Saturday, February 28, 2004

After reading several reviews of The Passion of the Christ and seeing it for myself last night, I've come to this conclusion: people see what they want to see. (I'm sure I saw what I wanted to see as well.)

Some reviewers called the movie 'pornographic' or 'intoxicated with blood' and one guy from the New York times compared it to Kill Bill. Ann Hornaday of the Washington Times, indicated that charges of anti-semitism were 'understandable' writing, "The Jewish leaders and their rabble are depicted as grotesque and monstrous throughout the movie, whereas the Roman guards, at first gleefully sadistic, are allowed more nuance by the end." Well, (this is were I should write, 'I don't know what film she was watching, but...') the Jewish leaders were allowed that same 'nuance' as well, if perhaps, and I do mean perhaps, just slightly less so than the Romans.

So what do make of these reviewers? It was a difficult film to watch, but then again, so was Schindler's List, Blackhawk Down, and We Were Soldiers. All of these films sought to portray historical events as they happened, and yet I don't recall there being quite the same outrage. I guess the gospel is offensive. Fortunately, to quote the great band, 'the kingdom is big enough,' even for movie critics. And movie critic critics, like me.


Post a Comment

<< Home