Rambling. Too Much Sleep.

[rejectomorph]

I must stop sleeping so late.

Another of my posts got Passion of the Christ spam. No gruesome graphics, this time, though. Awww. No matter. I can see those any time I turn on the television. Scourging! This particular aspect of the movie seems to be drawing a lot of attention. Joe Beltake, reviewer for The Sacramento Bee, said that it ". . . comes precariously close to being a religious snuff movie." And he gave the movie three (of four possible) stars! Heh.

Among other things that Gibson's apparent obsession with the bloodier aspects of the story has brought to my mind is the fact that, following the massive destruction wrought on Europe by the black plague which brought to an end the vibrant and largely optimistic culture of the High Middle Ages, the religious art of the time shifted its emphasis away from the idea of salvation and redemption and began to concentrate primarily on suffering and violence. The serene and usually blood-free (maybe just a hint of stigmata in some of them) Jesus icons of the earlier era were replaced by a tortured and agonized Jesus, writhing on the cross, dripping with gore. The medieval transformation of religious art was understandable in the context of the near destruction of European society at the time, but, despite some serious threats to our well being, modern Christendom has undergone nothing that would justify such a change of aesthetics. Perhaps it is merely another example of the histrionic nature of modern western culture, with its penchant for exaggerating even the slightest problem into something of epic significance. If a hand on a thigh twenty years ago is worthy of such dramatic attention as it has recently received, then why shouldn't a contretemps with the nearly powerless Muslim world, for example, cause Mel Gibson to dive head first into the sort of gory religious symbolism which, a few centuries ago, could be brought about only by the sudden death of half the population of a continent? I mean, we're all so damned important, now, aren't we? At least Mel is, I'm sure.

Comments

[melifur.livejournal.com]

The religious snuff film comment was classic~ and although everyone on lj seems to be obsessed with discussing this film, thank you for the intelligence of this post~ it's a nice deviation from the norm. :)

[rejectomorph]

Joe Baltake (I think I misspelled his name in the post) is one of the more interesting film critics these days, and he comes up with some very clever lines, too.

[marseille.livejournal.com]

I was listening to a radio show where they were discussing the film, and someone pointed out that Jesus' suffering was emphasized to make people feel the way he allegedly did, saying that that was a good thing. One man, who said he was raised Catholic in Boston, said they'd had quite enough of pointing that out, as in, "how can you complain when Our Lord suffered for you, (insert gruesome description here), and the resulting guilt, which had driven him from the church.
Personally, I have little frame of reference for all this. I was raised to try to believe all this, but failed at doing so, and yet I don't feel the enormity of the blame my current group has heaped on it, since I was raised to NOT believe the blame part.
I suspect the movie will be both gruesome and unenlightening. I can't think of anything Mel Gibson has done that contained nuances, shades of meaning. Pretty blunt stuff, unusally.