Blogcritics: Comments on The Passion: NY Times Squeeze Play

Comment by Al Barger

Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:47:56 EST

I'm not sure what your beef is here. Some people are not inclined to look at the world in moral terms, but prefer different kinds of Skinnerian behaviorist explanations or post-religious humanism of other kinds. They're just not real likely to appreciate a moralistic religious movie. YOU keep going on with the liberal thing. Yes, a lot of these people would identify as political liberals, but some of these folks might be apolitical or something. I was trying to stay away from just slamming "liberals." Some perfectly good liberal Democrats understand these things just fine. Would you settle for my admitting to being a trout mask replica?

Comment by Shark

Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:32:03 EST

AL: "They [people who 'rationalize evil behavior] are not likely to appreciate a movie with strong religious themes, such as The Passion." SHARK: "FALSE: your premises and false assumptions don't automatically lead to this ridiculous conclusion." You can't be proud of this exchange.

Comment by Shark

Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:29:58 EST

Al, you chose to defend and/or elaborate on Mc-whatshisname's shameless attempt to equate liberals who don't 'understand' the evil of 9/11 to liberals who don't like Bush to liberals who don't appreciate The Passion. It's a crock and you know it. Say you're a codfish.

Comment by Al Barger

Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:25:13 EST

Goodness Shark, you're getting all hostile. I was TRYING not to be all accusatory and not paint all folks of liberal persuasions with a broad brush. You're getting a little testy here. Perhaps you've been hanging around Diva too long. You need to play nice too. It's not that 9/11 was the only evil act of the last many years. Just that it was the biggest thing in America, effected the most people, and sort of focused our national attention on some of this stuff. You don't have to LIKE the Mel Gibson movie. You should appreciate that it is a powerful work of art. Perhaps you don't relate to the particular style though, or you just don't buy it personally. Totally cool. You're heading rapidly toward being personally insulting with the "profundity" stuff, when I'm TRYING to play nice. I wouldn't call this stuff profound, but actually fairly basic. Even some pinkos understand that there's evil- though a lot of times their bearings on such things are so far off that they pick W for evil rather than Saddam. [Hey, I was TRYING to lay off, but you hadda push me.] What's up with this ragging on Al stuff anyway? Diva says that you're my henchman or subordinate or mind numbed robot or something. You do do what I tell you!

Comment by Al Barger

Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:18:56 EST

Now Diva, play nice. Miss Natalie, Jesus forgave the people who killed him. Would he, however, say that you should just let people continue to roll in and kill your people and you shouldn't defend them or yourself? On the other hand, I'm not a Christian, so I don't need to make Jesus fit my agenda. If your Jesus says that we shouldn't defend ourselves, then he's an idiot. bhw- Glad I could entertain you- though the comedic effect is not entirely unintentional.

Comment by Shark

Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:08:34 EST

AL: "Shark, I appreciate your sensitivities, and I might have come at it a bit differently than Mr. McCanles did." I'm wondering where "McCanales" ran off to. But I guess you can be a stand-in and present his potential arguments. Here is your flawed, fucked up, barely disguised political logic: * 9/11 gave new life to evil (FALSE: This is such a load of horse shit. Evil strikes liberal and conservative alike. Every day. Mothers, fathers, and children are kidnapped and murdered every fucking day in America. Someone is greeting 'evil' as we speak. It doesn't have to hit the Twin Towers for a lot of decent Americans to understand the impact and implications of evil. It was around a long time before that and will be around a long time after, and anyone who's lost a friend or family member to some random crime surely doesn't need your condescending lecture about the impact of evil.) * some people will insist on rationalizing the worst human behavior (TRUE in some cases; very few, I would guess; definitely a minority) YOUR EXAMPLE, AL? Some wimpy peace-love-flowers LIBERAL whose mouth you fill with the following words: "See, we need to understand that terrorists hate us because of our foreign policy, because we have troops in Saudi Arabia or supported this and that bad regime. We need to be more sensitive to their cultural issues, blah, blah, blah." Forgive me, AL "Let's try to leave partisan politics out of it" BARGER, but that sounds like a 'liberal' to me; and specifically, one type of 'liberal' response to 9/11. Or at least YOUR IDEA of the 'ideal' liberal response to an attack from Muslim nuts. (BTW: I heard a great many good, honorable conservatives on 9/12 asking "Why do they hate us?" Where are they in your hierarchy of tough guys? * They're [people who 'rationalize evil behavior] not likely to appreciate a movie with strong religious themes, such as The Passion. (FALSE: your premises and false assumptions don't automatically lead to this ridiculous conclusion. Nice try, though.) Here comes the pitch, totally irrelevant to "mccanles" point, btw: "others of us will be more inclined to say that some people choose evil. They're just mean...and have to be put down like rabid dogs." Which, I gather, implies that because you see evil 'clearly' and deal with it by killing, YOU'RE BETTER ABLE TO "Appreciate a movie with strong religious themes, such as The Passion."??? AL, you're as full of shit as "McCanles"--- and I think you'd better ask him to return to fight his own battles. Your attempt at profundities and logic are a joke.

Comment by Mac Diva

Sun, 29 Feb 2004 01:43:17 EST

Hmmm. Al Barger is just plain evil. So . . . .

Comment by Natalie Davis

Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:53:21 EST

All too often from folks who support state-sanctioned killing (be it execution, preemptive invasions or war), bigotry of all sorts, and Dubya Bush. But not always. Point remains, the Jesus I know of would not countenance putting anyone down like rabid dogs. He forgave his persecutors.

Comment by BB

Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:33:56 EST

"Ah, but is that what Jesus would do?" Now where have I heard that before???

Comment by Natalie Davis

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:45:00 EST

"...at some point others of us will be more inclined to say simply that some people choose evil. They have hatred and wickedness in their hearts, and like to cause pain and suffering. They're just mean and hateful, and have to be put down like rabid dogs." Ah, but is that what Jesus would do?

Comment by bhw

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:19:54 EST

I'm not after simply bashing anyone for being a "liberal," whatever that means. Bwahahahahahahhaha! The needle on the Unintentional Comedy Scale is PINNED.

Comment by Al Barger

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:07:47 EST

Shark- I appreciate your sensitivities, and I might have come at it a bit differently than Mr. McCanles did. Let's try to put politics out of it. I'm not after simply bashing anyone for being a "liberal," whatever that means. Let's try to leave partisan politics out of it. What I think he was after would be the question of evil, which has had a new life since 9/11. It has become a common point of discussion of morality versus sociology. It seems that some people will insist on rationalizing even the worst human behavior: See, we need to understand that terrorists hate us because of our foreign policy, because we have troops in Saudi Arabia or supported this and that bad regime. We need to be more sensitive to their cultural issues, blah, blah, blah. They're not likely to appreciate a movie with strong religious themes, such as The Passion. Whereas at some point others of us will be more inclined to say simply that some people choose evil. They have hatred and wickedness in their hearts, and like to cause pain and suffering. They're just mean and hateful, and have to be put down like rabid dogs. Leaving Mel Gibson and Christianity aside, I recommend the under appreciated movie The Good Son. The Culkin character was just plain wicked and evil. It wasn't because he had a tough life, or he was abused or impoverished. He just plain chose to be mean and hateful.

Comment by sheri

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:13:02 EST

My point exactly, Eric ;-)

Comment by frost

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:31:35 EST

shark, I was also dumbfounded by he said. However I also think it's equally ignorant what Mac said (or always says...). BB brings up a good point (one which mac will probably disregard). The suffering of Christ is paramount to the Christian faith, but the actions of the Jewish leaders have no effect on my opinions of Jews at any period in time. There have been bad leaders in every faith, every government, every nation, every family. Just because Pilate washed his hands of what he was doing doesn't mean he wasn't responsible for what he did.

Comment by BB

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:44:29 EST

Shark it appears that he is attempting to juxtapose two horrific acts to make a political point, albeit the point does escape me??? It does seem a rather insensitive thing to do and your righteous indignation over 9/11 is noted. I would also point out I hope everybody understands why some people get so uppity having their religious or political beliefs mocked. All of us are probably guilty of being extra sensitive at times, not to minimize however your feelings on the matter.

Comment by Shark

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:45:09 EST

Am I the only reader on this thread who felt this is one of the most offensive things I've ever read? Mr. "McCanles" said. "...those who cannot grasp what the violence is about in the crucifixion story are the same people who can't grasp what 9/11 is about." AND WHO WOULD THAT BE? [people who] "...need to simply avoid thinking about that human evil is about literally and figuratively tearing people apart." Who on earth doesn't understand what violence is? "Liberals don't like George Bush..." What the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING? "The controversy over this film is really a controversy over the Christian notion of evil, and that is what is buried in a lot of anti-Bush rhetoric..." "I wonder if the same types aren't the ones who can't, won't, absolutely refuse to take in the violence that Gibson is determined to force into their consciousness." I'm surprised that ANYONE of ANY political persuasion can sit back and read this without becoming angry. To use 3000 dead in New York City as a tool to bash 'liberals' is one of the most despicable acts I've ever seen. It degrades and totally disrespects the dead, the event, and anyone, liberal or conservative, who felt the horror for those people and our nation on that terrible day. Al, I would expect you to condemn such crap. It's unfair and you know it. It's a low blow and you know it. It's way out of the bounds of decency and you know it. I rarely get riled or 'emotional' as you call it, but to use 9/11 to show the heartlessness or ignorance of a political opponent is just too disrespectful to the memory of those who died that day.

Comment by Shark

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:18:07 EST

Al, I don't know what Mr. McCanles has to do with anything, but what the fucker said is indefensible The notion that a 'liberal can't understand the impact of evil, whether it's 9/11 or some other, is a cheap-ass low blow. Carry on.

Comment by BB

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:38:51 EST

Don't personalize this Mac and obviously you didn't get the message. Please don't try and make me or Mel or anybody else the scapegoat because it won't fly. It is not my obsession that I am talking about and the point I am making should be painfully obvious. The blood of atonement is of major importance in the Bible and that is where the real issue is - not the movie. You still haven't answered the question. If the movie was about a slave that was treated similarly would it have been criticized to the extent this movie has? It is a fair question and deserves an intelligent response.

Comment by Mac Diva

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:24:04 EST

In reality, I suspect any woman who has been in the company of the crude, misogynist, bigoted person thumping the Bible above probably had plenty of bruises to show for it. As for his obsession with blood, blood, blood (but only the blood of a supernatural figure, mind you) it is further reason to doubt his sanity, in my opinion. The amazing thing to me is that his blather is actually accepted as rational by some people. As for anyone who wants to take moral instruction from Al Barger, that is definitely his or her perogative. Heck, get together with Barger and his pal David Yeagley and make it a threesome.

Comment by BB

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:54:54 EST

Ok everybody I saw he movie last night and yes blood is spilt. After all if your flesh had had been castigated, pierced and ripped from your body you would bleed too. Was it gruesome? Yes. BUT it was nowhere near as bad as what really happened. WHY? Because in reality Jesus' face and body was so battered and swollen from the beating that he was unrecognizable when the sadists had finished their work. So it is time to get over our fear and revulsion of the word blood. The fact is blood IS an important metaphor for the atonement of sin throughout both the old and new testaments. In the old it was the sacrifice of animal blood. In the new it is the shedding of the lamb of God's blood once and for all of mankind.

blood

Shall I go on? This is only a small fraction of the verses that blood is mentioned in the new testament alone. So let's deal with it and stop bashing Mel Gibson because your real issues are with the Bible not the movie. If this were a movie about the plight of slavery there would be an outpouring of support from those who would chastise it. Just ask yourselves why is that and be honest.

Comment by Al Barger

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:05:32 EST

Diva- Here's yet another classic example of exactly the kind of cheap dishonesty that causes you to have zero credibility for anything that you write: people are supposed to applaud him for reviving a discredited notion that only Jews are responsible for the death of Christ. That's not what's in the film, and you've GOT to have known better than that when you wrote those words. In the film, as in the Book, the Romans killed Christ. The film is consistent with the book. Gibson didn't make that up, nor did the Catholic church or any splinter group of Mr Gibson's affiliation. Indeed, as to assigning blame, Gibson has famously made a point of it being his own hands driving the nail into Jesus' hands in the film- not those of a Jew. But then, you don't care about little things like FACTS getting in the way of your points. Also, it really looks particularly bad for you to complain about "all this whining about the pain of Christ." How would you like it if someone similarly mocked you for 'whining about the pain of black people' or some such?

Comment by Eric Olsen

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:04:40 EST

Sheri, good point - how could it not, actually?

Comment by sheri

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 14:55:49 EST

It doesnt suprise me that a major motion picture about Jesus Christ would cause such a stir.I havent seen it yet, but definetly will.

Comment by Al Barger

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 14:27:22 EST

Having seen the film, it would appear that the NYT handpicked clerics that they knew would give them the negative reactions that they wanted. I can understand all kinds of theological objections, but for any supposed believing Christian to say that they found this movie "tedious" is beyond me. Shark, I'll at least somewhat defend Mr. McCanles. The main thing I left the theater thinking about was the ugly ways that people treat each other. In this case, it gets largely piled on to Jesus, but gets refracted out through others around him- notably Mary. In short, Jesus and the crucifixion story do make for a classic study on the nature of evil. Reading your comments in #16, might I gently suggest that you're emoting rather than thinking.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Sat, 28 Feb 2004 12:20:30 EST

Roger, this isn't a Christian vs non-Christian thing. Many Christians are very concerned about the emphasis of the film. I think that is the point. Should the emphasis be the exquisite detail of the pain and suffering and those who inflicted it? It isn't a question of legitimacy - a filmmaker - especially one who finances his own film - can do whatever he wants. But was this a wasted opportunity?