The New York Times is really out of touch on the Passion issue

I don't want to turn this thread into a religious discussion or even a discussion about the movie itself. That gets contentious and leads to a closed thread. However I find the entire topic interesting, probably more so than any current event since Bush v. Gore. As a result I have been watching a lot of TV news shows and reading newpapers on-line like the NY Times. If you go to this address http://www.nytimes.com/ref/movies/PASSION-REF.html and view the NY Times page on this movie; it is very instructive. The headlines by a bunch of different writers from Frank Rich to Maureen Dowd are almost entirely negative as are the articles on Gibson himself. Just read the headlines and then click on the reader feedback section. I read 20 reviews of the film by readers of which 19 praise the film on the highest level. I mean they say its riveting and that they are emotionally moved by the film. The NY Times is so out of touch its just amazing. I think they should practise what they preach and add some diversity to their writing staff, because when it comes to an issue like this, they have none.

Being into movies like I am the other thing that is very interesting is that directors strive to make a film where the audience can be emotionally moved or involved in the film. Its just about the highest compliment one can pay to a movie. This film clearly accomplishes this like no other since Private Ryan. The achievment must be recognized and can be even if you haven't seen the film (like me) or don't like it (like the collective body of writers in the NY Times).

 

Like any publication, the Times hires professional reviewers to offer *their* honest, unvarnished opinions of movies. Sometimes the public will agree with their assessments, and sometimes they won't. I'm not sure what is proved by saying the Times scribes are "out of touch"; isn't criticism, by its very nature, a subjective thing?

So nineteen readers saw the film and thought it was riveting. Wonderful. But since none of those readers is paid to offer their opinions, it seems to me that you're comparing apples and oranges.

 

Mike,
I was thinking the same thing. In our local paper's Weekend section, there was an article entitled "'Passion' Inspires Mixed Views". They had excerpts from professional reviews throughout the country-some loved it (for example, Roger Ebert) and some panned it. It's still just a movie, isn't it?

 

Perhaps you should have framed this as a question, not a statement of fact.
You should come up here and have some conversations and find out how negative opinion on this movie really is....
Most people I know here won't see it because of the violence (myself included) or perceived anti-semitism. The people I know who did see it say its over the top graphic violence was sickening.
For the most part the Times is closely in touch with New York "thinking". Which is certainly not the prevailing thinking in rest of the country and definately not the (non-DC) Virginia area. (There are reasons why many of us choose to live here!)

 

There are a lot of hot (interesting) public issues: this movie, gay marriage, Janet Jackson>Howard Stern>Clear Channel>the Patriot Act . . . and Interesting that John mentions Bush v. Gore.

All of these issues (and this movie) are extremely devisive. I don't live in NY, but I would generally agree w/most of what the Times has written. This is a snuff film draped in the "flag" of religion.

I'm not sure what's enthralling or entertaining about seeing a nail, in graphic detail, driven through the palm of a humen being, whether he's depicting a religious deity or not.

We all know the basis of Christianity--do we really need Mel Gibson to give it to us in this fashion? It's his right to make it and sell it. It's mine to say I've seen enough based on the trailer and clips.

If you've seen many of the interviews with him, he's clearly got some kind of persecution problem, and the making of this film as a "personal" crusade is part of that.

In this part of the country, fundamentalist Christians are using the film as a line in the sand, so to speak: If you don't get this movie and appreciate this movie, you are not "washed in the blood of the lamb." Big surprise.

The religious and anti-Semite questions aside, I just think he's using these very powerful tools to offer up another banal display of violence.

doug

 

I'm not talking about the review of the film. I agree with Ken, I thought the A.0 Scott piece was a decent film review. That site has links to many other articles that are an assault on Gibson personally, the film, and marketing of the film and have nothing to do with film reviews.

This is the bottom line: 19/20 regular folks are emotionally moved and not ONE writer shares this view. All I'm saying is that they are out of touch with their readership.

 

Guys - the gorts need a break from reading this. Lets pick this up later.