Christopher Hitchens was a guest on this evening's Hardball with Chris Matthews. The discussion turned to the new Mel Gibson movie "The Passion of the Christ," and Hitchens took to ad hominem attacks on Mr. Gibson and other vitrolic tactics to express his disapproval of the movie. He described Mr. Gibson as a "sadomasochist" and disparaged Mr. Gibson's father, a Catholic author.
I was even more appalled by Hitchens' portrayal of film as "quasi-pornographic." Unfortunately, Hitchens isn't the first person to call the film pornographic. Andrew Sullivan wrote: "In a word, it is pornography. By pornography, I mean the reduction of all human thought and feeling and personhood to mere flesh."
I can't see it. Mr. Gibson has said time and again that his intent was to push the viewer beyond the edge of comfort when seeing Christ bloodied and torn. Mr. Gibson's vision was to show the world just a fraction of the pain through which Christ suffered for our sins. The weight that Christ bore, the sins of the world, can never be fully expressed through words, nor through celluloid. The message is not to show that the Jews killed Christ, nor to show the Romans and Jews lustful desire for his death. Our sins scarred Jesus far worse than any whip, nail, or thorn ever could, yet Jesus willingly suffered for us. This is Gibson's message. Is it violent? Yes. Is it pornographic? No.
I can't even begin to dechiper Hitchens' "quasi-pornographic" statement. What is quasi-pornographic? Is that like being a little bit pregnant? However, I can take issue with Sullivan's "porno" claim. Sullivan says, "The suffering of Christ is bad and gruesome enough without exaggerating it to this insane degree. Theologically, the point is not that Jesus suffered more than any human being ever has on a physical level. It is that his suffering was profound and voluntary and the culmination of a life and a teaching that Gibson essentially omits." Does he really omit it though? I disagree with Sullivan (surprise, surprise). I think Gibson is trying to portray in a literal sense the pain that Christ suffers each time we sin against God. The violence is merely the necessary mean to that end.
Finally, Sullivan calls it "absolutely unforgivable, vile, disgusting... No human being could survive it." With that I agree, no human being could survive it. But, fortunately for me, Christ did. He rose from the grave three days later.
One interesting point: Has anyone else noticed that the criticism has shifted from the "anti-Semitism" the fim supposedly engenders to one of shock and awe at the violence of the film? Interesting, no?