matter, and worst of all who pre-judge a film or other content without first having viewed it themselves. People should be informed and then view it themselves in order to make their own judgements. We tread down a dangerous path if we allow others to act as our gatekeepers of ideas.

That having been said, here is my personal reaction to The Passion of the Christ. I thought it was a well-made motion picture that sparked emotions in me and made me think. It wasn’t perfect, but then, how many films truly are? First let me address the two biggest criticisms this film has received from other critics: charges of anti-semitism and gratuitous violence.

It seemed to me as though Mel Gibson went out of his way, especially at the end of the film, to present what he perceived to be the true message of the mission of Jesus (Yeshua). That message is one of love, forgiveness, redemption – and from a Christian point-of-view (specifically Catholicism) the message that Jesus was part of the Holy Trinity, the Son of the One God, Creator of All, who took the sins of the world on his own shoulders and sacrificed himself to save humanity and show them the way. For ignorant believers to misinterpret this message and view it as an opportunity to point the finger of blame at others is a total disregard for that original message. Yet, people have been misinterpreting the Bible for millennia, picking and choosing obscure passages to justify their own transgressions, whether its slavery, anti-semitism, homophobia, misogyny, intolerance of other faiths, cultures, and ideas – all of which go against the core messages of the biblical tales.

I wish Gibson had shown a little bit more of the reasons why the political leaders of his time (both Jewish and Roman) viewed Jesus as such a threat. Jesus was indeed a revolutionary figure, yet his philosophy of love and forgiveness and his ideas about the kingdom of heaven on earth do not seem at first glance that dangerous that they should lead to the execution of the man. The Gospels clearly show Jesus as a pacifist activist, which might sound like an oxymoron but I think best describes what Jesus was all about. Jesus was a Jew who firmly believed in the Judaic ideas of one God and in the messages of the Jewish prophets, and in the tenets of the Ten Commandments. Yet he did not shy away from confronting the religious hierarchy of his time and accusing them of hypocrisy and challenging their authority in judging people. Mel Gibson hints at these things but does not fully explore them. His focus is on the last twelve hours of Christ’s life – Christ is a word that stems from the Greek “Christos,” a word that parallels the Jewish concept of “Messiah,” the “Chosen One.” It was a concept popular at the time, especially during the height of the Roman Empire, when the Jewish people were praying for a deliverer. The crucifixion was a crisis for the followers of Jesus who had been heralded into the city of Jerusalem only a week earlier as the “anointed one,” the heir of King David, the one the prophets predicted would come and break the chains that bound God’s people. Yet Christians used that death on the cross as a symbol of their faith that Jesus defeated death itself, that he willingly sacrificed himself to show the world that with faith all is possible, that he has taken our suffering upon himself, that we should never give up hope. This is the message of Mel Gibson’s film.

I apologize for the long-winded exposition, but I feel it’s necessary to appreciate the film. That’s what leads up to the crucifixion. Obviously, all these issues cannot be addressed in a two hour film, but maybe if Gibson had tried there would be less misunderstanding about the film’s message.

I was moved by Gibson’s film, particularly the scenes with Mary, the mother of Jesus. As I said, the primary flaw of the film is its lack of context. I'm a Catholic, so a lot of the passion is familiar territory, and in a way I see where Gibson is coming from, wishing to show what he perceives to be a "realistic" no-holds-barred depiction of the crucifixion, what he believes to be a historically accurate rendition of what happened. The crucifixion is probably the one aspect of the story of Christ's mission and life that is probably the most true and it was the climactic moment from which one of the largest organized religions in the world stemmed. I can see Gibson's rationale for not wanted to sanitize the suffering he believes his Savior endured for the sins of the world -- that's the foundation of his faith, and we live in a world where Christians often wear crucifixes as jewelry and use the icon of the cross in many different ways, but might not realize (or might not want to realize) exactly what that symbol represents.

Gibson assumes people know the story. But it's a faulty assumption because many do not, Christians included. There's a complexity to the tale -- Jesus was a pacifist but he was also an activist, challenging the religious authority around him. That's the back-story that I feel would have helped the film and allayed the fears of some of his critics. Gibson implies it, but not overtly. Obviously there were reasons this Jewish spiritual leader was viewed as a threat. The Gospel sources show that he did not shy away from accusing religious leaders of hypocrisy and following the "letter of the law" at the expense of the "heart of the law." There was debate within the very ranks of the Sanhadrin, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees, about what to do about this new Jewish sect that seemed to be emerging. I wish Gibson had used his film-making skills to explore those ideas a little more in depth.

As for charges of anti-semitism, I respect those who saw the film and feel it was insensitive or even intentionally fueling "hatred." Personally, I feel this goes against the very message that Mel Gibson is obviously trying to tell with his story, that Yeshua willingly sacrificed himself under the belief that this was his mission. I also feel scriptural lines that others have used to justify anti-semitism are misinterpreted, like when Jesus answers Pilate and says he has no power to crucify him, only the power that was granted to him from above, and that "he who delivered me unto you bears the sin." I always interpreted that line as meaning that God delivered Jesus to bear the sins of the world, not that the Jews were "more guilty" than the Romans.

Watching the movie, I was moved to tears by the scenes with Mary: when she crawls to the floor beneath which her son is chained, when she wipes the blood from the stones where he had just been flogged, when she approaches him on the street as he carries his cross, when she looks up at him hanging on the crucifix with tears in her eyes only to hear him say “Behold your son” about John (implying that this is about all of us that we are ALL God’s children), and when she holds the body of Jesus in her arms after he dies and is removed from the cross – that classic “Pieta” pose with her looking right at us with a look of stunned repose as if to say “What have we done.” But throughout these scenes Gibson makes it clear that this is what Jesus views as his mission, his destiny, his purpose.

I was impressed by the extended scene with Simon the innocent Jew who was asked to bear the cross for Jesus on his walk to Golgotha -- a symbolic presentation of the persecution that Jews have suffered over the ages.

Yes, the violence was brutal but Gibson inserts numerous flashback moments to break it up -- often these flashbacks are poignant and offer interesting, often jarring, juxtapositions to the violence.

Gibson has attempted to make a realistic depiction of his faith, but some of the supernatural symbolism might appear heavy-handed and take the viewer out of that sense of realism, making the viewer feel like their watching a Hollywood horror movie like the Exorcist rather than a pseudo-docudrama for which I think Gibson was aiming. There are two styles of movie-making – the artistic and the realistic. Gibson aims for a cinema verite style with the graphic torture and execution scenes, but he also bathes the film with beautiful symbolic imagery. It worked for me but I can see how some people might find it conflicting.

Aside for the ancient languages and the historically accurate depiction of Roman brutality, I think this movie is more inspired by icons and imagery of later works of art than by truly historic imagery -- but from a personal point of view I think Gibson succeeds in getting his message across, which isn't one of hatred or bigotry but one of redemption, faith, and love. Hopefully the film will spark discussions and not merely heated arguments.

Cinema still has the potential to be a vehicle for ideas (whether we agree with those ideas or not) and not just a medium of popcorn entertainment.

The Passion of the Christ is powerful and rich with ideas for discussion. I strongly recommend people watch it and judge for themselves.

posted by Nick at 3:15 PM [edit]