Subject: Your review of THE PASSION
From: Nathan Scoll [nathan_scoll@hotmail.com]

Let me start of by saying that I've read your reviews since the blurb in Time (or was it Newsweek?) a few years back that alerted me to your page. Even when I disagree with you, you make for engaging reading. But there were th8ings which I think went a little too far in your review of The Passion that I wanted to address. As I normally can shrug off anti-Christian rhetoric for what it usually is, there was a particular nastiness to your tone that didn't sit well with me, not only as a person of faith, but as a human being who respects our right and capacity to esposuse different ideologies, frustrating though many of those may be. To posit that all Christians are (in your terminology) "Jesus Freaks" is as insulting and illogical an assertion that (as you rightly debunk) all Jews are exclusively culpable for the death of Christ. Or to put this in real world terms, that all Muslims are responsible for 9/11. Contrary to what the Bush administration would likely have us believe, most of humanity obviously doesn't believe this to be the case, just as the majority of Christians don't use theo-political facets of Rome at the time of Christ's death to justify or excuse anti-semitism. Many denominations of Christians don't believe in the concept of original sin that you so condescendingly refer to either. I think there's a danger in making sweeping generalizations about peoples' beliefs as you've so brazenly done, just as there are dangers in making any kind of mass-generalization. I wouldn't expect you to issue an apology (it doesn't seem your style), but thought you might like to know that there are probably large portions of your readership who dislike your tone and find it offensive. I respect your right of Atheism, but do you really need to blanket people who do happen to believe in an "invisible superhero in the sky" as idiots to justify that belief? A lot of people who are far more intellectually gifted than either of us (Einstein for example) have fervently believed in that "superhero" and I think if nothing else, out of respect for their minds as well as those often devout minds from various faiths of those who've enriched much of humanity's culture and existance, you may want to adopt a less malicious tone, even if you don't agree with the veracity of some of which they believe. I must add that I find it ironic that someone such as yourself who has such an abiding and incandescant love of Tolkien, fantasy and superhero movies that you would begrudge others their belief in the supernatural and/or divine. Anyway, I'll shut up now. Thanks for your time if you're still reading this, and (as I also read your review of Havana Nights) please do yourself the favor at some point and see the first Dirty Dancing. It's WAY better than it should be, and is just really rich in a lot of ways.

I respond:

I respect the right of everyone to believe whatever they want to believe, as long as they're not hurting anyone. I simply don't think those *beliefs* automatically deserve respect.

If it's a "sweeping generalization" to suggest that people who talk to a carpenter who died 2000 years ago -- assuming he ever even existed at all -- are a little odd, in spite of whatever other splendid qualities they may have, then so be it.

Where's the irony in being a fan of fantasy and also denying the truth of religious beliefs? I'm not worshipping Frodo or demanding that everyone follow the tenets laid down by Clark Kent. I'm not killing anyone in the name of the Dread Pirate Westley or insisting that nonbelievers must obey the precepts of Merlin. I don't *believe* in these things as *real.* They're just stories -- good ones, valuable ones, important ones. But still only stories. What a bizarre comparison, and an ironic one: It's probably *because* of my love of fantasy that I've read so much mythology, which shows up exactly how the story of Jesus is patterned on far more ancient mythological structures.

The reader responds:

Perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of your argument: i felt the sweeping generalization to be that believers are stupid, not merely odd.

As for the fantasy thing, my point in bringing it up was that religion, like fantasy is generally something that enriches the lives of those who enjoy it and doesn't mean that they take to acting it out on others in negative capacities. Yes, I am aware of the crusades and jihads, but most mondern day Jews, Christians, Muslims, Krishnas, (or Trekkies for that matter), et. al, don't violently try to convert others to thier way of thinking. As I see it, you have the utmost respect for "geeks" (since this is how you often refer to them), but slim-to-none for Christians and ostensibly those of other faiths, and I guess I'm just curious why you can't see the religious as as something akin to fantasy enthusiasts. I just see that as something of a paradox, but it's your perogative one way or the other.

I respond:

You don't seriously think that being a fan of fantasy stories is akin to genuinely following the tenets of a religion, do you? No Trekkie, for instance, really believes that the Enterprise is real and that Captain Kirk (or Archer or whoever) really exists. I'd think anybody who believed such a thing was nutty, too. It has nothing to do with doing bad things -- it has to do with being able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality. And there certainly are plenty of people told trying to force their religion down the throats of nonbelievers, from that wacky judge in Alabama with his Ten Commandments statue to Osama Bin Laden.

The reader responds:

All I know is I've seen the doc Trekkies and there are some people in there who seem to have a hard time separating fantasy from reality (the one juror for instance, the tranny who sings the kilngon song, etc.). I also know people who play Everquest for most of their waking hours and prefer to be referred to by their gaming names. Is this the same thing as religion? No. Is it similar in it's zeal, amount of time devoted to the practice, etc.? I think so. Is it weird? undoubtedly. Personally, I think it's a little weirder that religion, but yeah, I'm biased. I also wouldn't make the conclusion that all people who like Star Trek or who play Everquest are crazy as a result of the more extreme elements in each's fan base.

On a separate note, since you brought it up, all kinds of people try and ram thier beliefs down peoples'throats, be it "that wacky judge in Alabama with his ten commandments statue" , that wacky judge up here where I live in San Francisco who's bucking the law in the same manner with the Gay marriages, internet film critics calling religious people stupid, or the readers who question them about the ramifications of their reviews. There are more extreme and less benign examples certainly (i.e. Bin Laden), but the whole point I'm addressing is as long as those ideological tenets are respectful of others' ideologies, why do we need to call names? You may feel that Gibson's film (which I actually have no interest in seeing; I agree with your points and your preference of "Last Temptation") is flawed and irresponsible, and even downright hokey, but to call names or pass judgements on people for their beliefs in a malicious manner just seems a bit out of line and to do a disservice to your generally fine criticism.

I respond:

I've seen *Trekkies* too, of course. All you're doing is pointed out the validity of my point, about recognizing the difference between fantasy and reality. People who think *Trek* is real are not geeks -- they're nutjobs. People who cannot separate Everquest from the real world are not geeks -- they're looney. Most *Trek* fans, most Everquest fans, most fans of anything we typically label fantasy are able to separate it from reality. But anyone who calls himself a Christian is, by default, saying he believes in the divinity of a carpenter and preacher who lived 2000 years ago, a supposition for which there is absolutely no evidence apart from the very writings of that preacher's followers. It's fantasy unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. Which it can't.

Debate is not ramming anything down anyone's throat, nor is calling a spade a spade. Atheist film critics who call believers crazy aren't forcing people at gunpoint, or under penality of law, to accept what they're saying. As for the ten-commandments judge verses the gay-marrying mayor... the difference is that one is trying to bring his religion into a civic, governmental space where it is forbidden by the Constitution, and the other is an act of civil disobedience designed to combat an intrusion of religion into the civic space. There is no reason other than religion, which should have no place in the issue as a civil matter, to forbid gays and lesbians to enjoy the same legal benefits of marriage as straight couples. Bush calling for a constitutional amendment to restrict the civil contract of marriage to opposite-sex couples is him attempting to force his religion down the the throats of all Americans, regardless of whether they themselves are adherents of his religion. The only converse situation would be if civil libertarians wanted to force everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation or religious beliefs, to marry someone of the same sex.

The reader responds:

See Denys Arcynd's JESUS OF MONTREAL sometime I prefer iit to LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST in many ways and think you'd find it worthwhile (it's not religious propaganda; it's a secular, artistically centered meditation, but really really good).

I respond:

Yes, I've seen it, and I highly recommend it.

Subject: As an Episcopalian...
From: Anne-Kari

... I do, of course, "buy into" the story of Jesus. I will not, however, EVER go see "The Passion", for many of the reasons stated in your review and because of good old Mel's rep as a truly freaky religious looney - and in no small part, Mel's looney dad. Now, I don't normally let the politics and religious affiliations of filmmakers/actors/etc affect my movie-going choices, but in this case the film seems like a particularly egregious example of lunatic ego and fanaticism run rampant.

I am getting a lot of flack from some of my fellow parishioners because I refuse to see this movie, but that's nothing new for me - I also refuse to baptise my children, as I was never baptised until, as an informed adult, I made a concious choice. To me, it makes no sense to force a religious choice on an infant.

Well, that's one of the reasons I like my church, anyway - there is a open door policy for dissention and discussion. It's just a little hard to always be the dissenting voice.

Anyway I thought you might find the review from the Washington Post interesting, it's one of the more thoughtful indictments I've read.

I respond:

I haven't heard of too many churches that encourage dissent -- it's usually anathema to the whole concept of religion. Keep at 'em. :->

Subject: Passion
From: Joey Mikler [kenshin@cfl.rr.com

Mary,

I'm no christian, and I'm not about to defend anyone, but your review really proves the quote "Some athiests are just as blind as they accuse religious folk of being. They would believe ANYTHING, just as long as it shows a certain religion in a bad light." Is true. Shame on you, with a holy name like that!

I respond:

Er, my name's MaryAnn, not Mary, though I'm not sure why you, as a non-Christian, would bestow any holy power upon it, nor why you would imagine that I, as an atheist, would imbue it with any holy power, either. It's true, though, that I have no shame in denouncing religion as superstitious nonsense. But what's the something I'm supposed to be believing just because "it" is showing "religion in a bad light"? And who said that quote, anyway? You toss it out like it's a common saying, but I've never heard it.

If you're going to rail against me, at least make some sense.

Subject: your excellent review of "The Passion..."
From: kandl [kandl@kc.rr.com]

You may not get a chance to respond to this, but I think your take on movie was, without a doubt, the absolute best I've read yet. My ex- (Jesus Freak) wife would disagree, nearly as whole-heartedly as I think my second, and perfect (atheist) wife would. Wife 2 has not seen the movie, and probably won't, since she abhors violence. I guess Gibson took what he learned from the make-up artists in Braveheart and tried to take gore to a new level. Didn't work for me.

Rock on, Mary Ann.

Subject: About the Passion
From: Jack Treese [master0gr8ness87@yahoo.com]

That part with Pontius Pilate washing his hands wasn't in slo-mo, you idiot

I respond:

Your defense of the film floors me. Honestly, I didn't think anyone could change my mind about my reaction to the movie, but you've done it with your well-conceived and in-depth refutation of every single point I made... or tried to make.

I'm humbled before your mighty wisdom.

Subject: Great Review of Passion.
From: McGee, Ryan W. [RWMCGEE@stthomas.edu]

Hi, I just wanted to write and say that I am a huge fan of the site, it is often my first stop when I am deciding whether or not to go to a particular movie. In particular I wanted to compliment you on your reviews of LotR and The Passion of Christ, both of them struck a real chord with me. As a fellow atheist I appreciated your take on Gibson's film (and you thought Tarantino was, how did you put it? Ah yes 'embarrassingly masturbatory' Gibson takes that to a new height)

Anyway, I just wanted to thank you for your inciteful and amusing reviews.

(PS: I have nothing against feminists...but you do take it to extremes in your reviews sometimes =) I look at it as your 'signature')

I respond:

Glad you like my reviews, but I just gotta know: To what "extremes" have I taken feminism?

The reader responds:

Well, for an example I might point to your review of 'Murder at 1600' a movie which, to be fair, does feature Diane Lane as a fairly strong woman...and you used the review to make a point about dead women = powerful women. I mean, I'm sure there was some irony in the review, but it just seemed like a strange and differant focus for reviewing the movie, I dont think most people would have spent as much time examining that aspect. Let me reiterate, I dont have any problem with that. I have yet to read ANY review that isn't influenced by the beliefs of the reviewer.

I guess I just mean that sometimes you concentrate on that aspect of a movie to the exclusion of more typical talking points.

I respond:

I also sometimes focus, to almost the exclusion of all else, on other pet topics of mine -- like, in the *Passion* review, atheism. Did you think that was "extreme"?

I don't want to write "typical" reviews. What would be the point of that? There are already way too many critics other there who write "typical" reviews.

The reader responds:

That's why I read your reviews.

Anyway, I didn't mean it to be negative, just an observation. And you're right, maybe the ones I can relate to more (atheism) seem less extreme. It's all subjective, I understand that, I write political editorials for the local paper...

Anyway, I also wanted to thank you for taking the time to respond to my e-mail, I appreciate it. I know you probably get a ton.

Subject: Dis-"Passion"-ate word of encouragement
From: Thomas V. Bona [vingenzo@yahoo.com]

I don't know what kind of e-mails you got in response to your "The Passion of the Christ" review, but I just want to say not all Jesus-lovers are like the ones who attacked you. And some of us even get the irony of them doing so.

While I strongly disagree with some aspects of your review re: the nature of religion, I - as always - respect and actually enjoy how well they were written. And, unlike some (many), I am not at all threatened that you think differently than me, and I know you aren't threatened by those who think differently than you on this subject.

I just want to say, not that you need to hear it from me, keep up the great work and know that there are readers out there who just want to read quality writing related to film, not someone to parrot their existing views. Thanks for the reliably great site.

Subject: movie reviews
From: neil lewis [frenchmustard@hotmail.com]

I was perusing websites for a movie review on ang lee's 'ride with the devil' and stumbled upon your site. I liked your review and clicked around for more. I saw the review for 'the passion' and of course couldn't help but notice your insulting and derogatory remarks. I assume you wanted to fill your inbox with deranged and overly sensitive Christians from all over the world. (I suppose I'm somewhere in-between all that...although, apparently you think I am already deranged because of my beliefs!)

I don't mind that you're not a Christian, and that's great for you, but it just seemed to me you went out of your way to make disparaging remarks. It was disappointing to see a total lack of respect and tact on your part. All I wanted to read was a 'review'...not tirade on religious beliefs or Christianity.

I totally agree with you (as do 99.9% of Christians) that Jews aren't guilty of Christ's death...no, that doesn't make sense....it's not an issue in modern Christianity at all if you did any research. I am happy Christ died!

I realize you don't care about what "jesus freaks" like me might say, and you have every right to say what you want, this is the internet and America. I just hope you keep your offensive comments to yourself in the future, I had enjoyed most of your site! Of course, if you think Christians are terrible fools, you'll never win them over with your hate-filled reviews.

I respond:

I'm not interested in winning over anyone, but thanks for your concern.

Subject: Incredibly Cool
From: Richard Ladson [rladso@yahoo.com]

I stumbled upon your site while reading reviews on RottenTomatoes.com. Wow. Your writing style is incredibly cool. It's fresh, witty, and thought provoking. There were moments when I thought you were irreverent and sarcastic, and I thought your review of the Passion of Christ was particularly scathing. I wonder if you could have made your points without resorting to name calling (Jesus freaks, and the like), but your point of view was a refreshing departure from the typical "Is it anti-semitic or not..." debate. Very candid, open, and honest. I read two of your reviews "Dawn of the Dead", and "The Passion of Christ", and I enjoyed both.

Thanks for taking the time to write intelligent, thought provoking reviews.

I respond:

You're welcome. Glad you like my stuff.

One of the points of my review of POTC *was* to ridicule the beliefs of those who think it depicts something beautiful -- not sure how I could have done that without being offensive in the eyes of some people.

Subject: The E-mail Of The Me
From: gdwilliamson@deathsdoor.co.uk

I'm sure you're getting a lot of scary, scary e-mail about The Passion of the Christ right now, so I thought I'd drop you a brief line to let you know that yes, there are some Christians out there who haven't been fooled by Gibson.

I saw the film at a UK preview and I was sickened. Not by the violence - I've seen worse, though I've rarely seen a film with so little else to offer than violence - but by the perversion of Christ's teachings. Gibson is pretty upfront about The Passion being a random jumble of the four Gospels and some supplementary material (including a 19th-century nun who wrote texts saying Jews dipped passover food in the blood of Christian babies, interestingly enough), which explains why it's such a hotch-potch. And Gibson's previous track record explains - to me at least - why it's so shallow and cliched. But throughout the film, I couldn't understand why someone who claims to be a Christian would make a movie like this.

Traditionally, Passion plays do focus on the last twelve hours of Jesus' life. But I haven't seen many which exclude all mention of his teachings like this. Go through any of the four Gospels and you'll find messages of love, hope, tolerance and respect. I have absolutely no idea how this film was meant to communicate those at all. I'm gobsmacked when I hear people saying you could take an atheist to this film and they'd be converted. They wouldn't. They'd wonder why so many people worldwide have such a respect for a man who, in this film, is portrayed as little more than a humanoid blood-bag. And this is before we get into the deviations from scripture (the uncommonly nice portrayal of Pontius Pilate, the silly manifestations of Satan, etc).

I suppose it would be acceptable if this was taken as being Mel's interpretation of the Gospels - after all, who would be surprised that the director of Braveheart decided to make a silly blood-and-thunder version of the Gospels? But many 'Christians' appear to think this film is beyond criticism, and if you criticise it you're criticising Jesus. That's scary. Mel's just given the right a further cue to take over the Church and remake it in their own image - where sinners and unbelievers are to be feared, not forgiven, and where the best Christian is always the richest one.

Shall we push Mel through the eye of a needle and see what happens?

I respond:

It's nice to hear a Christian say the things you're saying. Thanks.

Subject: Gibson's schlock-horror
From: Steve Bryant [stevejbryant@compuserve.com]

Visited your site to read about the above - wonderful demolition job on a richly deserving target - good to hear a dissenter from the US - the 'Religious Right' is getting you guys a bad name over here, but maybe you knew about that. Thanks again for a great review - I'll be a regular from now on

Best Regards
Steve Bryant
Co Mayo
Ireland

I respond:

I know all about how badly the Religious Right makes us look. We're not all still living in the Middle Ages, though.

Glad you liked the review.

Subject: Atheist?
From: iogle@usa.com

Your review of "The Last Temptation of Christ" would be amusing, if not for the comment that it was a Jesus flick you could get behind even as an atheist. EVEN as an atheist?! Didn't you mean ESPECIALLY as an atheist? Scorcese's alleged talents have taken him to the land of fiction, where his sacrelegious depiction of Jesus as a fumbling, confused, incompetent jack-ass still get rave reviews from atheists. It wouldn't be an issue if the movie were entitled, "A Meandering Idiot in the Desert", and the title character named almost anything but Jesus. We know you're an atheist, but we're Christians, and we're offended by the movie - and the review which blindly praises it.

I respond:

I don't "blindly" praise *Last Temptation* -- I praise it with eyes fully open.

Still, I'm glad I could almost amuse you.

04.08.04

to batch #3 | to batch #5