Hollywood goes to church. Jesus and Mel, what a mess.
In recent weeks, Mel Gibson and The New York Times' Frank Rich have been duking it out in the media over the anti-Semitic implications in Gibson's upcoming film, "The Passion."
The movie is about the crucifixion of Christ, and Gibson is determined to make it as bone-chillingly "real" as possible - One consequence of this is that the film is spoken entirely in the dead languages of Aramaic and Latin. So far, test audiences have been giving it mixed reviews. Some say it has caused religion to nest within its souls, and some say it's anti-Semitic propaganda.
But for such a supposedly sacred subject, Gibson and Rich sure are acting juvenile.
According to The New Yorker, Gibson wants to put Rich's intestines on a stick and kill his dog. Rich immediately snarled back in his Times column, bringing Gibson's father into it (who has been quoted as saying Holocaust numbers are exaggerated). It's a finger-pointing parade of wits for both.
Calm down, boys. It's just a movie. I hate to see a talented writer get petty with a movie star, and I hate to think of Mel Gibson standing ominously over some poor disemboweled man and his dog.
The conflict over the movie is twofold: it shows Jews brutally killing Jesus, with details garnered from scripture, rather than scholars. Gibson dismisses both of these prickly issues by saying, "the Holy Ghost directed the film." It's a blanket answer, but in religious squabbles, it's often the best you're going to get.
Gibson and Rich only are going to butt heads on this one. No two religious sects ever will agree to tell the same story in the same way. Lucky for us, freedom of religion allows them to bicker at the top of their lungs. It's one of the more important, yet annoying, freedoms in our country because it becomes the excuse for some rotten acts (the condemning of homosexuals, the blowing up of abortion clinics, even the pesky kid in PHI 101 who can't leave the Bible out of a non-denominational philosophical discussion). Gibson's film and the ensuing debate with Rich fall into that same category of constitutionally protected shenanigans.
It might be time to call Hollywood's domain of power into question. Sure, the entertainment capital has an economy larger than most independent countries, but it's a movie. It's an industry of veneer. When all those doomsday flicks came out in the late '90s, hoping to capitalize on the fright sparked by the impending millennium, American moviegoers all but yawned.
After following this debate, I've come to a few conclusions.
One: Mel Gibson is a loon. He won me over with "Braveheart," but mass-marketing Jesus and threatening to dismember critical writers is going too far.
Two: "The Passion" will ultimately flop. It's subtitled, it's pious, and no major studio is likely to pick it up because of the religious politics involved. Plus, Charlton Heston isn't in a single scene. Given all the publicity around the films creation, it's a shame it won't get off the ground.
Or maybe not. Entertainment and religion are near opposites, and they ought to remain in separate spheres. As for me, I think I'll just stay home and rent the undeniably secular "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes."
Emily Lyons is a journalism senior. Reach her at emily.lyons@asu.edu.
