|
Verdict:
Passion Audience Mixed on the Film
 |
|
As time passes, the debate on the film being anti-Semitic seems to be subsiding
|
Well
the almighty dollar has spoken: Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ,
despite all the negative hype and controversy that plagued it for months, is a
huge success at the box office. You might say that the fervent, furious
anti-Semitic debate, which engulfed the film prior to its release, only served
to increase curiosity and bring audiences into theaters across the
US
.
Very
few movies have endured such a build-up as this one. The pre-release buzz,
coupled with the accusations of anti-Semitism by numerous Jewish leaders, only
served to bring hordes of people into the theaters. According to many reports,
this independent film (produced by the small, relatively new company, Newmarket
Films) had the third largest mid-week opening ever.
Whether
it was curiosity to see how much gore there was, or to make their own decision
if the film held Jews responsible for Christ’s demise or just a general
interest in Gibson’s interpretation, US viewers shelled it out to the tune of
sold-out shows across the country on opening night. By the time the first
weekend was over, it had amassed more than a million dollars. And in an industry
where the dollar is often the bottom line, that makes The Passion of the Christ
a success.
But
beyond the money factor is the audience reaction. Were viewers able to see
beyond the media and religious hype to make their own decisions about The
Passion? An MSN.com article cited that on a five-star rating scale, the movie
averaged a three (from reviews in five major newspapers). Yet ask people what
they thought, and you’re not likely to get an average answer.
Without
a doubt, as time passes, the debate on the film being anti-Semitic seems to be
subsiding. Perhaps the real question now is does the excess of violence induce
audience apathy? In a March 8 Time Magazine article, columnist Joe Klein wrote
that seeing The Passion of the Christ was a “stunning experience in a way that
I didn’t expect. The first scene of scourging … evoked a powerful reaction
from the audience. There were gasps and audible sobbing, which continued for
some time.
“But
as the torture went on, and on … the theater fell silent. By the time of the
Crucifixion, the audience seemed emotionally exhausted and numbed to the
violence. There was no catharsis,” Klein writes.
Klein
asks in his article, “Are we addicted to explicit violence and then quickly
inured to it?” Some would argue differently. New Yorker Adil Shujaat saw the
film on opening night with two friends. He didn’t enjoy the film and said
there was so much gratuitous violence that it was “nauseating. [Gibson]
could’ve definitely made it less graphic. I couldn’t get numb to it.” Mir
Ali, who saw the film with Shujaat, agreed with him. “I think that Mel Gibson
could have conveyed the same message—the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made for
humanity, the suffering he went through—by being less graphic. I don’t think
he had to be that graphic.”
But
asking for audience reaction in an interview and observing what people said
right after seeing the film seem to be two different things. I saw the film the
Thursday after its Ash Wednesday opening. I too had the “Klein” experience
of audible crying and gasping when the scourging sequence began and then silence
as the torture went on. After it was all over and I went outside, I hung around
and listened to what people were saying. Comments ranged from “My God!” to
“Not bad, but Gladiator had worse violence” to “Wow … let’s grab a cup
of coffee; I had the worst day at work today!”
Two
things seemed apparent: That the excess violence did not seem to be too much of
a bother, and that the questions of anti-Semitism were not even a concern.
However, this is simply after observing people coming out of one showing of the
film in one theater in one part of
Manhattan
. It can’t be extrapolated across the moral fiber of the country.
My
gut feeling as a reviewer tells me that in later water-cooler, coffee house and
living room discussions the general consensus would be that the film contained
excessive violence. There is only so much one can cry or exclaim horror at in a
film that is two hours long. You may become numb in your expressions, but the
feelings are still inside.
I
had many reservations before seeing the film. In fact, I was a little afraid to
see it—apprehensive about how I would handle all the gore. It was the first
time in my history of writing movie reviews (and I’ve done many) that I did
not want to go alone.
As
for the original controversy of the film being anti-Semitic, viewers seem to be
divided on that one. If you have read my review, you will know that I am in the
“not anti-Semitic” camp. It seemed to me that the Rabbinical leadership of
the time was out for Jesus’ blood, not the entire Jewish population. There
were many Jewish and Roman sympathizers to Christ’s plight. If anything, the
film was anti-establishment. Shujaat, however, disagrees. He felt the film was
very anti-Jewish. “I didn’t see the point of bringing out such a movie in
this era, when such a story could further fuel hatred.” Shujaat found the
whole concept of the film offensive.
“It
doesn’t make sense to show what Mel Gibson believed Christ was thinking. At
the time of his death [the film] shows Jesus to be thinking of his mother and of
his childhood—but nobody knows what he was thinking,” Shujaat says. That, if
anything, is the real truth about the film. Nobody really knows what Jesus was
thinking in his last hours. Nobody can know what any Prophet really endured,
what he really felt. People can only go by what they read in the holy books of
the three major monotheistic religions.
*
Dilshad D. Ali's writing reaches across the
United States
to address lifestyle topics pertinent for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Ali
has covered movie premieres, film festivals, art exhibits, concerts and numerous
other cultural stories, including 9/11’s affect on
New York
’s cultural landscape for Islam Online. Ali, a 1997 University of Maryland
journalism graduate, resides in
New York
with her husband and two children.
|
