« Power Behind the Passion | Main | »
January 10, 2005
The Big Ol' Catholic Tent
I saw the film. I liked it," Gibson told AP Radio Sunday at the 31st Annual People's Choice Awards, countering the contention that "Fahrenheit 9/11" fans and "The Passion of the Christ" enthusiasts are mutually exclusive groups.
..."I feel a kind of strange kinship with Michael," Gibson said. I mean, they're trying to pit us against each other in the press, but this is all just a hologram, you know. They've really got nothing to do with one another. They were used as some kind of divisive left-right thing."
Moore said he saw Gibson's film twice, and even took his father to see it.
"I thought it was a powerful piece of filmmaking," Moore told AP Radio Sunday. "I'm a practicing Catholic, and you know I think Mel and I may be from different wings of the Catholic Church. My film might have been called 'The Compassion of the Christ.'
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d834751a4c69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Big Ol' Catholic Tent:
Comments
I am willing to believe that both films are well-crafted. But one is grounded in Truth; the other in deception.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Jan 10, 2005 4:57:54 PM
"but we preach Christ crucified; a stumbling block to Jews, and foolishness to Greeks" - St. Paul in 1 Cor 1:23
"I'm a practicing Catholic, and you know I think Mel and I may be from different wings of the Catholic Church. My film might have been called 'The Compassion of the Christ.'" - Michael Moore
The Greek wing, no? ;-)
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jan 10, 2005 5:11:45 PM
"I am willing to believe that both films are well-crafted. But one is grounded in Truth; the other in deception."
Which movie is grounded in truth and which movie is grounded in deception?
I have not seen F9/11, but "Passion" is definitely not historically nor theologically "true". I was really moved by "Passion" on a spiritual level, but it is not possible to use this movie as an authentic theological source. It is the Passion according to Mel, not Matthew, Mark, Luke, nor John. "Passion" is as much a distortion of truth as Moore's F9/11. Both movies are the filmakers' biased interpretation of events.
Posted by: Badly Drawn Catholic at Jan 10, 2005 5:18:29 PM
BDC,
The Vatican press office called Gibson's film "a cinematographic transcription of the Gospels."
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jan 10, 2005 5:23:08 PM
Roma locuta; finita est.
Yep
Posted by: Jimmy Mac at Jan 10, 2005 5:24:48 PM
I'm not sure the Vatican Press Office was what they had in mind when that expression was coined...
Posted by: mio at Jan 10, 2005 5:28:23 PM
I'm not sure the Vatican Press Office was what they had in mind when that expression was coined...
Posted by: mio at Jan 10, 2005 5:28:23 PM
A sidebar: Is there a reason why whenever someone talks about TPOTC being grounded in "Truth" people tend to equate that with a claim about historical accuracy? I know some have made such statements, but not all. Why is there this tendency to judge truth purely by the historian's lens?
Posted by: JACK at Jan 10, 2005 5:30:05 PM
Jimmy Mac,
Given your dismissive view of the Church, i.e., your comment the other day that "no Church" is 'gonna "get you to heaven", I suppose what Rome says doesn't matter to you.
Jack,
The Magisterium has gone to great lengths to establish the historicity of the Gospels, including the "details", so the evangelists' accounts are both true and Truth. That inevitably gets caught brought in to any discussion about the accuracy of Gibson's film, and hence the importance and relevance of the press office statement.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jan 10, 2005 5:37:09 PM
BDC,
I did not say that TPOTC was historically precise. Afterall, it is not a videotape. But it *is* grounded in Truth. And I have seen F9/11; it is deliberately deceptive, as even the most liberal critics have acknowledged.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Jan 10, 2005 5:45:21 PM
"Fahrenheit 9/11" was named favorite movie and "The Passion of the Christ" was the favorite drama.
Shouldn't that be the other way around?
Moore's film is based on facts but embellished in his usual dramatic style which some fixate on, being unable to see the truth behind it.
Mel's film went to great lengths to be factual, but again some fixated on the artistic sytle, being unable to see the truth behind it.
Maybe these two artists do have more in common then we might suppose.
If they represent two views in the Church, then maybe both views are worth listening to.
God Bless
Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Jan 10, 2005 5:46:30 PM
Gibson's film was interpretive but, unlike Moore's, not deliberately deceptive.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Jan 10, 2005 5:51:20 PM
Mike,
How do you know for sure that Moore deliberately sought to deceive ?
What some see as deception may simply be what Moore or Mel see as artistic liscense.
God Bless
Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Jan 10, 2005 6:04:25 PM
I saw Moore's film and didn't like it. It's interesting, though, that so far nobody here commented on Gibson's views on Moore and his film.
About Moore's "documentary" Gibson said:
"I saw the film. I liked it."
About Moore, Gibson said:
..."I feel a kind of strange kinship with Michael," Gibson said. I mean, they're trying to pit us against each other in the press, but this is all just a hologram, you know. They've really got nothing to do with one another. They were used as some kind of divisive left-right thing."
Any opinions on Gibson's pronouncements?
(Full disclosure: I have not seen The Passion of the Christ. Some day I will, but judging from previous movies I'm not a fan of Gibson. Maybe my opinion will change once I see The Passion, but I'm not sure.)
Posted by: Phil at Jan 10, 2005 6:07:48 PM
It was reported not too long ago that Mel's Icon was the first production company associated with Farenheit 911.
Also, I'm interested to know exactly what was historically inaccurate in The Passion.
Posted by: al at Jan 10, 2005 6:20:14 PM
JACK wrote:
"A sidebar: Is there a reason why whenever someone talks about TPOTC being grounded in "Truth" people tend to equate that with a claim about historical accuracy?"
Mike P. wrote:
"I did not say that TPOTC was historically precise. Afterall, it is not a videotape. But it *is* grounded in Truth."
I am not sure that TPOTC is grounded in truth. Sure it is about the Passion of Christ, but there are a lot of non-canonatical writings of the Passion which cannot be considered grounded in truth (see Gnostic). They may be about an historical event, but that does not make them true.
I will grant that historical accuracy should not be the major consideration when judging TPOTC, but the movie is lacking in theological truth. While the frame work of the movie is a mismash of gospel theology, the theology of TPOTC owes more the visions of A. Emmerich, which cannot be considered historically nor theologically trustworthy.
I consider TPOTC a significantly moving film spiritually, but lacking as a theological interpretation of Christ's Passion.
Posted by: Badly Drawn Catholic at Jan 10, 2005 6:20:59 PM
The Pope viewed the movie and said,"It is as it was!" That's good enough for me.
Posted by: tonymixan at Jan 10, 2005 6:21:36 PM
Chris,
The editing decisions made that clear. Although it is certainly possible that Moore thought his deceptions were means necessary to lead people to some larger truth -- kind of, "sure I lied to them, but I did it for their own good." Much has been written about F9/11 that amply demonstrates Moore's disingenuousness. These assertions of deception have never really been rebutted, but at most have been excused as political or artistic license. Fair enough, but I do think that such deliberate deceit distinguishes Moore's film from Gibson's.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Jan 10, 2005 6:24:38 PM
"The Pope viewed the movie and said,'It is as it was!' That's good enough for me."
I know our Pontiff is getting up in years, but I'm pretty sure that he was not an eyewitness to the Passion. ;-)
Posted by: Jim at Jan 10, 2005 6:28:52 PM
Isn't it interesting that Mike Petrik says Moore's film is not accurate while Badly Drawn Catholic says Mel's film is not accurate.
But Mel says he saw Moore's film and liked it while Moore says he saw Gibson's film twice, and even took his father to see it.
I'd say someone's trying to tell us something here. I'd suggest that his truth is to be found in both movies.
God Bless
Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Jan 10, 2005 6:36:47 PM
>>>"I'd say someone's trying to tell us something here. I'd suggest that his truth is to be found in both movies."
You could find truth in The Satanic Bible if you looked hard enough.
Posted by: Jason at Jan 10, 2005 6:43:30 PM
BDC et al,
Mike P. said TPOTC was "grounded in Truth" (the universal Truth of Christ, that is) and it was. It is a piece of devotional art, just like a painting or sculpture of Christ's Passion, not a documentary.
F 9/11, on the other hand, was sold and generally reviewed as a "documentary" every step of the way, but it was not even close to being objective. One fairly conservative friend of mine said after seeing it that he could probably be persuaded that the Iraq war was a huge mistake, but this film wouldn't convince him (so unbalanced was it).
That said, I'd say both filmmakers took the high road in their comments about the other. Although Moore had to get that little dig in the there about the purported lack of compassion in the Passion! That's how his comment struck me anyway...reminded me of the TPOTC "reviews" of many lefty Catholics who seemed to prefer their Jesus passion-free ;-)
Posted by: Cheryl at Jan 10, 2005 6:59:40 PM
Chris Sullivan wrote:
"Isn't it interesting that Mike Petrik says Moore's film is not accurate while Badly Drawn Catholic says Mel's film is not accurate."
For the record, I would say that both movies are problematic when it comes to accuracy (with the caveat that I have not seen F9/11).
Tonymixam wrote:
"The Pope viewed the movie and said,'It is as it was!' That's good enough for me."
Yeah, but what did the Pope mean by the words "it" "is" "as" "it" "was"? Additionally, was he talking about history, theology, emotionally, spiritually, etc.?
Posted by: Badly Drawn Catholic at Jan 10, 2005 7:05:33 PM
Also, I'm interested to know exactly what was historically inaccurate in The Passion.
Well, there's the complete absence of Greek, for starters, when in all likelihood that's the language in which the conversations between Pilate, Jesus and the Sanhedrin would have been conducted. It doesn't even show up on the titulus, if memory serves.
Not that I don't think TPOTC a great film and, indeed, the greatest film, both theologically and cinematically, on the person and work of Christ (with Jesus of Nazareth running a close second).
Posted by: Mark Shea at Jan 10, 2005 7:14:06 PM
Both films are about the same person - the passion of Christ. One on the cross at Calvary, the other his suffering in all the tragic victims of war and harsh economic sanctions.
That's why Moore refered to his film as the Compassion of the Christ. Compassion means "to suffer with".
According to http://www.greatertalent.com/bios/moore.shtml, Moore was educated in Catholic schools and spent a year in seminary so I guess we can credit him with at least a little theological savvy.
And why would Mel's production company associate with Farenheit 911 if he didn't think it was a movie worth promoting ? I imagine someone who devoted some years to making The Pasion of the Christ would be well prepared to see his passion in those who suffer in war.
God Bless
Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Jan 10, 2005 7:14:59 PM
