By Dr . Michael Gose
Professor of Humanities
With all the buzz, hype and controversy surrounding Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ,” I thought it important to sit down and try to establish some perspective. The “schemata” we bring to any experience, and especially a “moving picture” experience, greatly influence our perceptions. I feel that the following points are important above and beyond the film itself.
I am grateful for the following even before I have seen Mel Gibson’s “The Passion.” As a strong believer in “source material,” I am hopeful the film will inspire reading of the Bible. Furthermore, recognizing the need to always see old truths with fresh eyes, I anticipate that a story coming from Mel Gibson will be a cinematic story well told.
However, there are a few things I am concerned about. One of my former students, Sara Kelly, wrote, “I feel cheated every time I pay to see a movie that doesn’t challenge or enlighten me.” Her point is that a film that only reinforces one’s beliefs was not much of a film experience. While I have read that many of those who have already seen “The Passion” were moved by the experience, I agree with Sara that merely reinforcing one’s beliefs has some limits to its value.
So much obvious evil has been done in the name of religion; any film with significant religious intent should be questioned. Will Christians have the humility to understand why any “outside” group might worry about the potential effects of an emotionally powerful film on those who might fanatically ‘profess’ Christianity?
Whether we see “The Passion” or not, there are certain values that I think we need to reaffirm about the debate and controversy. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, I have never yet seen any discussion that has not been mended by the observations of those who were much inferior in understanding to the person who took the lead. I am of the impression we take undue pleasure in defending our opinions at the expense of listening and improving them.
Burke also asks, “What is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice and madness, without tuition or restraint.” I am of the impression that we have a great tendency to offer strident opinions without either tuition or restraint.
John Stuart Mill said, “Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth.” We need appreciation and respect for the varied perspectives being raised about “The Passion,” and to celebrate the possibilities of the rising controversy, not bemoan it.
In “Film as Religion,” John Lyden said that we need to seek “a method of dialogue that allows the voice of the other to be better heard.”
The Jan. 30 Weekend section of The New York Times included the observation that Mel Gibson’s film “proves again that film and religion are combustible.”
More listening (and less shouting) seem in order. Perhaps it is timely to remember Voltaire’s willingness to disagree with everything said, while defending to the death the right to say it.
Anthony Minghella has explained that he started his film “Cold Mountain” with a battle scene and ended it with a conversation; that our choices are fighting or conversing. Is there any doubt that the central character of “The Passion” preferred discussion over battle? Quite clearly “The Passion” has become not only a movie, but an event. As such, it has become an incredible opportunity for conversation. I suspect that we will discover wider and deeper levels of meaning from the film, if we can open ourselves up to the discussion.
Robert Ryf once noted that he preferred the term “dialectic” to “dialogue.” He said that too often “dialogue” was only two monologues with inner punctuation. I truly hope the conversation surrounding “The Passion” will be more dialectic (than simply choosing up sides).
Submitted February 26, 2004