More backwards and upside reasoning. Dirty Harry cues into it here and goes into one of his insightful rants. I hope he never takes a class in anger management!
An excerpt: Most of the critics hammering The Passion of the Christ did so because of the violence. Some called it pornographic. But was it the violence or was it the persuasive effects of telling that part of Christ’s story? Here’s an interesting exercise:
Sin City is a film filled with dismemberments, disembowelments, torture, castration, and pedophilia. The Passion is an historically accurate depiction of scourging and Crucifixion.
Now compare the reviewers who raved about Sin City to those who and tell me it was the violence that offended them.
Yes, do read the comparison reviews. Very telling, indeed.
April 13th, 2005 at 5:26 am
Moving to a new neighborhood - Issue #3
A good point is raised by Dirty Harry concerning reviews of Sincity as compared to those for The Passion when reviewers talk of extreme violence. The comparison is quite interesting.
H/T The Anchoress a daily read and one I highly recommend.
Th…
April 13th, 2005 at 5:40 am
The Passion of Christ referred to as Pornography, isn’t that a way of saying, “ I don’t know how to deal with it, it doesn’t fit my comfort/cultural zone, I can’t relate? As the event transpired and I watched the hand wringing, I thought of those who don’t want to, don’t know how to acknowledge an event that “was” terrible “was” painful, and I hoped the veneer might crack. The Sunday ritual opened up. After all, this was the fate of thousands at that time. In contrast, there were those who emerged from the same event, that “was” almost to difficult to bear, they appeared with tears, even sobs of sorrow to realize, yes for me, my god, for me! Mrs. Harry is spot on; “the only violence critics find intolerable is that which portrays the suffering of Our Lord for our sins.” Maybe because Christ’s sacrifice lives on in us and it “is” difficult to bear! Look at this for a couple of hours down there in Colmar, on a weekday when it’s quiet. Panel from the Isenheim altarpiece: oil on wood Musee d’Unterlinden, Colmar. Brought to life, a gift for us, by Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. Use the image viewer.
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/G/grunewald/grunwld1.jpg.html
April 13th, 2005 at 5:59 am
Pseudo-violence is okay when it’s not about anything important
I admit I have not seen, and want to see, both The Passion of the Christ and Sin City. I’ve got no personal problem with fake movie violence per se. Still, some violence is more violent than other violence, especially…
April 13th, 2005 at 6:00 am
You’re absolutely right about this. In fact, last year when I went to see the Passion the theater put out special “warning” signs about the “violence” in the film. I wonder if they’re putting out similar signs about Sin City!
April 13th, 2005 at 6:39 am
The Passion of Christ referred to as Pornography, isn’t that a way of saying, “ I don’t know how to deal with it, it doesn’t fit my comfort/cultural zone, I can’t relate? As the event transpired and I watched the hand wringing, I thought of those who don’t want to, don’t know how to acknowledge an event that “was” terrible “was” painful, and I hoped the veneer might crack. The Sunday ritual opened up. After all, this was the fate of thousands at that time. In contrast, there were those who emerged from the same event, that “was” almost to difficult to bear, they appeared with tears, even sobs of sorrow to realize, yes for me, my god, for me! Mrs. Harry is spot on; “the only violence critics find intolerable is that which portrays the suffering of Our Lord for our sins.” Maybe because Christ’s sacrifice lives on in us and it “is” difficult to bear! Look at this for a couple of hours down there in Colmar, on a weekday when it’s quiet. Panel from the Isenheim altarpiece: oil on wood Musee d’Unterlinden, Colmar. Brought to life, a gift for us, by Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. Use the image viewer.
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/G/grunewald/grunwld1.jpg.html
April 13th, 2005 at 6:43 am
Sorry for the re-post.
April 13th, 2005 at 6:49 am
I must admit to my surprise at your surprise at stupidity. Then again, what would we blog about if stupidity weren’t so abundant a commodity?
April 13th, 2005 at 9:23 am
In our hearts we always knew it wasn’t about the violence, didn’t we? The MSM and their ilk objected to Christ being portrayed as if the Gospels represented fact and truth. The “Last Temptation of Christ” was pure genius because Christ was portrayed as an infinitely-flawed man who no one with any intelligence would follow today–absent any Divinity. That’s the “meme” or the template for any future stories of Christ worthy of the “genius” appellation. I wonder what Hollywood has in the pipeline now, given that they are trying to “mine” the “religious vein” uncovered by the box office take from “Passion of the Christ”? Flaws?–you bet! Divine?– doubtful. But I’ll keep my Faith.
April 13th, 2005 at 11:41 am
Thirty Three Things From This Fool’s Paradise
1. “The information age is strewn with verbal (not to mention visual) litter. I’m thinking about the proliferation of words that computers and other media allow us to generate and disseminate so easily that words become cheap and the wonder…
April 13th, 2005 at 9:46 pm
Anti-Christian Hypocrisy
The more I read The Anchoress, the more I’m convinced that adding her to the blogroll was a good great move.
April 14th, 2005 at 7:27 pm
Sin vs. Passion
Some argue that Sin City has not paid the same price for its excessive gore as did The Passion, but this argument is deceptive.