|
Volume CXXXIII, Number 17 |
 |
Passion review way off base
To the Editors:
Mike Nugent's review of Passion of the Christ makes some astounding claims. Nugent writes that the movie "presents a well-balanced and original vision of the most important event in Christianity." First of all, this movie is not "balanced" in any sense of the word. There is no humanity to balance the gratuitous violence, there are no people who are clearly good and clearly Jewish (you would never know Jesus was Jewish had you only seen the film), and there is little historical accuracy mixed in with the purely religious account (no one in Judea spoke Latin, so that did not "greatly contribute to its authenticity").
Which brings me to Nugent's claim that the movie is "original"-in fact the whole point is that this movie is based entirely on the Gospels and the visions of a 19th century nun, not on Gibson's own work. In fact, the only touches that Gibson came up with (like having demon children torment Judas) feel either tacked on or just plain odd.
Finally, and most importantly, the crucifixion is not, and should not be, the most important part of Christianity. An idealist would argue that Jesus's words and his life were more important than his grisly demise. Mel Gibson and Mike Nugent seem to miss this central point entirely.
Sincerely,
Neal Urwitz '06
For information on sending a letter to the editor, please click here.
|
FastCounter by bCentral |