Just in time for Easter: a blogger's remarks on Mel Gibson's Passion

Not the most brilliant or profound post, but an interesting, personal, very autobiographical set of reflections on one person's reaction to watching Gibson's Passion of the Christ. The central point:

"I can't get past the brutality that so lovingly and sadistically portrayed it not 'as it was' — we can't know that, but there's a lot of sound reason to believe it 'wasn't' — but portrayed an exaggerrated brutality that by it's very existance said, 'What Christ did wasn't bad enough — I've got to make it WORSE to make sure peo[p]le really feel it.'"

clipped from planetpooks.wordpress.com planet pooks Mel Gibson’s THE PASSION A few years ago I read that Mel Gibson was going to make a movie. Not just a movie, but a movie about The Passion. Not just about The Passion, but a movie in Aramaic with subtitles. I was astounded and entranced and could not wait to see it. I wasn’t sure whether it would be a train wreck or a triumph, but I knew I had to be there, the very first day, to see it. When I first heard about his “The Passion,” I assumed it would be an art house film. I mean, how else could an Aramaic subtitled Catholic telling of the Passion be presented? And I couldn’t wait. Could. Not. Wait. To see how it turned out. And it turned out to be a glorified snuff film. I believe any filmmaker is beholden to tell their stories their way, and for Mel Gibson to present his “Passion” the way he did was — well, it was pure Mel Gibson. And that wouldn’t have bothered me except – Except, he claimed to be telling it “the way it really happened.” Not just his vision, but THE way it happe