Some people seem to be shocked that "The Passion of the Christ" didn't start a massive wave of lasting Christian fervor across the country. I say to them, "Duh!" People took from the movie what they took in (much like "Fahrenheit 9/11"). If you expected anti-Semitism, that's what you saw. If you expected a moving work of religious art, that's what you saw. If you expected sado-masochism, that's what you saw. I wouldn't expect a movie like "The Passion" (lots of imagery, little commentary) to convert someone any more than I would expect a painting to.
Funky Dung
Comments 2
The Passion of the Christ was probably most effective as a reminder to Christians, a way of making the suffering real to people who at least nominally believe, so as to drive home the meaning of the sacrifice a little more than we're used to.
Well, that's what it did for me.
+0
Posted 18 Jul 2004 at 10:33 am ¶Well, let's grant that a movie that brought about conversions from an escaped killer in Texas and a skinhead in Norway didn't have the same effect on everyone else.
But there could be many smaller, just as important changes in people's lives. Would the media report on them? Even if they were sympathetic to the Passion, how easily could they trace them over time? Funky implies in his last line that paintings are anemic ways to touch lives, but the Counter-Reformation was spearheaded by many of the greatest artists in Italy, and iconography is a conerstone of Eastern Christians. I've known people who have been touched by the visual arts, and many people have a new appreciation of Christ's sufferings, thanks to the movie.
+0
Posted 20 Jul 2004 at 2:11 am ¶Trackbacks & Pingbacks 1
Post a Comment