another lengthy post - please forgive
To respond to B Jay I will re-make some points and try to address all of his concerns. I apologize for deliberately omitting some of my feelings about the film (although I did mention a few) - I was trying to limit my comments to what I saw in the film, not its theological ramifications. I am sorry if I offended.
As to my biases walking in (and this may account for my somewhat strong reaction) I was surprisingly moved by the very "human" scenes spread throughout the violence (as I stated earlier) -- however, I was profoundly disappointed by Gibson's lapses into "pedestrian" filmmaking. "My chief objection to the film lies in its pedestrian use of the image." was my argument and it still is. I made some assumptions regarding Gibson's intent, but assumptions that I made after seeing the film and I attempted in my previous post to point out some of the striking _visual_ similarities between PotC and popular films. And yes, these similarities are "absurd" and repellent because of that. That is why I believe the film is pedestrian. It trades in _images_ that can be seen across a wide range of recent cinema. These are images that audiences are accustomed to "receiving" and not thinking about as "ideas." My beef is that the audience will read them the same way that they read any other violent image in cinema, as violence, as something to withdraw from, to reject, or to be disgusted by or afraid of. Now that I think about it, "pedestrian" might be too nice, since it implies an everyday contemplation (a la paintings or stained glass in church), and Gibson has made a 2 hour, one-time viewing (unless the movie should be viewed daily or weekly as a reminder or in a church even.)
If we might consider the language that the film uses (that of cinema) the basic grammar is that of the shot (mise en scene) and the cut (montage). Cinema, like all art and literature (and yes, I'm making an assumption) comments on its own history through its very style. What I have tried to point out is that Gibson's film trades in compositon, editing and therefore image-making in ways that are prevalently "hollywood action-flick" style. I am repeating myself, but the construction of the film conforms to the popular use of the medium. I think this is a travesty and an insult to his subject matter. I absolutely agree with you that this is the most important story in history. But why then does the film use predominately popular forms? To critique them and demonstrate the very importance and universal, transcendent nature of the story? I would think not, since the tone is one of brutal and unrelenting force of conviction. He is no clever post-modernist, and I am not arguing that Gibson is "patting himself on the back" but rather he is perpetuating images that flood into the popular cinema. A dangerous practice especially with the most important of subjects.
I did not "start from the assumption that this film is NOT going to be about the deep central ideas of the Christian faith (the sinfulness of all of humanity, the redemptive work of Christ on our behalf, the amazing grace of God, the love of Christ for us, etc., etc.) then, of course, you will not see these ideas vividly portrayed through this outstanding film." Kind of patronizing don't you think? How dare you suggest that? It is absolutely about those things, but forgive my repetition, "My chief objection to the film lies in its pedestrian use of the image." What I found was that it was about all of those things but in completely inappropriate cinematic language.
I appreciate your reading of the baptism toward the end of the film and I agree. "Does not this powerful artistic portrayal of this idea of God’s amazing grace stir you? And is not that exactly what ART does?" Yes to your first question, I was stirred by that particular moment, and a few others. And I assume that this is your argument for why this film is ART? Or how it functions as ART? Does the entire film rise to such heights, does it consistently offer the kind of insight you suggest? Does it need to? Could you have been moved by the spectacle of that image? Was this the film, or your (highly literate and educated) interpretive act? Could you address any of my questions regarding the role of the viewer?
I would like to continue a discussion of the place of images in our world. I am not completely convinced (and not necessarily in agreement with B Jay and the scholars he mentions, although I am sure you are more familiar with them than I) that the image entirely denigrates "communication away from ideas and into impressions that are simply received" since not all images do that and on a certain level it seems to me that the burden lies with an active and thoughtful viewer, who can speak and understand the image as idea, when it is about an idea.
Your argument seems to be: I have found the Passion delivers a strong artistic expression that conveys some of the truths of the Christian faith that surround the crucifixion. How about it?
Incidentally, what are the ethics of discourse surrounding the Bible? Since this film participates in that discourse, does it conform to the ethics of the conversation that is usually engaged in? As an engager in that same discussion, what do you think?
As to my biases walking in (and this may account for my somewhat strong reaction) I was surprisingly moved by the very "human" scenes spread throughout the violence (as I stated earlier) -- however, I was profoundly disappointed by Gibson's lapses into "pedestrian" filmmaking. "My chief objection to the film lies in its pedestrian use of the image." was my argument and it still is. I made some assumptions regarding Gibson's intent, but assumptions that I made after seeing the film and I attempted in my previous post to point out some of the striking _visual_ similarities between PotC and popular films. And yes, these similarities are "absurd" and repellent because of that. That is why I believe the film is pedestrian. It trades in _images_ that can be seen across a wide range of recent cinema. These are images that audiences are accustomed to "receiving" and not thinking about as "ideas." My beef is that the audience will read them the same way that they read any other violent image in cinema, as violence, as something to withdraw from, to reject, or to be disgusted by or afraid of. Now that I think about it, "pedestrian" might be too nice, since it implies an everyday contemplation (a la paintings or stained glass in church), and Gibson has made a 2 hour, one-time viewing (unless the movie should be viewed daily or weekly as a reminder or in a church even.)
If we might consider the language that the film uses (that of cinema) the basic grammar is that of the shot (mise en scene) and the cut (montage). Cinema, like all art and literature (and yes, I'm making an assumption) comments on its own history through its very style. What I have tried to point out is that Gibson's film trades in compositon, editing and therefore image-making in ways that are prevalently "hollywood action-flick" style. I am repeating myself, but the construction of the film conforms to the popular use of the medium. I think this is a travesty and an insult to his subject matter. I absolutely agree with you that this is the most important story in history. But why then does the film use predominately popular forms? To critique them and demonstrate the very importance and universal, transcendent nature of the story? I would think not, since the tone is one of brutal and unrelenting force of conviction. He is no clever post-modernist, and I am not arguing that Gibson is "patting himself on the back" but rather he is perpetuating images that flood into the popular cinema. A dangerous practice especially with the most important of subjects.
I did not "start from the assumption that this film is NOT going to be about the deep central ideas of the Christian faith (the sinfulness of all of humanity, the redemptive work of Christ on our behalf, the amazing grace of God, the love of Christ for us, etc., etc.) then, of course, you will not see these ideas vividly portrayed through this outstanding film." Kind of patronizing don't you think? How dare you suggest that? It is absolutely about those things, but forgive my repetition, "My chief objection to the film lies in its pedestrian use of the image." What I found was that it was about all of those things but in completely inappropriate cinematic language.
I appreciate your reading of the baptism toward the end of the film and I agree. "Does not this powerful artistic portrayal of this idea of God’s amazing grace stir you? And is not that exactly what ART does?" Yes to your first question, I was stirred by that particular moment, and a few others. And I assume that this is your argument for why this film is ART? Or how it functions as ART? Does the entire film rise to such heights, does it consistently offer the kind of insight you suggest? Does it need to? Could you have been moved by the spectacle of that image? Was this the film, or your (highly literate and educated) interpretive act? Could you address any of my questions regarding the role of the viewer?
I would like to continue a discussion of the place of images in our world. I am not completely convinced (and not necessarily in agreement with B Jay and the scholars he mentions, although I am sure you are more familiar with them than I) that the image entirely denigrates "communication away from ideas and into impressions that are simply received" since not all images do that and on a certain level it seems to me that the burden lies with an active and thoughtful viewer, who can speak and understand the image as idea, when it is about an idea.
Your argument seems to be: I have found the Passion delivers a strong artistic expression that conveys some of the truths of the Christian faith that surround the crucifixion. How about it?
Incidentally, what are the ethics of discourse surrounding the Bible? Since this film participates in that discourse, does it conform to the ethics of the conversation that is usually engaged in? As an engager in that same discussion, what do you think?
posted by Andrew at
9:56:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home