Review of "The Passion Of The Christ"

Four guys. Sitting in a theater together...

Mark, 31. Emergency medical technician.

Patrick, 18. Public high school student.

Clark, 24. Home on furlough after 2 years of missionary work in Bosnia.

Chris, 29. Whatever.

That's the setup for this review, about two hours now after seeing The Passion of the Christ. Four guys at various points in their young lives, each of whom have been through any number of experiences. You would think that despite all the hype and publicity that this movie's gotten, that nothing... nothing... could faze these guys, right?

Right?!?

Thirty minutes after the movie ended, none of us had been able to muster much of a word beyond "okay".

Drained. Shell-shocked. Mentally and physically exhausted. Outright stunned. I feel as if I've aged twenty years in two hours. And the other guys said much the same, that they felt something sapped out of them too.

Folks, nothing you have seen, or read, or heard about, will prepare you for this movie. The best I can describe it is what Doug Tennapel (the artist/writer who created Earthworm Jim) had to say about The Passion Of The Christ: "This is a movie that secular Hollywood could not make, but it’s also a movie that the Christian community could not make either."

This movie should have been rated NC-17. I cannot say that enough. It HURTS to watch this... but then again it's supposed to. Mel Gibson has done what no other filmmaker - or other artist for that matter - has been able to do: produce a Jesus that is as fully HUMAN as He is God incarnate. Which makes what happens later all the more MEAN. Gibson went all-out with this one: he pours on the agony, makes you literally scream "PLEASE GOD MAKE IT STOP!!" and then starts playing nasty.

There is stuff in this movie that is downright pornographic. When the Roman guards scourge Jesus, two things occurred to me: this is perhaps the most faithful portrayal of Roman soldiers that's ever been committed to film. For the most part they're fairly honorable men, following orders and upholding Roman law. But in every lot there's the crazies. The ones who have been in the field and away from home for too long. It's making them forget civilization and their superiors have to keep whipping them back into line. These are the same soldiers that Stanley Kubrick showed in the Vietnam sequences of Full Metal Jacket. THOSE are the ones that you wanna reach out and jerk the living snot out of, when you see what they do to Jesus. Gibson made sure that this film showed what a cat-o'-nine-tails would do to a bare back. And that's what begins separating the squeamish from the... come to think of it, no one was anything BUT squeamish here...

... 'Cuz those are CHUNKS of Jesus that are flying across the screen. Bloody bits of skin, muscle and sinew. Blood going all over the guards, who take WAY too much pleasure in doing this, until the "nice" Roman officers make them stop: "You were supposed to punish him, not kill him!" And it still doesn't stop. One of my friends had to choke back tears when the crown of thorns was shoved HARD onto the head of Jesus.

I'm not going to even begin going into the actual crucifiction itself.

Two scenes that stick out in my mind, going back to how Gibson showed the human side of Christ. There's a flashback sequence where we see Jesus - He's not quite at the point where He's about to launch His ministry - is working as a carpenter at home, building a table. His mother Mary calls him to dinner, and... don't want to spoil it, but the interaction between these two is so incredibly sweet, so touching and beautiful and yes FUNNY, and it made me think again to something that you have to pick out for yourself from the Bible: that Jesus loved life, that He could love and laugh as much as any of us...

...and He could also fear. And feel rejected. And scorned. Which brings me to the other scene that keeps bringing itself up...

It takes place during the scourging. Jesus sees Satan. Satan is holding something. I'm not going any further than that.

There are things in this movie that once you see, you can't unsee. They will be stuck in your gray matter for all time. I saw a photograph YEARS ago that haunts me to this day, that I can't even consider talking about without feeling a cold shiver up my spine. Well, The Passion Of The Christ is packed with images like that.

It's not a date movie. It's not something I would feel comfortable taking a small child to, or maybe even take a church youth group to. I'll be seeing it again this Saturday night with my wife (who I still haven't been able to pour my heart out to about this movie if that tells you anything) and another couple from our church. We're having dinner beforehand. Now I'm having to reconsider if this was such a smart plan after all.

But then, there's the ending. And on so many levels it proves why neither secular Hollywood or dedicated Christian filmmakers could have produced a movie like this. Gibson didn't limit himself to either mainstream niceties or ecclesiastical restrictions. The ending is simple, beautiful, and VERY bold. Without a doubt the greatest CGI ever rendered.

Folks, I can't define what The Passion Of The Christ is by any stretch. This is film that transcends filmmaking. If I've one gripe, it's that some of the music in certain parts seems... out of place. Not quite powerful enough. But that's a minor quibble and for the most part the soundtrack delivers itself superbly.

We were finally able to talk, Mark and Patrick and Clark and I. We agreed that it was good. That there may not be a word in the English language to describe it. "That was effective," Clark said.

I can't add any more than that.

But go see The Passion Of The Christ if you can. If for no other reason than to tell your kids that you saw one of, if not the most influential movie in history when it was still in first-run.

Read More

Believe in "Miracle"

The past two weeks kicked the slats out of this part of North Carolina. The snow began falling on January 25 and effectively locked everything down for the better part of the following week. That and two bouts of freezing rain that closed schools all over the place and made travel a major hassle. Now, at last, the last remnants of the white stuff are disappearing, so we've been able to get out and live a bit more.

So this afternoon, Lisa and I went to the movies. Next weekend is Valentine's so I owe her a "chick flick" on top of dinner, but today we saw a lil' flick that's been on my radar screen for some months now.

You gotta see "Miracle", if you haven't done so already. In my opinion it's even better than "Remember The Titans" and that's saying a lot. Easily the best sports-driven movie to come along in awhile to be sure.

"Miracle" is the story of the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team and Herb Brooks, its head coach. If I were to say that much, you know exactly how this movie is going to end: with the U.S. team pulling off what some have since called the "sports upset of the century" by toppling the hockey machine that was the Soviet Union's team, undefeated at the Olympics for 20 years. Just the title of the movie more than suggests its plot to even the most casual of sports fans: "Do you believe in miracles?!" NBC sports announcer Al Michaels screamed in the final seconds of that matchup at Lake Placid.

I've read numerous accounts from players on the U.S. team that "Miracle" depicts what happened in the months leading up to that game as accurately as could possibly be done. Which may be what helps "Miracle" as a true-life sports movie: the whole theme of "players from different backgrounds" that's been done to death? It's still here, but it's balanced out against everything else and in the end it's perfect. This is probably the best performance Kurt Russell's ever done: he nailed every nuance of Herb Brooks in this, right down to the manic gum-chewing and overturning the table in the locker room (he really did).

You know what the real theme of this movie is, that's going to get lost on a lot of people? That America is still good, because there's good people to be found here. It's not good because of good government or good management... heck no. It's good because when pushed, when driven, the people of this country can go far. And that's something that's gone missing in the post 9-11 world.

Finally, "Miracle" accomplishes something that no other movie in history has done before or ever will again: using the infamous Jimmy Carter "malaise speech" to good effect :-P

Go see "Miracle". And believe.

Read More

Lacking "The Passion": the crisis of Christian cinematography

Aint It Cool News posted a review of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" this morning. This one is written by Douglas Tennapel, the writer/artist who among other things has Earthworm Jim notched on his belt. It's quite a good read: he goes into a lot of spoiler-ish details about the film so be warned, but it was necessary because he describes how both he and his wife were overwhelmed with horror at many of the scenes.

But there's something that Tennapel says in his review that I couldn't resist not thinking about in this space. He writes that "This is a movie that secular Hollywood could not make, but it’s also a movie that the Christian community could not make either." As a believer in Christ and a fan of great filmmaking, let me say that Tennapel nails it (no pun intended) with that observation.

Someone said a few years ago that the problem isn't that there's enough Christian films, "there aren't enough Christian filmmakers." So-called "Christian movies" have largely been a product of the professional evangelical community, with the intent of being a witnessing tool... and THEY HAVEN'T WORKED!! I know of no one who's been genuinely moved by any of the schlock that's come out in the past several years. "The Omega Code" looked to have bucked the trend. Some friends and I saw that in the theater and felt like we'd been force-fed dogfood. And then the people who make them complain that their films don't get a big enough audience, so they resort to "sympathy campaigns" to drum up interest from fellow Christians to come out and show that their films actually have legs at the box office: I've seen it happen at least 3 or 4 times in the past few years. And you know why they fail? Because from inception they're intended to persuade others to a particular mindset. Leni Reifenstahl did a much better job with propoganda films than what the recent crap has been.

So now comes "The Passion of the Christ" and the reason that it's going to succeed - both as art and at the box office - is that Gibson is NOT pursuing an agenda. He's not letting his film be "mission driven". He's made a very personal movie that reflects who Christ is to him, not what Christ is to a collective. The Christ in this movie - without actually having seen it yet - is the Christ that each of us can seek and find on our own... and NOT the impersonal totem of power that some Christians love to lord over others. That kind of Christ, the sort that appeals to the corporate masses, is totally and utterly meaningless, and people are growing sick of it. They thirst for something different, something genuine and real. This isn't a neat and tidy way to power and glory that Gibson is presenting: it comes with pain and sacrifice, and most of our Christian brethren have forgotten about that.

It's true: secular Hollywood would have never considered making this film. But many Christian filmmakers wouldn't have had the guts to look into their own hearts to try making it either.

Read More

$tate of the Union: Christmas in January

Most people don't stop to think about the real meaning of words or phrases, and that's a real shame. Take "State of the Union", f'rinstance...

For 112 years the State of the Union speech was not televised, or broadcast over radio, or even delivered live by the President of the United States at all. It was merely delivered in printed form to both houses of Congress and then sent to newspapers and magazines throughout the country, a practice started by Thomas Jefferson. It wasn't until Woodrow Wilson that, as George Washington did, the President again appeared before a joint session of Congress. The State of the Union address as we know it isn't even officially legislated: Article II Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution only requires that the President give Congress information about the state of the union "from time to time", as he (or she) deems is necessary. That could mean one time a year, or several times. A president could conceivably go a year or two without delivering a statement on the state of the union, if times were boring enough.

When Article II was originally drafted, America was indeed a union of individual states, united under common ideals in a shared sense of identity and destiny. That said states were united wasn't taken to mean that the federal government was intended as the be-all/end-all of American identity, however: government at the federal level was a product of consent by the individual states, after already being given such consent by the citizens of the United States. After it was understood from whom this form of government derived, the responsibility was given to the President to summarise, as best he understood it, what the condition and sense of the Union was. Hence, the "state of the union" literally was just that: the state of how the union itself was faring.

The State of the Union speech that I listened to last night was the furthest thing from the original intent that it could have possibly been. Forget "union of states", that's a concept largely in name only today. And it would be too easy to say that President Bush has completely forgotten that America is defined by the character of her people and not the strength of her government... except that darn nearly every other president for the past 70 years has believed the same thing, so why should this one be any different?

I started calling the State of the Union address "Christmas in January" some years ago during Clinton's maladministration, and Uncle George promised everyone an even bigger bag of goodies than his predecessor. Where in the world do we begin: more money to public schools (including the "No Child Left Behind" boondoggle that my wife, the public schoolteacher, laughs at) when the money is being wasted like never before, doubling the budget for National Endowment for Democracy whatever the heck that is, a new program called "Jobs for the 21st Century", propping up Social Security instead of privatizing it (or better yet scrapping the damned thing), socialized medicine and centralizing medical records via computer... sheesh, just put Hillary up there and get it over with already.

At one point Bush praised the traditional institutions of family and religions institutions. Not three minutes later, he began proposing funding federal programs to promote sexual abstinence. Ummmm, sexual abstinence until marriage is a noble and honorable thing. I like to believe that it's a realistic goal for every young person. Holding off until after you meet that one special person at the altar doesn't just build a family, it builds personal character. Sexual abstinence does not now, or ever has, needed a government program to work. Let families and churches handle that, Mr. President, not a federal agency. The pros not only enjoy a bigger success rate than the government, but letting them handle this also has added benefit of zero cost to the taxpayer.

Speaking of religious institutions, Bush proposed legislating protections for them. The last time a government tried "protecting" a faith, Christianity was very nearly destroyed Christianity in Europe. Our churches haven't needed government's "help" before, and they shouldn't desire it now.

After proposing spending TWENTY THREE MILLION to stop drug abuse, Bush called on pro sports owners and players to curb steroid abuse. Using anabolic steroids to enhance physical performance is far less a problem now than it was 20 years ago: did President Reagan ever mention it during any of his State of the Union addresses?

I didn't actually watch the SOTU address: while our tv set was tuned to the local Fox station, my back was to the set. Instead I listened to it, letting me block out the visuals and focus on the actual message (while doing a running commentary about it with a friend via AOL Instant Messenger). Our shared conclusion: this year's speech was bereft of any substance or principle. Bush chose to focus his message, as his immediate predecessor did, on what big government is doing now and what it will be doing tomorrow on today's dime.

Read More

Nice guys finish first

The Carolina Panthers are going to the Super Bowl! They went to Philadelphia and beat the Eagles on their home turf. So to all those Philly fans who were doing mean stuff like swearing at and spitting on little kids whose only crime was wearing a Panthers sweater, all I gotta say is this: "nyah-nyah nyah nyah nyahhhhh!!!" :-)

Read More

"How I Celebrated Robert E. Lee and Edgar Allan Poe's Birthday"

Yesterday was the observance of Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday. As it happens, January 19th is also the birthday of Robert E. Lee and Edgar Allan Poe. It was also the birthday of a really good friend of mine who hit 96 years young this week. I'm pretty sure "Doc" celebrated his birthday with an ample supply of well-wishers. As a history buff I posted a birthday tribute to Lee on Liberty Post, and no doubt his admirers did as God lead them yesterday to toast the beloved general in their own way. And speaking of toasts, the "Poe Toaster" was right on schedule in Baltimore, leaving behind a half-bottle of French cognac and three roses on the grave of the author in what has become a time-honored ritual of mystery.

My wife and I spent yesterday at the theater, watching "The Return Of The King" again. The streets were more congested than usual given that all the students had the day-off. A lot more shopping and spending happened yesterday than usually does on a Monday. And quite a number of times yesterday I remarked to Lisa that this was a day wholely and utterly lacking enough redeeming value to call it a national holiday.

I've thought for years that the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday was a cruel joke on the American people in general, and our kindred of African ancestry in particular. For one thing, I can't trust the motives of those who pushed for this holiday. They're the Jesse Jackson crowd: the kind of people who want prominence and glory for themselves without actually working for it. Under the guise of honoring Dr. King, their own self-interests poison whatever actions they take in his name. King has become an idol to them, or worse a talisman: a name to invoke to achieve power and greatness in this world.

Which isn't what King wanted at all, which ties in to the other reason I've never liked the notion of making his birthday a national holiday. King would have been horrified at the cult that's grown around him, if he were alive today. There's no doubt in my mind that he would have disavowed what's been done in his name, and would have readily repudiated Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and every other two-bit huckster that's stepped over his own brothers to elevate himself. Yes, I'm aware of all the allegations about King. I know that many of his staff were blatantly socialist or outright communist. As for the man himself, I've never considered him anything less than sincere and humble, and that's how he wanted to be remembered in posterity.

I believe that, in time, the Martin Luther King Jr. birthday will cease being an observed holiday on its own, and will merely be combined with a single observance for King, Washington and Lincoln, Lee and Stonewall Jackson, and maybe even Edgar Allan Poe for good measure. The people who rode on King's coattails are finally going away, either perforce of nature or by their own admissions and repentance of folly. As it stands now the holiday has no meaning, and people realize this. It's ceased serving its purpose because those who demanded it are becoming an ignored lot. Which I'll let King himself comment on in closing this blog posting...

"Ten thousand fools proclaim themselves into obscurity, while one wise man forgets himself into immortality."

Read More

Wars Without End...

Big buzz making the rounds on a lot of websites this morning are the substantiated rumors that George Lucas might yet make a Star Wars sequel trilogy - episodes 7, 8 and 9 - after wrapping up Episode 3. TheForce.net was first to break the story about Peter Mayhew being contractually obligated to reprise his Chewbacca character in future sequels (this comes in addition to his appearance in Episode 3). Then comes word from Ain't It Cool News about a couple of companies getting licenses on the Star Wars franchise getting re-upped for quite some time after Episode 3's bow next year. This goes hand in hand with a number of other things that have percolated to the surface during the past year or so, about how a sequel trilogy might yet appear.

My thoughts? George Lucas has spent most of his professional life on this saga. I can't help but think that the reason he's stuck with it this long hasn't been for the money, but just to give the fans a sense of completion. This coming at considerable expense to his own personal aspirations. After Episode 3 (officially - for now anyway - the final Star Wars movie) Lucas has stated he wants to go for smaller projects, films that he can experiment with for his own sake, for his own happiness. He's owed that, definitely. Is he tired of making Star Wars? Well, who wouldn't be? The only constants in life are change, and learning new things from those changes. Whether he wanted it or not George Lucas has been chained in place - excepting a few years' respite in between - to one era of his career for three decades now. After Episode 3, he'll be free to fly as far and high as he wants. And yet, at the same time there's been plenty of evidence that Lucas has some ideas for episodes 7-9 (when asked years ago why he never gave Luke a girlfriend, Lucas replied "wait until the final trilogy") and wants the story to continue, in some fashion.

I don't see why there couldn't be a final Star Wars trilogy, with Lucas acting as writer or co-writer, and executive producer. That would dramatically free up his hands to do whatever directing he wanted. There's already plenty of directors chomping at the bit to direct a Star Wars movie... Steven Spielberg, for one. Lucas handed that hat over to other directors on The Empire Strikes Back and Return Of The Jedi, so there's precedent already. That is, if Lucas wanted a sequel trilogy greenlighted to begin with.

If not, I'll watch Episode 3 next year, and thank God for a great way to have spent the first 30 years of my life. But if it happens... well, I suppose childhood will potentially get pushed into my early fifties. But while we're waiting for that to happen (or not), check out this other great saga from the Seventies... coming soon to a theater near you!

Read More