The Passion For The Blood
On my way to work the other day, I passed a bus that was still promoting the Christmas-appropriate movie, The Nativity Story. Naturally, this got me thinking about Christians.Through letter-writing campaigns, right-wing media mouthpieces, and the like, Christians put a lot of pressure on liberal Hollywood to make more entertainments that are "family friendly" and "pro-Christian." One would think that The Nativity Story really fits the bill. It's a faithful presentation of the birth of Jesus. For those of you who may not know, it is Jesus Christ (or more simply, The Christ) that gives Christianity its name.
According to my extensive research (at boxofficemojo.com), The Nativity Story brought in a whopping $45,629,831. With its production budget of $35,000,000, one has to assume that New Line was hoping it would perform better than that.
Then there's Mel Gibson's The Passion Of The Christ. With its production budget of $30,000,000, it brought in a walloping $611,899,420. One has to assume that Newmarket was pleased enough to hand out some healthy bonuses at the end of 2004.
Families with children of all ages could enjoy The Nativity Story with its family-friendly PG rating. The Passion Of The Christ was handed an adults-oriented R rating.
The two movies portray two of the three most significant events of Christianity - Jesus' birth and death. Christians still need to wait for a new movie to show the resurrection of Jesus.
So what gives, Christians? Why so keen on the death of Jesus, and not so much on the birth?
Could it be the blood lust of the right-wing?
Naaaaah... Couldn't be.
posted by Dan G @ 2:46 PM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
I'm not going to deny that there might be a little boodlust accounting for the disparity of box office receipts. But I mean, let's face it, America as a whole - not just the right-wingers - has a fascination with violence. NPR and Fox News BOTH follow the "if-it-bleeds-it-leads" reporting concept.
I don't think, however, that violence is the sole reason that The Passion did so much better than The Nativity.
1) It was relatively unique. Before The Passion, the last big budget wide-release movie specifically dealing with Christ's story (that I can recall) would be...The Last Temptation in 1988. And that, as you may remember, did not exactly represent the views of "mainstream" Christians. And then before that, what was there? I think that when it came out, Christians were ready to see a film that dealt directly with an important part of their deeply-held faith.
2. And let's look at that aspect of WHEN the movie was released. The Nativity was release in December, a month in which the average family is constantly on the go, stressed out, and reluctant to take on anything but the absolute essentials. The Passion, in contrast was released at the end of February, when the average family ain't got shit going on. If you'll remember, churches bought out entire showings of The Passion so enormous numbers of congregants could see the movie and discuss it. Organizing such an outing is impossible in the weeks before Christmas.
3. And why do I remember that churches bought out entire showings of the movie? Because the media machine at work promoting The Passion was ENORMOUS. We had stories on it because Mel Gibson was attached to it. We had reports on it because it was a wide-release movie spoken in Latin and Aramaic. We heard about it was going to be a bomb. Then we heard about it was anti-Semitic. Then we heard about how it was a surprise succes. Then we heard stories about what it meant that the movie was so successful. And what kind of buzz did The Nativity have? The gentle chirping of crickets.
4. Religiously and dramatically speaking, the passion is a more dramatic chapter in the life of the person Christians call the Savior. I mean, really, what is there to celebrate about Christmas? Jesus squirted out of his mom's brith canal? What's the accomplishment of that? BUT a man is brutally tortured, has the opportunity to reject what he believes in, has the very clear motive to do what most of us would do and say whatever it took to end the pain, and instead he allows himself to be killed so that his torturers can someday gain eternal life - that, my friend, is an engaging story.
5. Actually, I haven't seen either of the films. Is it possible that The Passion (nominated for three Academy Awards) is a better movie than The Nativity (nominated for Jack Shit)?
Like anyone with a specific P.O.V., I like to oversimplify to score cheap points. And much of what you say, X (if that is indeed your name), quite appropriately calls me to task for doing just that.
But on point number four, I'm not quite sure I agree...
The Nativity Story (the Bible version, not the movie version) has much more drama than just birth canal squirting.
The whole thing is sort of a chase scene. You've got Herod killing all the first-borns. Violence! (And note to marketers: focus on this part of the story for the release of the DVD.) You've got the humblest of beginnings for the savior of the world. Dramatic irony! You've got a scandalous pregnancy. Single motherhood! You've got a virgin birth. Sex! Sort of! Not really! Miracle!
Much of the Passion story is also dramatic, yes. But the drama is mostly before the blood begins. Once Judas betrays Jesus, and Jesus decides to go through with it, the drama's over. No one expects Jesus to give in once he makes his decision. The bulk of Mel's movie is the laying on of abuse and torture. There's no drama there. It's a voyeuristic exercise. Almost nihilistic.
And while Good Friday is certainly an important part of the Passion of Jesus Christ, Easter Sunday is more important. Mel's movie doesn't include the saving. There is apparently a bright light and a figure walking toward it, but that's more of a hint than a portrayal. Where the hell is the victory over death? Jesus redeemed you, for crying out loud!
What pisses me off is the focus on persecution that (mostly right-wing) Christians are obsessed with. Always under attack. Always threatened. It's bullshit, and it pisses me off.
And that's why I oversimplify my argument to expose what I see as hypocrisy.
And naturally, I write this also having seen neither movie.
But seriously, X (if that is indeed your name), thanks for your thoughtful and thorough response. I love a good e-conversation.
Post a Comment
<< Home