I disagree with Andy... (Another very long post... sorry)
Andy, first of all, let me thank you for posting here. Of course (as far as I’m concerned) your thoughts on these issues are more than welcome. Second, we stand in real disagreement over several of your points on the film. I’d like to address some of those. But first a point of clarification: as I look over my posts I find that, on the whole, I was only trying to argue on the very polarized specific debate (between Dr. G and I) on the violence of the film. You approach this from several other directions and you bring a lot more to the table in your positions on the film. I appreciate these and I’ll attend to them. But further, I notice that I also was writing a good deal about personal reactions and sentiments towards the film. While this is good to discuss, it is not firm and direct argumentation about the film. In other words, I need to shore up my arguments a little more and really go to bat over specific positions on this film – not just give the classic, “well I felt this way or that way about the film.” Thank you for taking me to task on this – it is appreciated. Finally, yes I do think it was unwise of you to go into the movie with the biases gleaned from Denby and Groothuis… but hey, what can you do if you already read them? I will discuss these biases below.
So let’s begin. It seems that you are attempting to limit the concept of the crucifixion (and really any concept) into terms that can be packaged nicely into image based vs. word based cultural understandings. As a fond reader of the likes of Neil Postman and Ken Meyers, I agree with you implicit assumptions here: our current culture has taken a shift (very much so for the worse) away from the age of the written word and to the dominance of the image. You suggest (as others do) that this is actually some sort of sad devolving back to the pre-Guttenberg era. Again, I agree. I have a decent (but very brief) article that I had published locally on the very subject that I can send you if you like. Let us be clear though: the problem is not the use of an image over the word, but the tendency of that use to denigrate communication away from ideas that are dealt with and into mere impressions that are simply received (for amusement... i.e. Amusing Ourselves to Death). If you are not convinced yet that I am in agreement with you on the sad turns of Popular Culture (I am trying to establish our agreement here without walking through the long discussion itself), then perhaps this will help: I am an avid listener and supporter of Mars Hill Audio Journal, and, quite literally, All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes changed my life as my thinking changed on popular culture and our interaction in it.
Ok, so we agree that pop culture has today denigrated the written word and the visual image has usurped control of much of media. This is bad because in that process in general we’ve lost the interaction of complex ideas and slumped to merely receiving entertainment. Here’s the problem – I don’t think Gibson’s film, as a particular, is going to fit nicely into this paradigm. Certainly as part of the larger whole (it is a film, after all) this and all films are part of the larger movement of the takeover of the image going on today. But what I am going to argue is that this film is not part of the movement that specifically demands a post-literate public and worships the image over the idea as opposed to the image as a means of conveyance of the idea.
Here is your full statement to that effect: “My chief objection to the film lies in its pedestrian use of the image. In that way, the film seems to attempt to function as an icon painting or a grisly medieval altarpiece. He fails to consider his literate audience and the age in which we live. Icon paintings and the images of suffering that adorned church walls had the aim of cautioning and educating the parishioners who were largely illiterate and who were just coming to acquire written language, thanks to good ole Gutenberg. Gibson's audience has the benefit of widespread literacy and unprecedented access to scripture, and the responsibility to read and understand the word. Gibson allows the "masses" (who I assume he considers lazy) to skate by with reading the image _he_ constructs on-screen.”
There is a lot going on here. For one, your commentary on medieval iconography (“Icon paintings and the images of suffering that adorned church walls had the aim of cautioning and educating the parishioners”) seems a little bold, does it not? Is it not even possible that the parishioners of the medieval church understood something of the importance of Christ, His death and resurrection, and these icons and paintings could be expressions of beauty, art, and aesthetics attempts towards the worship of this God and veneration of these events? Do we have to so debase the use of the image that it is always and only used as a scare tactic or blunt educational (or perhaps you mean indoctranation?) tool for those lowly “illiterates”? Better, what I am questioning is this: Does the use of the image to communicate always have to assume illiteracy or a debased understanding of the principle ideas? Clearly no. And you, most certainly, would agree. You after all appreciate and enjoy the medium of film. My problem with your analysis, then, is that you are the one making the assumptions (not Mel). You assume that his use of the image (I assume as opposed to Monet’s or Da Vinci’s) is this type of “pedestrian use of the image” that you (and I, for that matter) are so against. You just simply assume this, you do not argue for it. You just assert: “the film seems to attempt to function as an icon painting or a grisly medieval altarpiece”. Again, as I’ve already commented, I think you are making quite a jump (and insult?) to all medieval icon paintings and “grisly” (I’d call some of them beautiful) medieval altarpieces by assuming that THEY are all examples of this “pedestrian use of the image.” But, even if THEY are “Pedestrian” uses (which I am not willing to grant), you never make an argument to show us how Mel’s use of the image is in the same boat.
Again, here is your assertion: “He fails to consider his literate audience and the age in which we live.” Really? How do you know this? I did not see that this film assumed I was literate, educated on theology and philosophy, and understood at a fairly high level of thought the radical concepts of the crucifixion of the holy incarnate God. Nor did I see that this film assumed I was illiterate, uneducated on theological and philosophical concepts, and did not understand the meaning of the crucifixion. It did neither. For you to assume it did one or the other is going to require a strong case on your part (and you’ll have to defend how you can deduce this was the film’s intent). This film presented the story and the idea of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The lynchpin and single most important even in all of history. Some who view this film will have deep understandings of the idea it is presenting. Some will not. Just as some who view an icon painting in a cathedral have an understanding of the idea behind it and some do not.
After you make this unjustified assumption about the film your entire analysis follows. Actually, in essence, you even say that very thing, “After making this assumption, he constructs his film using the same methods and techniques as every other latest blockbuster.” Did he make the assumption? Or are you the one assuming that he did. Prove that he made the assumption of the “illiteracy” of the audience, and then I’ll address your resulting analysis (which all based off of that unfounded assumption).
Incidentally -- and I’m sure we’ll get to them -- I find your arguments after this point to be grossly unfair to the Passion and based off of this terrible initial prejudice you had of the film. With every scene in this film which presents a powerful statement about Christian theology, instead of seeing that idea, you assumed some low form of image parading.
You write (for example), “He references his own films in the most pious manner - Lethal Weapon in the initial chaining of Jesus, the shoulder dislocation scene and the showering/baptism of the guard, and Braveheart in countless images of torture.” Give me a break. Shoulder dislocations commonly happened during crucifixions. Are you actually claiming that Mel intentionally put that dislocation in the film so has to hearken back to, and egotistically give himself a little nod, his film Lethal Weapon from 1987? Yes, you are actually claiming that, and, frankly, I find it absurd. The chaining of Jesus is a reference to Lethal Weapon? Andy, they captured Jesus in the garden and took him away. That they chained Jesus is a perfectly justified historical speculation. But you are so clearly anti-Gibson from the outset you assume this chaining scene is Mel trying to connect viewers back to his 1987 action flick. And, wait just a minute here, the showering of the blood and water of Christ after he was pierced by the Roman soldier is yet another attempt by Mel to give himself a pat on the back for Lethal Weapon? Come on, you have to see how ridiculous such a claim is. The piercing of Christ’s dead body on the cross and the flow of the blood and water that followed is a powerful moment in the story of the crucifixion that we all know validated his undeniable physical death. It, in itself, is a vital idea fulfilling prophecy concerning Christ and an important moment for believers in our Christ’s passion. That this filmmaker takes this flow of blood and water and speculates that it fell upon the solider that pierced him (which is a perfectly valid assumption) is a POWERFUL statement about what the crucifixion means. The very soldiers who killed the Messiah, the very ones who spilt his blood, are the very people that Christ’s blood was spilt for. Christ died for those Roman soldiers. That his blood actually falls (showers) down upon that soldier is a compelling visual image portrayal of this incredible idea of God’s grace that “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” It is a powerful picture of the idea that “while we were still God’s enemy’s, he loved us and died for us.” Did you not see here (right before this scene) Christ call out to the Father and ask him to forgive these men for they knew not what they do? Are not each one of us these soldiers? The facial expressions on the guards themselves, who moments earlier were sadistically executing a man, signal to us that they come to realize that something is different here. Perhaps this man really is who he says he is (the Gospels tell us the story of the Roman guard who came to this realization and said it out loud). Does not this powerful artistic portrayal of this idea of God’s amazing grace stir you? And is not that exactly what ART does?
But, no, you would not have seen that powerful message in that scene. Because you had already assumed that this film was a debased pedestrian use of the image – not art. Thus, when you saw this scene (the showering of the blood of Christ upon the very one who spilt it), instead of seeing the incredible concept of Christ’s blood spilt for his enemies and God’s amazing grace towards us, as I did (and I was deeply moved by it), you saw… it is hard to believe… a throw back to some stupid 80s action movie.
I could go on. I think my point is clear. If you 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. Instead, since you assume that the film will not do that, I suppose you look for possible connections to Hollywood movies. Thank you for those (and the others) that you pointed out. But I, for one, actually think that Gibson was trying to present the ideas of the Christian faith through this medium of film. If you go into the movie with the open mind that the film even could potentially do this – you’d be amazed at what treasures you find therein.
You write, “Gibson engages in the worst elements of popular culture for the greatest of goals.” And we simply disagree. Gibson is a modern day artist. Instead of paintbrushes or musical notes he uses wind-angle lenses and make-up artists as his tools. And this artist painted us a striking, moving, and deep theological statement about the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. Is it somehow definitive? No. But let us add it to the long line of outstanding pieces of expression (a.k.a. “Art”) we have on the cross of our lord that have gone before. Like the Bach piece I mentioned in my previous post, this film is yet one more outstanding resource for us to connect to and understand the cross of Christ.
So let’s begin. It seems that you are attempting to limit the concept of the crucifixion (and really any concept) into terms that can be packaged nicely into image based vs. word based cultural understandings. As a fond reader of the likes of Neil Postman and Ken Meyers, I agree with you implicit assumptions here: our current culture has taken a shift (very much so for the worse) away from the age of the written word and to the dominance of the image. You suggest (as others do) that this is actually some sort of sad devolving back to the pre-Guttenberg era. Again, I agree. I have a decent (but very brief) article that I had published locally on the very subject that I can send you if you like. Let us be clear though: the problem is not the use of an image over the word, but the tendency of that use to denigrate communication away from ideas that are dealt with and into mere impressions that are simply received (for amusement... i.e. Amusing Ourselves to Death). If you are not convinced yet that I am in agreement with you on the sad turns of Popular Culture (I am trying to establish our agreement here without walking through the long discussion itself), then perhaps this will help: I am an avid listener and supporter of Mars Hill Audio Journal, and, quite literally, All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes changed my life as my thinking changed on popular culture and our interaction in it.
Ok, so we agree that pop culture has today denigrated the written word and the visual image has usurped control of much of media. This is bad because in that process in general we’ve lost the interaction of complex ideas and slumped to merely receiving entertainment. Here’s the problem – I don’t think Gibson’s film, as a particular, is going to fit nicely into this paradigm. Certainly as part of the larger whole (it is a film, after all) this and all films are part of the larger movement of the takeover of the image going on today. But what I am going to argue is that this film is not part of the movement that specifically demands a post-literate public and worships the image over the idea as opposed to the image as a means of conveyance of the idea.
Here is your full statement to that effect: “My chief objection to the film lies in its pedestrian use of the image. In that way, the film seems to attempt to function as an icon painting or a grisly medieval altarpiece. He fails to consider his literate audience and the age in which we live. Icon paintings and the images of suffering that adorned church walls had the aim of cautioning and educating the parishioners who were largely illiterate and who were just coming to acquire written language, thanks to good ole Gutenberg. Gibson's audience has the benefit of widespread literacy and unprecedented access to scripture, and the responsibility to read and understand the word. Gibson allows the "masses" (who I assume he considers lazy) to skate by with reading the image _he_ constructs on-screen.”
There is a lot going on here. For one, your commentary on medieval iconography (“Icon paintings and the images of suffering that adorned church walls had the aim of cautioning and educating the parishioners”) seems a little bold, does it not? Is it not even possible that the parishioners of the medieval church understood something of the importance of Christ, His death and resurrection, and these icons and paintings could be expressions of beauty, art, and aesthetics attempts towards the worship of this God and veneration of these events? Do we have to so debase the use of the image that it is always and only used as a scare tactic or blunt educational (or perhaps you mean indoctranation?) tool for those lowly “illiterates”? Better, what I am questioning is this: Does the use of the image to communicate always have to assume illiteracy or a debased understanding of the principle ideas? Clearly no. And you, most certainly, would agree. You after all appreciate and enjoy the medium of film. My problem with your analysis, then, is that you are the one making the assumptions (not Mel). You assume that his use of the image (I assume as opposed to Monet’s or Da Vinci’s) is this type of “pedestrian use of the image” that you (and I, for that matter) are so against. You just simply assume this, you do not argue for it. You just assert: “the film seems to attempt to function as an icon painting or a grisly medieval altarpiece”. Again, as I’ve already commented, I think you are making quite a jump (and insult?) to all medieval icon paintings and “grisly” (I’d call some of them beautiful) medieval altarpieces by assuming that THEY are all examples of this “pedestrian use of the image.” But, even if THEY are “Pedestrian” uses (which I am not willing to grant), you never make an argument to show us how Mel’s use of the image is in the same boat.
Again, here is your assertion: “He fails to consider his literate audience and the age in which we live.” Really? How do you know this? I did not see that this film assumed I was literate, educated on theology and philosophy, and understood at a fairly high level of thought the radical concepts of the crucifixion of the holy incarnate God. Nor did I see that this film assumed I was illiterate, uneducated on theological and philosophical concepts, and did not understand the meaning of the crucifixion. It did neither. For you to assume it did one or the other is going to require a strong case on your part (and you’ll have to defend how you can deduce this was the film’s intent). This film presented the story and the idea of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The lynchpin and single most important even in all of history. Some who view this film will have deep understandings of the idea it is presenting. Some will not. Just as some who view an icon painting in a cathedral have an understanding of the idea behind it and some do not.
After you make this unjustified assumption about the film your entire analysis follows. Actually, in essence, you even say that very thing, “After making this assumption, he constructs his film using the same methods and techniques as every other latest blockbuster.” Did he make the assumption? Or are you the one assuming that he did. Prove that he made the assumption of the “illiteracy” of the audience, and then I’ll address your resulting analysis (which all based off of that unfounded assumption).
Incidentally -- and I’m sure we’ll get to them -- I find your arguments after this point to be grossly unfair to the Passion and based off of this terrible initial prejudice you had of the film. With every scene in this film which presents a powerful statement about Christian theology, instead of seeing that idea, you assumed some low form of image parading.
You write (for example), “He references his own films in the most pious manner - Lethal Weapon in the initial chaining of Jesus, the shoulder dislocation scene and the showering/baptism of the guard, and Braveheart in countless images of torture.” Give me a break. Shoulder dislocations commonly happened during crucifixions. Are you actually claiming that Mel intentionally put that dislocation in the film so has to hearken back to, and egotistically give himself a little nod, his film Lethal Weapon from 1987? Yes, you are actually claiming that, and, frankly, I find it absurd. The chaining of Jesus is a reference to Lethal Weapon? Andy, they captured Jesus in the garden and took him away. That they chained Jesus is a perfectly justified historical speculation. But you are so clearly anti-Gibson from the outset you assume this chaining scene is Mel trying to connect viewers back to his 1987 action flick. And, wait just a minute here, the showering of the blood and water of Christ after he was pierced by the Roman soldier is yet another attempt by Mel to give himself a pat on the back for Lethal Weapon? Come on, you have to see how ridiculous such a claim is. The piercing of Christ’s dead body on the cross and the flow of the blood and water that followed is a powerful moment in the story of the crucifixion that we all know validated his undeniable physical death. It, in itself, is a vital idea fulfilling prophecy concerning Christ and an important moment for believers in our Christ’s passion. That this filmmaker takes this flow of blood and water and speculates that it fell upon the solider that pierced him (which is a perfectly valid assumption) is a POWERFUL statement about what the crucifixion means. The very soldiers who killed the Messiah, the very ones who spilt his blood, are the very people that Christ’s blood was spilt for. Christ died for those Roman soldiers. That his blood actually falls (showers) down upon that soldier is a compelling visual image portrayal of this incredible idea of God’s grace that “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” It is a powerful picture of the idea that “while we were still God’s enemy’s, he loved us and died for us.” Did you not see here (right before this scene) Christ call out to the Father and ask him to forgive these men for they knew not what they do? Are not each one of us these soldiers? The facial expressions on the guards themselves, who moments earlier were sadistically executing a man, signal to us that they come to realize that something is different here. Perhaps this man really is who he says he is (the Gospels tell us the story of the Roman guard who came to this realization and said it out loud). Does not this powerful artistic portrayal of this idea of God’s amazing grace stir you? And is not that exactly what ART does?
But, no, you would not have seen that powerful message in that scene. Because you had already assumed that this film was a debased pedestrian use of the image – not art. Thus, when you saw this scene (the showering of the blood of Christ upon the very one who spilt it), instead of seeing the incredible concept of Christ’s blood spilt for his enemies and God’s amazing grace towards us, as I did (and I was deeply moved by it), you saw… it is hard to believe… a throw back to some stupid 80s action movie.
I could go on. I think my point is clear. If you 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. Instead, since you assume that the film will not do that, I suppose you look for possible connections to Hollywood movies. Thank you for those (and the others) that you pointed out. But I, for one, actually think that Gibson was trying to present the ideas of the Christian faith through this medium of film. If you go into the movie with the open mind that the film even could potentially do this – you’d be amazed at what treasures you find therein.
You write, “Gibson engages in the worst elements of popular culture for the greatest of goals.” And we simply disagree. Gibson is a modern day artist. Instead of paintbrushes or musical notes he uses wind-angle lenses and make-up artists as his tools. And this artist painted us a striking, moving, and deep theological statement about the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. Is it somehow definitive? No. But let us add it to the long line of outstanding pieces of expression (a.k.a. “Art”) we have on the cross of our lord that have gone before. Like the Bach piece I mentioned in my previous post, this film is yet one more outstanding resource for us to connect to and understand the cross of Christ.
posted by BJS at
11:20:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home