Fraters Libertas

The Hype of the Christ?

The advance word on Mel Gibson’s new movie “The Passion of the Christ” has convinced me it’s worth seeing. An accurate portrayal of history, a spiritually inspiring movie, an artistic masterpiece of technical and acting accomplishment. Each a reason in itself to attend. And if it embodies all three, well this might be the best movie I’ve seen this year (an honor currently held by Errol Morris’s terrific documentary on Robert McNamara “The Fog of War” now showing at the Lagoon).

Here are some of the criticisms leveled at the film so far:

The New Yorker magazine's David Denby said the violence overwhelmed the film. "One of the cruelest movies in the history of cinema," he wrote, calling "Passion" "a sickening death trip."

The New York Daily News called it an anti-Semitic work with violence that was "grotesque, savage and often fetishized" in slow motion.

”We were troubled ... that it portrayed the Jews, the Jewish community, in a manner that we have experienced historically," said Anti-Defamation League Executive Director Abraham Foxman. "Seeing passion plays [dramatizations of Jesus' last days] used to incite not only a passion of love in terms of Christianity, but at the same time, to instill and incite a hatred of the Jews because of deicide."

Then the defense from Mel himself:

Gibson said he wanted "to create a lasting work of art and engender serious thought among audiences of diverse faith backgrounds (or none) who have varying familiarity with this story."

I’m sure all of these criticisms and responses are earnestly expressed and there are no subversive marketing ambitions behind them. But that doesn’t mean the comments aren’t serving as an effective marketing campaign. The whole situation reminds me of the marketing strategies used by B-movie producers in the early days of shock/horror cinema. Below is from a Joe Bob Briggs interview about a 1963 movie called “Blood Feast”. It’s not a perfect analogy with Gibson’s movie, but the similarities in media manipulation (and manipulation by the media) are striking:

Lewis and Friedman dragged Blood Feast around the drive-in circuit for years, writing phony letters to editors in the next town on the map, posing as a minister complaining about the film's severity. Protests only sold more tickets. It worked, always, like a charm in Tampa. Things were different in Sarasota.

Friedman couldn't make anyone mad enough there to turn a profit. Then, an idea: He rented a motel room in Sarasota for a local address, then filed an injunction to keep Blood Feast out of "his" town. He got the publicity he wanted, and something he didn't expect.

The judge granted the injunction. Blood Feast could never be shown in Sarasota. Friedman hired an attorney to convince the judge that the plaintiff had seen the movie and had been wrong. This was, indeed, an educational film that should be seen. The injunction was overturned and Blood Feast made another killing.