"The most important aspect of Christianity is not the work we do, but the relationship we maintain and the surrounding influence and qualities produced by that relationship. That is all God asks us to give our attention to, and it is the one thing that is continually under attack.
"
- Oswald Chambers, My Utmost For His Highest
Thursday, March 11, 2004
From Roger Ebert's latest "Movie Answer Man" column:
Q. Why not put a little perspective on the "Passion" box-office figures by comparing it to the biggest religious movie hits of all time, "The Robe," "Ben-Hur" and "The 10 Commandments"?
According to the Web site BoxOfficeMojo.com (go to www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted/), the adjusted, modern-day grosses for those films are $394 million, $590 million and $789 million respectively (and the American population was lot smaller back then).
I don't think Mel's film will even come close. Heck, even the latest "Lord of the Rings" film only clocks in at No. 49 on the all-time list.
Jim Judy, Washington, D.C.
A. Wow, you're right. It's three places below "The Bells of St. Mary's."
Q. I just returned from seeing "The Passion of the Christ." Had I been able to wrench my attention away from all of the horrified children gasping in the audience, I might have appreciated it more.
I can understand parents showing up at this film with their children expecting something different, but after a few minutes of the tremendous violence shown onscreen, I would have thought more parents would have spared their children further horror. Shouldn't ticket sellers offer some kind of warning to parents showing up with good intentions and young children?
Carson Utz, Novato, Calif.
A. I'll go further than that: No responsible parent would allow a child to see the film. "The Passion of the Christ," the most violent film I have ever seen, received an R rating from the MPAA because the group, which exists in part to quell the fears of churchgoing America, lacked the nerve to give it the NC-17 rating it clearly deserves . . .
Because many theaters refuse to book NC-17 films, and many media outlets will not advertise them, imagine the irony if their own policies had forced them to boycott "The Passion of the Christ"!
Q. In your review of "The Passion," you mention that you review a movie based on its intentions and not your expectations.
I'm a 21-year-old college student and I thought that "Bad Boys II" set out to become the most lurid and graphic action movie for my generation to enjoy, for entertainment value only, yet you reviewed the movie horribly. Is it because "The Passion" appeals to you more that you reviewed it in this kind manner?
Jon F. Kull, Quakertown, Pa.
A. One can, of course, review a movie based on its intentions and yet despise them.
That last point by Ebert is pretty important, I think, because he is one of the few "secular" critics willing to make moral judgements about films. Of course, his sense of morality doesn't nicely line up with the one held by those of us with a distinct Christian worldview, but I think he distinguishes himself by acknowledging that not all artistic intentions are honorable. Freedom of speech and artistic license does not automatically cover reprehensible ideas. Which is why Ebert not only joined other critics in panning the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, but distinguished himself by being one of the few to decry it as basically immoral.
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/1027.
Comments on "The Movie Answer Man on The Passion of the Christ":
2. Jared
- 03/11/2004 5:46 pm CST
Bird, I'm pretty sure Ebert would agree with you. He's long criticized the seeming arbitrariness (sp?) of the ratings system.
He's also repeatedly called for an "A" rating (indicating Adults) for movies beween the "R" and "NC-17" rating. Actually, he'd prefer the "NC-17" rating be done away with and have the "X" brought back, since that's basically what the NC-17 means anyway.
He says there needs to be a workable rating between R and NC-17 to distinguish between movies children under 17 definitely should not be able to see and actual p()rnography. The NC-17 rating was supposed to meet this purpose, but it has just taken on the p()rn connotation itself.
I don't agree with Ebert on that point. I don't know why he thinks an A rating would not also just take on the connotation of p()rn. The NC-17 rating was supposed to distinguish between movies kids definitely shouldn't see and actual p()rn and it didn't work. So why does he think a new rating with a different letter will be any different.
Personally, I'd just like to see the MPAA be more consistent with its rating standards. I've seen plenty of films that were rated PG-13 but should have been R, and even some R that should have been NC-17 (Tarantino's "Kill Bill" comes to mind, as does perhaps "Saving Private Ryan"). If movies like those last two I mentioned had gotten the NC-17 rating, it would help take the sexual connotation off of that rating. By reserving the NC-17 for basically only "secks movies," the MPAA has made it acceptable to continue increasing the level of gratuitous violence and profanity and still earn merely an R.
I'd just like to see consistency and some rationality involved. In my estimation, films like the Austin Powers sequels should have been contenders for an R rating, while a movie like "Bottle Rocket" should be a PG-13. And I've heard some outrage over "Whale Rider"'s PG-13 status, when most folks who see it say it should have been PG.
The MPAA may be looking out for families, but they are woefully out of touch.
3. Bird
- 03/11/2004 5:50 pm CST
I hear you, man.
I've seen plenty of films that were rated PG-13 but should have been R
Yep, that's my point exactly. I think we have all come to believe that anything above R is pr0n, and that shouldn't be so. With that in mind, I think any rating system they develop that gives one above R will always have the pr0n thing to overcome.
4. Shrode
- 03/12/2004 4:43 am CST
Here's Ebert again from a different day in the Movie Answer Man archive.
--------------------------------------------
Q. Yesterday I saw the wonderful "Lost in Translation." About two-thirds of the way through I realized that there was no swearing or vulgar language. I thought for sure that I must be seeing a PG-rated film. I was shocked to see that according the movie's poster the MPAA rated the film as "R." Could it have been because of a few risque moves by the fully clothed stripper in the film?
Next to the lobby poster for "Translation" was another MPAA rating travesty, "Whale Rider." The MPAA's crime against this film has been done to death, but hash pipe or no hash pipe I still can't imagine why that film would deserve at "PG," let alone a "PG-13." This is a film for the ages that would be healthy viewing for all. Maybe somebody from the MPAA could step forward and help rationalize why a film like "Kill Bill," covered wall to wall with freshly extracted human entrails, is only one step more dangerous for us than "Whale Rider," and how "Lost in Translation" could be just as disturbing for viewers as "Kill Bill." Please help me understand.
Joe Taylor, Carbondale
A. Gladly. The MPAA rating system is guided by the greed of the movie industry and its fear of the religious right.
(1) Greed: It opposes a workable adults-only rating, because the industry doesn't want a category that would actually require them to turn away potential customers. Thus movies are crammed into the R category, sometimes having to be edited to qualify. We need an A-for-adult rating between the R and the NC-17 (a.k.a. X), to separate non-porn adult films from pornography.
(2) Fear. Terrified of outside censorship, the MPAA is more sensitive to content involving language, mild sexuality and subtle drug references than the average American moviegoer. "Whale Rider" is a classic example of a film that Americans have embraced as ideal family entertainment; the PG-13 is a wild overreaction. We actually showed the offending "drug" scene on Ebert & Roeper and received not one single complaint. The best source for sane and objective information about the content of films is www.screenit.com.
5. Jared
- 03/12/2004 7:56 am CST
Meant to comment on this:
Yesterday I saw the wonderful "Lost in Translation." About two-thirds of the way through I realized that there was no swearing or vulgar language. I thought for sure that I must be seeing a PG-rated film. I was shocked to see that according the movie's poster the MPAA rated the film as "R." Could it have been because of a few risque moves by the fully clothed stripper in the film?
First of all, the stripper is not fully clothed. She is clearly topless. Not sure what movie this letter writer saw, but it obviously wasn't the movie I did. And I'm surprised Ebert didn't correct him.
And the scene itself is in terrible taste. Not only is the stripper dancing as offensively as possible (not the lame "gyrating" you might see in the strip clubs on TV cop shows), the song playing in the club is profane and sexually explicit.
But the writer is correct that had this one scene, which runs about thirty excruciating seconds, been removed, the movie would more than likely be PG. Not PG-13. PG.
I don't recall much profanity in the movie at all other than the song playing in that brief scene, and there's no sex, violence, or other nudity in the movie.
And the scene is actually kind of pointless. It does not further the plot. Someone asks Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson to meet him at that club. Johansson enters to find Murray completely bored, unimpressed with the explicit display before him. She sits next to him for about five seconds and then asks, "Do you want to get out of here?" To which he says decisively, "Yes."
That's it. That's the scene. I know the point was to have some humor. But they could have easily had them meet someplace else. Or even set the scene in an obvious strip club but not shown any nudity or played a profane song.
Sofia Coppola could have easily plucked this thirty seconds out of her film and had a PG movie. It's a shame.
6. Shrode
- 03/12/2004 8:35 am CST
And though I've said it elsewhere, I want to reiterate that I think Ebert is wrong when he says "The Passion" is the most violent film he's ever seen. I know that's a subjective comment, and I know I don't know what all movies he's seen. But if he's seen any Hong Kong action movies, or any slasher flick, I have hard time believing that he's never seen a more violent film. (I know he's at least seen Texas Chainsaw Massacre. That wasn't more violent?) I'd like to know how he defines "more violent.";"0
7. Jared
- 03/12/2004 9:30 am CST
Shrode, I agree. I think I made that same point in my review of the film.
Ebert has seen every major film release for at least the last thirty years (and thousands of "minor" film releases). I have to take him at his word that he's never seen one more violent than "The Passion," but it certainly is not the most violent movie I've ever seen (and I'm making the safe assumption that I've not seen as many movies as he).
It's a subjective point, to be sure, and I bet it has something to do with all of the violence focused on one person for so long. If that's the case, I might would say it's the most violent torture ever depicted on film or something like that. But I think that just last year "Kill Bill" was easily more violent. At least, it seemed that way to me.
the NC-17 rating it clearly deserves . . .
If this movie deserves NC-17, then there's boatloads of flicks that also deserve that distinction.