Related articles and links |  1 of 4

It's been almost a month since Film Forum included any updates on media coverage of The Passion of The Christ. But we had to call attention to Peter Bart's article in Variety, in which he points out the obvious—that The New York Times' coverage of the days prior to The Passion's release, their reviews of the film, and their stunned observance of its success were examples of severely biased reporting, a parade of outrageous and unjustified attacks on Mel Gibson and his movie. The paper might have changed its slogan temporarily to "All the character assassination and inflammatory speculation that's fit to print."

Bart recounts the Times' early declaration that The Passion was "an outrage and threat to social harmony."

He reminds us how the paper highlighted "the predictions of unnamed power brokers in Hollywood that Gibson would be blackballed by the film community, his career ruined."

He responds that readers deserve a major "correction" from the paper. "Despite the fact that Frank Rich compared it to 'a porn movie,' by the end of its run The Passion could rank second only to Titanic as the highest-grossing movie ever made. Further, there have been no signs of anti-Semitic outbreaks tied to the film's release—not even in places like France and Argentina. As for Gibson, there's no indication that his viability as an actor or filmmaker has been compromised. The Passion [is] a movie, not a political tract. It represents Gibson's vision, not his rhetoric. As such, it deserves to be judged as art, not prejudged as ideology."

Hear hear. And let's not stop at The New York Times. As years go by, people will look back at what the majority of the critical elite in America had to say upon the release of Gibson's film and shake their heads. The Passion made most critics blather on like fools and forget their responsibility—to bring their readers into a deeper appreciation of art and to help draw distinctions between excellence, mediocrity, and trash. Most critics who typically exhibit discernment and vision in examining art proved themselves susceptible to paranoia, fear, prejudice, and hysteria in this case.

The Passion, while flawed, was not propaganda, nor was it politically motivated or aimed at humiliating Jews. It was one man's expression of deep religious conviction through an arresting and excruciating confrontation with the gory and mysterious details of Christ's death. How telling that those who condemned it for being agenda-driven could not agree on the nature of that agenda; Gibson's work was too multi-layered to be so easily dismissed. He focused on one powerful chapter from the greatest story ever told, manifested with skill and determination. The Passion may not be the best artistic portrayal of Christ ever made. And as a film, it may lack subtlety or err on the side of excess. But it reflects myriad truths and brings to mind a world of essential questions. They're the questions moviegoers will still be revisiting in ten, twenty, fifty years, when many of this year's other critical favorites (The Girl Next Door?!) are gathering dust on the shelves of the local Blockbuster.

Man on Fire , written by Brian Helgeland (The Order, Mystic River) is set in Mexico City where, we are told, a kidnapping occurs every 60 seconds and 70 percent of the victims are never seen again. Into this context comes John Creasy (Denzel Washington), a former U.S. counterterrorism agent and a deeply wounded alcoholic. He's the kind of believer who meditates on bullets as much as he does the Bible.

next page... |  1 of 4

share this page

April (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48