Yes, another Passion thread :roll:, but I felt this article might take the other discussions in a new direction, so here goes. Reproduced from theooze.com.

WHEN PASSION IS REDUCED TO A DOOR HANGER

Written by Spencer Burke

Mel Gibson--named favorite movie actor at this year's People's Choice Awards--has one of the most recognizable faces in Hollywood. But you won't see much of it in his latest movie. In fact, you'll only see his hands--a brief cameo--as he drives a nail into the palm of actor, James Caviezel. Opening on February 25, The Passion of the Christ, graphically portrays the last gut-wrenching hours of Jesus' life on earth--the betrayal, the beatings, the bloodshed--everything.

But chances are, you've already heard all about the movie. Why? Because Christians by the thousands "believe" in this film. They believe in it enough to sign petitions, lobby theater owners and line up for special sneak previews. They even believe in it enough to help market it--spending church money to buy their own posters, banners, door hangers, and of course, tracts. If you look hard enough, you'll probably find someone selling T-shirts too. In any case, it's fascinating to me just how popular this movie has become--especially since it hasn't even been officially released yet.

Now, somehow or another, I didn't make the guest list for a preview showing, so I can't comment on the film's content. I do, however, have a few thoughts on all the hype surrounding it.

R is for Reality

First of all, I want to applaud the church for its boldness in supporting an R-rated movie. I don't know about you, but I've heard plenty of sermons over the years on why Christian adults shouldn't see R-rated movies. To discount a film purely because of its rating has always seemed a bit shortsighted and narrow to me. So I'm thrilled to think that perhaps we're finally moving past a policy of blind abstinence.

When explaining the R-rating, I've heard people say, "Well, it's rated R--for reality." Indeed, most Christian leaders who've seen the film have said The Passion is historically and biblically accurate. To quote Pope John Paul II: "It is as it was." But is that to say that other films do not depict reality?

I think back a few years to The Accused in which Jodi Foster played a young woman gang-raped on a pinball machine. Or to other movies showing graphic inner-city violence. Were these films not based in reality? Do they not also reflect the ugly truth that is sometimes woven into the human journey?

As the church wrestles with The Passion of the Christ and its raw depictions of Jesus' last days, I'm curious what will happen after the film. Will we promote other R-rated films from the pulpit or will we go back to our "No R-rated films" stance? Will we say that "Jesus violence" is okay, but reject other hard-to-watch films?

If we do, I think we risk looking hypocritical at best, and bigoted at worst.

In advocating for The Passion of the Christ, many Christians have suggested that people need to see this movie. Why? So that they'll understand what Christ did for them, what it cost him in pain and anguish. The same could be said of films like The Accused. Until you see it, you may not really understand what it means for a woman to go through such trauma. You may not fully appreciate the impact of the news reports, or the statistics.

To be sure, "no R-rated films except Jesus ones" is an easy standard to keep. It requires little thought or debate. By comparison, evaluating films on a film-by-film basis takes work. It requires discernment and a certain amount of struggle. At what point does violence, or language, or sexuality, become gratuitous? Can we tell strong stories without censorship? Is there a difference between "rated-R for reality" and plain old "rated-R?" I would encourage the church to look first at the story of a film, rather than its rating.

Storytellers and Stardom

By now, most people know that Mel Gibson invested $25 million of his own money--and 12 years of his life--to make this film. it's a beautiful, inspiring story. An Oscar-winning actor who risks everything to make the movie he believes the world needs to see. "[it's] the most artistically ambitious and accomplished treatment of the crucifixion ever committed to film," says radio talk show host Michael Medved.

It's hard not to be impressed with Gibson's commitment and rightly so. But I would ask whether the church is as willing to support other filmmakers who are equally passionate. Are we willing to allow anyone to share their perspective and their story even if we don't think it's absolutely correct? My feeling is that we're not--or at least we haven't been. It just so happens we like what Mel's film has to say. When independent directors come calling at our churches, do we offer to buy them door hangers and banners? Do we agree to play their commercials on Sunday? Do we rush to buy out multiplexes for the premier of their films?

With so much excitement surrounding The Passion of the Christ, I'm a bit concerned that we're endeavoring to hook our wagon to Mel Gibson's star. The reality is, every day filmmakers are putting their own money into projects and trying to share their vision with a wider audience. And yet only to Mel do we offer the robe, the ring and position of honor.

Whose stories are we willing to tell, anyway? Are we only interested in supporting films with big name actors and big name budgets? Will we only support outright religious films? Are we interested in art for art's sake, or art that fits with our agenda?

Passion and Propaganda

Speaking of agendas, it's fascinating to me to see the groundswell of activity surrounding this film. Not only are we slapping up posters and buying tickets like crazy, we're turning the film into the centerpiece of a whole evangelistic campaign. At thepassionoutreach.com, the main banner proclaims, "Perhaps the best outreach opportunity in 2000 years." Can't think of your own way to respond to (or ride) the film's popularity? No problem. The site gives you 13 pre-packaged ideas--everything from a suggested sermon series, to a saturation mailing. In Canada, you can even go to Passion training--sessions where you'll learn to share your personal testimony in 3 minutes.

On the one hand, I applaud the church's enthusiasm. After years of opposing popular culture and non-traditional art forms, I'm encouraged that we're moving forward. I'm pleased to see that we're attempting to address culture in the movie house, not just the "house of the Lord." At the same time, however, I'm nervous that we're attempting to shrink wrap the gospel and turn art--Mel Gibson's personal vision of the crucifixion of Christ--into something it was never meant to be: propaganda.

The Passion booklets, The Passion-themed Bibles, The Passion jewelry--it just goes on and on. Churches have developed ads to air before the film. Little spots that say, "See the movie then come join us on Sunday." No offense, but I don't particularly like seeing commercials for Chrysler before a movie, let alone commercials for Christ. I don't want to get a tract on my way out of the theater nor do I want some stranger to shake my hand and pretend to be my best friend. Thanks but no thanks, and I'm a Christian!

The church marketing machine is strong. (Been to a Christian bookstore lately?) We can do bracelets, mugs and T-shirts with the best of them. But is it right? Are we interested in engaging with culture, or simply trying to convert people? When we invite friends to see the movie, will we feel that our night was a waste if we don't get a chance to share The Four Laws? Is our agenda to buy people tickets so that the whole night feels like an awkward first date--you know, the "Well, he bought me dinner so I guess I have to kiss him," scenario? Are we interested in people's honest questions about the film, or only their response to the film (i.e. did they pray the prayer)?

My sense is that all our enthusiasm could actually backfire and keep people away from what may or may not be a great film. At the same time, however, all our efforts will no doubt demand a payoff. You just know that elders somewhere are going to be counting how many people attend post-February 25 services and trying to calculate how many people came to Christ because of this film.

Am I going to buy a ticket to Mel Gibson's movie? I might, but if I do, it will be for the same reason I saw The Last Temptation of Christ and Godspell; I'm interested in seeing people's personal experiences and struggles with Jesus. I'm also interested in seeing films that go beyond blatant religious themes. I enjoyed Spike Lee's film The 25th Hour, for instance. The Big Kahuna, Whale Rider, Dancer in the Dark--they've all caused me to ponder my faith.

When I was a kid, I wasn't even allowed to go to movies, so to see the church so heartily endorsing one is a big switch in and of itself. But I'd suggest that by and large, we're still only supporting our films. To me, The Passion of the Christ is a bit like Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments. In the future, I hope we'll see Christians supporting all kinds of storytelling--and not just the greatest story ever sold?
___________________________________
Spencer Burke is the creator of TheOoze.com, author of Making Sense of Church and co-founder of Damah - short film festival - "Sprirtual Experiences in Film". (original link http://www.theooze.com/articles/article.cf...7)

Yeah, I already went round on the "R" issue with my father tonight over the phone. When I read the R for Reality line in another thread, I immediately thought, "Well right. Exactly why I've been going to "R" films for decades now." despite what is said from the pulpit. It's those cheesy "G" films that I always had trouble with (less of a problem today). I wonder about all that side marketting that piggybacks on Passion, will Gibson require licensing? Will the various siblings in Christ even think to research the matter? This could get out of hand, though I saw little evidence today. I hope Burke is just barking up the wrong tree.

The local reviewer (who gave the film 3 out of five stars) noted that Gibsons other films have all been "incidentally" re-released at the same time. And he concludes, now matter how much passion was involved in the making of this film, somebody's gonna make a buck off of it.


In truth, I'm not sure I have a problem with this. Why shouldn't filmmakers be compensated, even rewarded for the efforts, if they are in fact worthwhile to the moviegoing public?