Subject: The Passion of the Christ
From: Michael Todd [michael_xavier@yahoo.com]

When I am deciding on whether I am going to watch a movie, often, I have pattern. First, I will check out rottentomatoes, noting the percentage of whether the critics are ripping a particular film to shreds or not. Then, because I have found that our tastes are similar, I will check out your website and read through your review.

This past weekend, I did go see The Passion of the Christ. I checked your website several times, more or less, out of curiousity as to how you would review the film. I have been reading you for at least four years, and I am familiar with what you have written regarding religion in the past, so I was expecting you to come down on the film, but I did find your bias a bit saddening.

The film was not a movie. It wasn't meant to entertain. I was not entertained by it. Obviously, I'm a Christian, but I was more interested in what Gibson would do with the story.

In my opinion, Christians far too often rely on media to teach and propogate what they ought to live. What I mean is that in Sunday school classes, professionals, blue-collar persons, and the retired, teach classes using material from their particular denominational publishing house. Often, they review the material that they teach on Saturday night, only to come into the class and recite directly from the mediocrely written course work. They use videos from Dr. James Dobson, or from any other number of sources. Believe it or not, within the Evangelical Christian sub-culture, there is even a video series that teaches Bible principles using 30 minute episodes of The Andy Griffith Show. Thus, with all the hype, I dread this movie being used as yet another media tool, in an increasingly, numb and luke-warm Christian world.

Surprisingly, I was impressed by the film. The scourging of Christ was no near as graphic as my mind had imagined it. What caught me, was the play-up of the Son's relationship with the Father. Gibson did a phenomenal job of playing up that Jesus was doing the will of the Father. As Christians, that is what those who profess Christ are to do. The reason Jesus behaved as he did, was because he was doing the will of the Father. It may sound asinine, but that is what makes the movie special. In my opinion, it is what makes it spiritual.

I still lament that I live and work with Christians who chose to believe in a Christ that shows them eternal life, but fail to see Christ as an example of how to live. The man was disciplined by solitude and silence, prayer, fasting, simple and sacrificial living, instense study of God's Word and God's ways, and service to others. The reason He did those things, and the reason His followers should do likewise, is not because it is good to do pious acts, but because these things draw you into a closer relationship with the Spirit. They help you operate under the will of the Father.

There is this aspect of you, that if you are a Christian that you are to draw into. Each person has a body, a soul, and a spirit. Most, especially Christians, cannot distinguish the difference between a person's soul and a person's spirit, but it exists. The soul is the seat of a person's emotion, will, and intellect. The spirit is the seat of a person's intuition, conscience, and communion. God calls each human into a life of communion with Him, but this requires using an aspect of the soul, volition, to move the soul and body toward the spirit, where God communes.

Regardless, I do not wish to reproof you, or even give you a Bible thumping. I was just attempting to explain why I was impressed with the film. Though I fear that it will continue to permit lazy Christians, yet another distraction and replacement from actually studying and applying God's Word to their life, it is still a powerful witness, and looking at from the inside out, it was well-done, and I suspect that it should be one of the top money earners of all time.

I don't expect you to view it again, or change your mind, or alter your review. You watched it. You're smart. You have the website, I don't. Other than attempting to explain why this movie is powerful to Christians, I just wanted to write to say that I expected a bit more out you than the blatant and scathing bias of the review you posted. You are still who you are, and outside of a film such as this, I will probably go back to my old pattern: check out rottentomatoes, see if it has a fresh rating, and then read what you have to say.

Saddened, But Still a Fan,

Michael Todd

I respond:

You've confirmed what I suggested in my review: that only devout Christians will find anything to appreciate in this film. You have to already believe in "the will of the Father" to see such a thing at play in the film -- I certainly didn't see it.

I'm sorry you were saddened by my review, but if you've read my other reviews that touch on religion, I'm not sure what else you could have been expecting. How unbiased would you be in your reaction to a film by a devout Muslim filmmaker who presented as fact that Jesus was NOT the son of god?

The reader responds:

I used to be a nontheist, and though I was not religious, I saw something special in certain people's lives who were. I studied, and I observed, and though I complained, asked questions, and was sometimes frustratingly critical, I always respected them. There has been some phenomenal Christian minds.

I agree with you though. The film does not do a good job of setting up why Jesus was so despised by the Jewish religious officials. Yes, they wanted a military leader. Yes, they were fanatical legalists, who lacked compassion. Yes, they had their fair share of interactions with this rabbi over the course of his ministry, several times attempting to capture Him and deal with Him earlier, but the main thing that He aggitated them with was His claims of Godhood.

The man stood up on the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles, in front of tens of thousands of Jews, right before they poured water down, symbolizing, God, the living water, and proclaimed to them that He was the living water. He consistenlty taught that He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Eat Him, and Drink of Him. They failed as many do, to see through His indirect forms of communication, that there is a spiritual life, and there is spiritual nourishment. Yes, the movie just throws you there; I disrespect it for that.

What I expected out of you was a little respect. I'm a human being. I may sound retarded in what I am talking about, I am not sure, but I think I am competent, and I just expected a little more fair-minded approach. It's ok. Like I said, I still like your reviews. I enjoy your writing. But in my opinion, you let The Passion, get you so empassioned, that you crossed the line of reasonableness.

The Life of Brian is great. After making the Holy Grail, Cleese and Palin said they wanted to do a film mocking Christ. After examining the Scriptures, they decided they couldn't mock Him, He was too cool. So, they mocked everything around Him. I love the film, and I respect how they approached the material. It is irreverent, but it is still sensitive to what matters -- the person of Christ.

Don't bend over backwards for Christians or fundies. Be honest and earnest, don't hold back. And maybe I shouldn't have wrote you, but I just felt you weren't fair, or sensitive to the power of the material.

Thanks for responding. I feel honored.

Grace and Peace,

Michael Todd

I respond:

I respect everyone's right to believe whatever they want to believe, as long as they aren't using those beliefs to hurt others. But I cannot automatically extend respect to the belief itself, not if I consider it ludicrous.

I do respect the power a belief can wield, especially religious belief, and it scares me. It's one of the primary causes of misery, violence, and oppression in the world.

The reader responds:

I agree. Fanaticism and fundamentalism are wholly dangerous. Thanks for the talk. I respect your opinions, and if you ever wish to chat, man, I've got a ton of weird (ahem... I mean good) ideas.

Subject: Christ Reviews
From: Johnny Bravo [orangutan@optonline.net]

I just read your three reviews (Passion, Temptation & Brian. Sounds kinda like a 70's disco band, doesn't it?) and I just had to tell you that I love you. I haven't laughed like this in a while. Beautiful, just beautiful. Confirmed my suspicions of Passion, made me actually want to see Temptation and caused to me berate myself because Brian isn't in my DVD collection. Thanks again for doing what you do.

P.S. - I don't mean 'love' in a creepy kind of way, I mean it in a 'I love this chick, you gotta go check out her webpage' kind of way. ;-)

Subject: your review of The Passion
From: Kenneth Locke [klocke@uidaho.edu]

Thank you so much for your reviews of both Passion of the Christ and Life of Brian. I just watched both films as well! Watching the Passion was made me feel assaulted by something irrational and malevolent, not unlike how I felt in the days after 9-11. After those attacks, I remember desperately seeking opportunities to affirm that my world was also a world of reason, kindness, and beauty. Feeling somewhat the same after watching the Passion, desperately needing some joyous lunacy to "cleanse me", I went in search of... Life of Brian. Apparently not being the first person to have this impulse, all the DVDs were out; however, miraculously (hee hee), there was still an old VHS tape. And as I watched it, I was feeling: Hallelujah, thank you, Monty Python! And thanks to you too, MaryAnn, for sharing your intelligence and humor... our world needs it!

Subject: Quote of the day
From: Philip Barron

"But I guess once you start talking to an invisible superhero who lives in the sky and can see you all the time -- even in the bathroom -- reason and logic kinda go out the window."

Priceless. But brace youself for a hail of brickbats.

I respond:

None yet.

I can't take total credit for that line -- I read some variation on it at some freethought or atheism site. But I'm all about spreading the meme.

From: David Hess [bojesa@sbcglobal.net]

Great Passion article Mary Ann,

You couldn't be more on about Temptation and Brian. My question is why? Why did Gibson do it? Maybe he considers himself an acolyte in the making. He's certainly getting vilified in certain circles. Anti-semitic...the world of Anno Domini's had a problem forever. That aint gonna change. But, no, I don't think he's an anti-semite. I think he's a zealot. His father, on the other hand, has some major statements to answer for. Hopefully the film will trigger an antiviolence reaction. Nice part of the whole process is that New Yorkers don't consider themselves a part of main stream thinking. I've had a little experience with making violent films...or antiviolent if you will. Visit my website, it addresses this issue and more. davidhess.com. Thanks again for the review!

I respond:

Why did Gibson do it? Cuz he's insane, and wealthy enough to do whatever the hell he wants to do (he financed the film himself) and get away with being merely "eccentric."

Subject: "Passion of the Christ" review
From: Webb, Althea [altheaw@mail.smu.edu]

I just wanted to say thanks for the "Passion of the Christ" review. It was more than a review, you articulated beautifully some of the things I've been thinking. Of course I can hash it over with my friends, but what a great forum you have to show people what thinking for yourself is like!

It occurred to me that if Mel G. would have shown his film without a musical soundtrack, the reaction might have been very different. Music practically creates your emotional response to what you're seeing. What would the Jesus freaks have thought about seeing the blood and violence without the requisite dramatic score, shoving you in the direction the director wants, which I assume is to be moved, uplifted, and inclined to drop into your local church on the way home?

You write good. I'm grateful to my friend for sending me the link to the LotR drinking game. Think I'll go rent "Life of Brian" this weekend. Thanks again.

I respond:

Glad you liked the review.

I can't imagine how anyone could be uplifted by this film, even with its emotional score. But I'm weird that way.

Subject: Yes, yes, but...what about Caleb Deschanel??
From: Bill McClain [alumshubby@earthlink.net]

Whew, I'm still reeling from that review of /The Passion of the Christ/. Thanks a lot for telling it straight. Were people actually CHEERING as Christ was crucified? That's just too much! I can think of a lot of emotions that would go thru me watching that scene, but elation is NOT one of them.

Unlike you (I think), I'm a believer, but I'm not sure I want (or need, thankyouverymuch Mel) to plunk down good cash money to watch my Savior tortured for two hours -- and there's NO WAY I'd take anyone younger than about 18 to see something like this anyway; it'd be way too traumatic. I completely agree with you about the ratings hypocrisy. I'll never figure out why full female frontal nudity gets an R but if we see a guy's whoozis it's an instant NC-17. Like we wouldn't recognize the plumbing or something?

That being said, what did you think of Caleb Deschanel's cinematography? I remember how I'd first noticed his work in /The Natural/ and again in /The Right Stuff/; I think he's amazing. Ummmm, were you able to peek thru your fingers long enough to say whether this film looked any good? I love the way the man can use shadows for depth - everything he shoots comes out with this beautiful, almost rococo feel to it. Again, I'm not sure I'd pay money to see his work in this movie given the unrelenting grimness.

P.S.

"it sends up the entire concept of blasphemy as nothing but an idea's method of self-preservation"

Oooooooh, good one! May I borrow that?

I respond:

I attended a press-only screening on opening day, and no one was cheering there. But all you need to do is watch the fawning media coverage of the film to see audiences reacting like that.

Deschanel's cinematography was quite striking, but that's like saying, oh, that the gas ovens at Auschwitz were well designed. If anything, the well-executed technical aspects of the film only make it worse, because you can't dismiss it as a poorly production piece of crap -- it's an extremely well-produced piece of crap.

And yes, you may steal my lines. :->

Subject: Oh no, not another response to your Passion review
From: Mark Cabrera [mcabrer6@bellsouth.net]

I just wanted to give my two-cents (like Ken Brachman) to your movie review. I have a couple of disclaimers:

1) I am a born-again Christian (or "Jesus Freak," as you say)

2) I haven't seen the movie yet (but will Sunday)

My response is interspersed:

"its gruesome violence is far more graphic and depicted with far more intent to tantalize and titillate. "

Although I think even violence can have a point in movies, I think the problem comes is when we get desensitized to it. Nowadays, it's not enough if we say or imply "Bob got his head bashed in with a bat," but instead, we he have to see it for ourselves to believe it in order to have any sympathy for the situation. I really think this is our modern-day obsession with ultra-realism. We watch "reality" shows, play ultra-realistic video games, listen to songs that talk about what we go through (instead of songs that talk about what we WANT to go through).

"I can't see how any loving parents could let their child see this film... but then again, . . ."

On that first part, I'd have to agree. I saw Scarface when I was 5 years old and it really took the fun out of my childhood.

"Is the film anti-Semitic? I have to admit that I don't understand the question. Sure, Gibson gives us a bloodthirsty crowd of hypocritical Jews, calling for the Romans to crucify Jesus because they can't do it themselves: their temple laws forbid putting a man to death, but apparently do not forbid demanding that someone else put a man to death."

From your review, it doesn't sound like it. It seems the Jews and the Romans of that time were having a field day with him. My understanding is that the 70-man religious tribunal (the Sadducees) could not sentence a man to death, but can ask that the romans put them on trial in order to do so.

"Oh, and Jesus does tell Pilate, who apologizes for having to execute him, that "he who has delivered me to you has the greatest sin," meaning, of course, it's all the fault of the Jews."

All of the Jews? Or maybe he was referring to the ones that were actually there? Or maybe he was referring to Judas? I'd have to read this.

"But I don't get the anti-Semitism thing for a couple of reasons. First, since when is guilt hereditary? Even if the Jews of A.D. 33 did kill Jesus, how does that make all Jews everywhere guilty?"

Good point. The other point to raise is that why aren't the descendants of the Romans held accountable for this as well? If somebody is going to blame this on the Jews, then the Italians should have the blame as well.

I've met a Holocaust denier before, and people of those ilk will give you all sorts of "proof" to justify what they believe. After my experience with him, I've come to the conclusion is that their beliefs have preceded any kind of proof. So it is with anti-semites. Even if the New Testament never existed, they'd still be around. Anyone remember Haman?

"Oh, but I forgot: the Jesus freaks think we all inherited the "guilt" of a woman who ate an apple 6,000 years ago, so never mind."

Who taught you the Bible and why aren't the arrested? Seriously, it was not just a woman. Adam was just as complicit, and when they were hiding, God was looking for him and him alone. Also, in Paul's letters, Paul essentially says that Jesus came to undo the mistake that Adam made.

It's amazing that you seem to have contempt for Jesus, yet if you've read the Gospels, it'd seem (from your writings) like he'd be your type of person for the following reasons:

1) Dislike of religious hypocrisy and hypocrites. The only group he really butted heads with were the religious authorities, due to their lack of compassion and pretense.

2) Treatment of women. Don't you remember the women he met? The prostitutes, adulterers, etc? He had nothing but compassion for them in a society that treated them like dogs. Also, the first person to meet Jesus after the resurrection was a woman. This is significant, for this occured in a society where the legal testimony of one man was enough to consider him a witness, but that of two women were needed to do the same. "But there's this, too: Didn't Jesus have to die, according to his fans? Didn't someone have to kill him? Shouldn't these people be thanking whomever killed Jesus?"

The Bible is full of stories about how person X was wronged, but God used such sin in that person's life. For instance, Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers, but he eventually rose through the ranks and became prime minister of Egypt. In my own life, I'm a descendant of Spanish Jews who were kicked out of Spain to Nicaragua. Eventually, my bloodline found its way here (yay). Do I want to go back to Nicaragua or even Spain? No indeed. Do I like what the Inquisition did? Not at all.

But am I thankful that the Inquisition threw my family out and that Jesus was murdered? Yes, I am.

Did the Jews do it? Along with the Romans, and whoever else was there at that time. Do I hold them accountable for it today? Heck no. If there's anything a Christian OUGHT to believe is that if Jesus had walked around in modern times in, let's say, New Orleans, LA, then he'd be having a problem with Southern Baptists (like me), and we (including me) would have asked for him to die.

And in the spiritual sense, I believe that it was I and anyone else who sinned who put him up there.

"It makes no sense that Christians should punish the very people who supposedly gave them their savior."

I've been to several churches, and not one of them preached any kind of anti-semitic message, nor did I ever hear any comments (except from one person, who told some jokes, but she was a moron). I'm in the "racist" deep south, btw.

Is such anti-semitism common where you are?

"Wasn't the whole thing prearranged and preordained by God, anyway? Shouldn't God be the one who's blamed or thanked?"

That's one of the big points. Paul was hounded to no end ever since he converted. Did he hate the Romans or Jews for it? No, he praised God for it.

"There's no reason or logic to it."

MaryAnn, I consider myself an intellectual. But, when I try to use my intellect to figure out my problems in life (i e, why am I so this that, etc), it ends up giving me trouble. But when I simply believe God when He says He loves and accepts me, then it makes things a whole lot better. Our logic and reason are limited and weak, and I am thankful that the God I worship is beyond that. Otherwise, He couldn't have the impact that He does in my life.

"I've seen not one suggestion anywhere, in all the media's fawning delirium over this film,"

They really like it? This is the second review I've read for this film, and the previous one was negative about it, too.

"that perhaps Jesus never existed or, if he did, was nothing but a crazy guy who roamed the desert, got his brain a little too sunbaked, and merely thought he was God. And there's been not one scrap of discussion about whether his legacy has been something we could have done without."

There's been a fun-ton on that topic. Go to your nearest university.

Well, that's my take on the whole thing. Please don't think I'm defending this movie, or even Jesus (Peter tried that). As far as the movie goes, I don't know what to expect. I'm not the type to get swept up in the groupthink that affects many of my fellow believers (there, I've said it), nor think of things like this as if they were sacrosanct. There's a lot of stuff in the Christendom that people think are sacred but really aren't (ie music, books, etc), and they get offended if you believe otherwise.

I am concerned about Mel Gibson's beliefs about the Holocaust, b/c he doesn't believe it targeted the Jews. I've been to the Jewish Heratage Museum in your city, and saw many of the little yellow stars that say "Jew" in many languages, and I think someone like him needs to see that.

Well, I'm sure you've read enough. Thanks for hearing me out.

Peace.

I respond:

I've come to the conclusion is that their beliefs have preceded any kind of proof.

The same could be said about the beliefs of Christians, or indeed those of any religious-minded people.

Who taught you the Bible and why aren't the arrested? Seriously, it was not just a woman. Adam was just as complicit, and when they were hiding, God was looking for him and him alone. Also, in Paul's letters, Paul essentially says that Jesus came to undo the mistake that Adam made.

That's your refutation of my disdain for the concept of original sin? That would be like me saying, "No, no, no: the invisible unicorn who sits on my shoulder and whispers in my ear isn't *purple,* it's *pink*!" The concept of hereditary guilt is still weird.

It's amazing that you seem to have contempt for Jesus,

Who said I have contempt for Jesus? The character of Jesus is mostly a pretty cool guy. I have contempt for the concepts of gods and for all manner of superstitious thinking.

Is such anti-semitism common where you are?

I didn't say it was. I merely discussed my contempt for the idea of hereditary guilt. Certainly the idea that the film is anti-Semitic is not my own -- it's only all over much of the discussion about the film.

trouble. But when I simply believe God when He says He loves and accepts me, then it makes things a whole lot better.

Wishful thinking doesn't make something true. Blue pill or red pill? I'd rather take dismal, hard reality than a pleasant fantasy.

They really like it? This is the second review I've read for this film, and the previous one was negative about it, too.

I was referring to the news coverage of the film, not the reviews of the film. (There are plenty positive reviews, by the way.)

There's been a fun-ton on that topic. Go to your nearest university.

Way to take something out of context. I haven't seen any skeptical approaches to the idea of Jesus in the media coverage of this film.

Peace to you, too. Jesus isn't necessary for it, though.

The reader responds:

Never would have figured a site as popular as yours would allow you to reply so promptly. Thanks.

The same could be said about the beliefs of Christians, or indeed those of any religious-minded people.

True. But, as far as I'm concerned, there are some things you know, but can't prove. That's why I don't go around trying to proving what I believe to be true.

Way to take something out of context. I haven't seen any skeptical approaches to the idea of Jesus in the media coverage of this film.

I didn't know you were referring to the media. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I respond:

If things that we know but can't prove are valid, then will you accept the truth of the invisible purple unicorn that sits on my shoulder and instructs me in my daily life? I mean, I can't *prove* it's there -- I just know it.

The reader responds:

Could I disprove it?

I respond:

Could you? And is "disproof" required? Isn't the suggestion absurd on its face, and isn't that enough?

The reader responds:

Well, I'll admit, you got me. My arguments have been pretty weak lately, maybe due to the cold I've been having or the fact that my debate skills have gotten weak. I used to have near screaming debates on topics like this, but realized that it's no use if all I do is hurt people's feelings.

As far as knowing something without proof, MaryAnn, well, this is why I no longer feel the need to be God's bulldog anymore because I can't prove my experiences with Him. I leave that to Him now. But I do believe that this phenomenon is not limited to such things as lofty as the existence of God, but is something we do experience everyday.

Remember "Contact?" I wasn't the biggest fan of the movie, but if anything was worth my $6, it was how Matthew McCoughnehey (sp? SP?!) showed Jodie Foster how it's just as hard to prove God's existence as it is to prove that she loved her father. This even goes with less sublime things, like letting banks handle our money (will it bust?), driving over bridges (will it collapse?), or even speaking with people (do they mean what they say?).

So, that's why I believe what I believe.

My whole point on writing to you was never to convince you that there is a God. Like I said, that's His job. My purpose was to correct some misconceptions you had in regards to the tenents of the Christian faith.

For example, the point of me referencing the Bible was not so that you believe (I knew you didn't believe the bible is the word of God, MaryAnn), but to let you know that some of your assumptions about what Christianity is about (like Eve having total blame for the fall of man) were not part of Christian doctrine. It would be like me saying that Buddhists believe that eating oranges while standing on your head is the key to enlightenment, but having an actual Buddhist correct me on this.

Well, like Ken Brachman, that's my $0.02.

How many emails do you get? And how do you find time to respond to them? It's a definite sell for your site.

I respond:

You've got the wrong analogy with *Contact* (as did the film itself). A fair analogue to "Prove God exists" is NOT "Prove you love your dad" but "Prove your dad exists." I have no doubt that you actually do *love* this idea you call God, just as I have no doubt that people *feel* all sorts of things. Because you *can* prove that all sorts of emotions exist: through inference -- people behave as if they feel the things they say they're feeling, enough of the time for us to form a basis for understanding these feelings; through our own experience as humans -- if I'm a human being and I feel certain things, it's safe to assume that at least some other humans some of the time are feeling similar things as I am; our consciousness likely developed out the social necessity to figure out what other people were thinking and feeling and to mold our own behavior to that; and through concrete scientific methods: we can map out how brain activity corresponds with particular emotions. But you cannot prove that the object of your love exists. How do you know it isn't all in your head? Would you honestly give me the benefit of the doubt if I insisted I was in communication with a flying magenta transdimensional bunny rabbit from the year 3856? How many people would it take to insist they also talk to the bunny before it becomes plausible? A hundred? A thousand? A million? Does the bunny only exist if enough people talk to it?

It must be a terrifying world you live in, if you have nothing to rely on but sheer faith that a bridge you're driving over won't collapse.

I get tons of emails, and I try to answer as many as I can.

04.08.04

newer mail | to batch #2