July 25, 2003

How does one explain The Cradle of Life?

It makes The League of Extraordinary Crap look like a minor masterpiece. How about that?

I don’t see how these movies could have been made if there was no Angelina Jolie. She is the most special effect possible. There are a lot of beautiful women in the world and in the movies. But this woman is truly a freak of art. You just kind of sit there watching her perfect movie skin, her perfect movie hair, her perfect movie breasts, her perfect movie ass, her perfect movie legs… even her perfect movie fingers… and all for the least perfect movie imaginable.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider – The Cradle of Life made me laugh a lot… at, not with. It was just beyond stupid sometimes. It makes one of the most popular cardinal sins, wasting Djimon Hounsou. (Won’t it be funny if by the time this thing hits cable next summer, the announce will be “Academy Award Winner Angelina Jolie… Academy Award Winner Djimon Hounsou…” after they used him so minimally?) The big fight scenes cannot be followed by the human eye. The story is a convoluted mess.

And yet, I found myself doing for this film what so many others did for CA: Full Frontal It didn’t hurt. Watching her was pleasant, as “director” Jan de Bont and “editor” Christian Wagner (who did an excellent job on Die Another Day and not so much on Spy Game) played Hide The Body Part. You just never knew when you were going to get a “wow” shot.

But if you are over 15 and actually want some story or romance or comedy or something other than Jolie’s near skin burnt into your soul, you’re going to want to stay far, far away from this one. It is truly Leonard Pynth Garnel time here… It was bad… so very, very bad…a new achievement in bad…

WEEKEND PREVIEW: It will be one of the most interesting box office weekends of the summer… and one of the worst weekends for people who really like movies… unless you fit the niche. It's kind of the antithesis of Pirates of the Caribbean… all of these movies have something for exactly one person in your family… do not try to bring anyone else you love.

Tomb Raider 2 is a perfect movie, it you are a teen boy whose idea of bad sex is trying to watch a dirty movie through the scrambled signal on your TV and good sex is a copy of Playboy. Seabiscuit is a perfect movie if you are old enough to remember the Depression and forgetful enough to think each repetition of the theme is fresh. Spy Kids 3D is a perfect movie if you were put off by Tron because its storyline was too complicated.

Even in the arthouses, niche, niche, niche. Lucia, Lucia is for people who remember who Cecelia Roth is. Camp is for gay people who are happy to have their lives put on screen at all, even if gay comedies are rarely very watchable. Buffalo Soldiers is for people who haven't seen M*A*S*H or Stripes. And Hotel is for people who really, really, really care about the progress of digital cinema. Really really.

WEEKEND GUESSTIMATES
Tomb Raider 2 - 3222 venues - new - $36.6 million
Bad Boys II - 3202 venues - off 52 percent - $22.4 million
Pirates of the Caribbean - 3416 venues - off 35 percent - $21.5 million
Seabiscuit - 1987 venues - new - $18.9 million
Spy Kids 3D - 3344 venues - new - $16.5 million

Finding Nemo - 2025 venues - off 28 percent - $5.3 million
Johnny English - 2236 venues - off 44 percent - $5.2 million
Terminator 3 - 2660 venues - off 45 percent - $5.1 million
The League - 2532 venues - off 58 percent - $4.2 million
Legally Blonde 2 - 2120 venues - $3.1 million

READER OF THE DAY: In retrospect, the column on The Passion delivered a lot of e-mails that were very similar in tone.

THE PHOENIX wrote: "Dave - you say this regarding Gibson's The Passion:

He is now seeking to control the dialogue by showing the film only to those who he knows to be on "his side" and then allowing his minions to spread the message that the "other side" hasn't even seen the movie, so any of their questions about the history are devalued. Nice trick… but not honest. Worse, the people in the media to whom Gibson is showing his film are people who have made their careers by promoting an "us versus them" attitude.

Well - it's Mel Gibson's money and sweat behind The Passion and he can do whatever he pleases with this picture, including 'controlling the dialogue' as you put it. He can show it to whomever he pleases.

I think he's got more guts than most actors/producers/directors in Hollywood. Instead of giving us a film to please the masses - he's chosen to tell the story his way - at all costs. Good for Mel!

I will fight to the death for Gibson's right to distribute and exhibit his vision - any vision he has - as widely and freely as any other film, be it Hollywood crap or art quality. I will not fight for this man's right to pick a fight. And right now, that seems to be where he is heading.

IMO, he's not picking a fight with anyone. He's been attacked since he undertook production of this film. It really is no buddy's business what he does with The Passion. It's HIS money and HIS vision. Who the hell are these picayune pundits anyway? They should pony up their own money and make a film their way if they are unhappy. Check out previous press reports, Dave - they all attack Mel.

Where is the screening for film critics in New York and Los Angeles? I suppose that the downside of such screenings is negative reviews.

And why might there be negative words from NY and LA? Maybe because of folks like Marvin Heir and the critics' fears of offending him. Let's face it Dave - Catholics have protested certain subject matter and films before, and most of Hollywood just thumbs its noses at those Catholics and releases any film it desires. Maybe the shoe is finally on the other foot?

Give Mel a chance to market and tell his story. If people don't like what they see - then they should bitch after they actually see The Passion. If you had the kind of money behind this picture that Mel has - you'd be careful who saw it ahead of time too. Judging from media reports - it looks like certain folks will trash this picture no matter how he chooses to publicize and tell this account of Christ's passion.

I for one - will stand in line to see Mel's vision of this powerful event in history."

M-PLODE took one of the other popular tacks: "I was saddened and disgusted after reading Paula Fredriksen's "article", which comes across more like a hate filled diatribe. She slams Mel Gibson and his film, THE PASSION, claiming it is not truthful to the scriptures. The problem is, she does not give any specifics whatsoever. All she can do
is say the film is based on non-Biblical visions, which happen to be false. Well, what specifically in the script is not accurate? Describe for us the scenes in the actual script that are not truthful?

Personally, it seems that this entire hate piece is just that, hate. Uninformed hate. Until I read specifics, I have no reason to believe Paula Fredriksen ever read the script. Meanwhile, more and more people, including Jack Valenti (just try and say he is anti-Semitic), have praised the film, which they saw. I'll take their word over the word of people who have not seen the film and cannot provide proof they actually read the script."

M&M was less aggressive and more defensive on Mel's behalf: "Perhaps Gibson's handling of the film has something to do with the death threats leveled against he and his family over the making of the film? Or the way that it has been attacked by groups who have not read the script or seen the film? Perhaps Gibson, as a movie star's movie star, has no wish to further endanger his reputation or his life to show the movie the way it should be shown.
Gibson has thus far been a model of decency about this project, and like every creative type to step within 50 feet of God or Jesus with a camera, has been soundly crucified for his efforts. Perhaps Gibson simply feels no need to pander to organizations more motivated by politics than by genuine concerns of religious faith in order to please them before unleashing his statement.
I certainly don't blame him."
THE ROW offered a more specific idea about the screenings: "I'm a practicing Catholic and I've seen the trailers of Mel's The Passion. It looks like, judging by the trailer, that it's going to be an amazing movie. I can't wait and hope it will get a distributor soon. Just by the trailer, it deserves to be seen...

Now per your comment on your article today:

"....would say that the discussion should now be put back in the hands of film people, not politicians posing as talk hosts. Where is the screening for film critics in New York and Los Angeles?"....

Wasn't Jack Valenti (who I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, part of the so-called Hollywood liberals) on the lists of people who Mel screened it for in Washington along with the likes of right-winger Matt Drudge? I read that Valenti found the movie the movie to beat and told Kirk Douglas about it. Now, he is not a film critic I understand , but he is definitely a part of Hollywood and understands that movies are an art form. Maybe, just maybe, Mel should do more to reach out to "the other side". However, by inviting Valenti, I think that Mel is trying his best not to slant it in his favor."

MILES TO GO defends Christianity & "beds" Mel: "I have no idea what the Bishop lady said, but I don't think holding Gibson and his company to a higher standard (Jesus) in the current Hollywood anti-Christian atmosphere is fair. Gibson is still a director and is trying to save his film by putting it in the best light. If that means preventing the 95% a) liberal, b) godless, c) jewish, or d) all of the above NY and LA film critics from seeing the movie first and no doubt portraying it in a negative light, then so be it. Do I detect a whiff of jealousy that Cal Thomas and Matt Drudge saw the film before you?

Besides, Gibson has been "compromising" his faith on film for years. He's had extra-marital relations with Sigourney Weaver, Patsy Kensit, Sophie Marceau, Jodie Foster, and Rene Russo and said dozens of F-words and killed dozens of bad guys in 4 Lethal Weapons.

PS- Oh, yeah, by the way, no Christian I know is anti-semitic, but much of pop culture seems anti-Christian. If you don't think so, how many Christians from film in recent years weren't murderers or weak? (Think "The Apostle", "Bull Durham", "Frailty" for starters) And "Signs" doesn't count since it stars Mel Gibson.

THE LAW seems to be a little more amused than most: "As a card-carrying Irish Catholic (and, for the record, a former non-abused altar boy who who went to high school with Cardinal Mahoney's famed butt-fuck buddy Michael Stephen Baker, which for your readership is sorta like the equivalent of saying I went to school with Hannibal Lecter), I have a suggestion for the inevitable The Passion junket you will attend. Instead of loading up with all the cool cinema Christ crap they are likely to unload on you, why not bring your own alternate Christ trinkets?

The Passion, indeed! Dave, show 'em you care. Show 'em you "get it." For example, how about giving your film cronies Jesus action figures like Baseball Jesus or Basketball Jesus. I leave it to your theological contacts there to determine whether it is a venal or mortal sin to block Him from making a three-point shot. My guess it is not a good call to go there."

ORBISON'S OBSESSION goes for the eyes: "oh dear, jim howyouspellit as jesus... my only question is, does he at least wear brown contact lenses? from what i recall of jim, he's a rather blue-eyed boy. i'm so sick of seeing the 'blue-eyed jesus' in the movies... had jesus been belgian, this would be fine; but being as jesus was a middle-easterner, and i've yet to see a finely chiselled bright blue-eyed saudi/syrian/turk/jordanian/lebanese/egyptian/isreali/iranian, this is just absurd. i'm tired of white westerners 'whiteifying' jesus in their paintings and films so that they can identify with the man, instead of having the guts to portray him (and accept him) as he must have been: a brown man. the fact that jesus is always a blue-eyed pretty boy in the movies says a lot about the bigotry and perhaps stupidity of westerners: just because much of western culture has adopted the teachings of jesus as religion doesn't mean jesus himself was a 'western' looking man. duh. "

JUST ED writes: "I've really appreciated your columns on Gibson's Passion. I've been looking forward to seeing this film, especially as a Christian who's pretty familiar with historical Jesus research--and who really enjoys film. Seems to me that Mel's stepping into three distinct but intertwined controversies: 1) Passion plays and anti-semitism, 2) "Historical" portrayal of Jesus's last 12 hours or so, 3) Marketing the "unmarketable".

1) My thoughts on the first one aren't anything new. Proof of the pudding is in the eating, and if the film is being used to stir up anti-semitism it will out. But it's hard to imagine any significant story based on the gospel accounts, and what I believe as historical fact, not involving players who are Jewish (high priests & Jesus himself--hardly naive about facing death at the hands of the authorities), half-Jewish (King Herod), and non-Jewish (Pilate) in Jesus' death. Fredriksen seems to capture this account well enough in her New Republic article, but I guess I don't share her skepticism based on what I've seen and read and her argument's failure to persuade me that it exists (in what way? what parts of the story take the blood libel approach?)

2) Fredriksen also captures the reality that Gibson's film is missing out on its purported "historically accurate" goal, but she misses the point. Gibson's not turning in a historical argument--actually I think no film does in the way that Fredriksen means. It is a media that doesn't allow for footnotes and bibliography, but instead relies on choices, visual and aural interpretation, and specifically the filmmaker's vision under his own personal, scheduling, and financial limitations. This film, or any other Jesus film, is not a scholar's argument--its not even in the same league.

Film is not a thesis-antithesis-synthesis proposition, like much of Fredriksen's work and world. Dialogue affecting the versioning of the choices or the direction of the argument in progress is irrelevant. Dialogue after the fact, however, is. After seeing the trailer, I am convinced the Passion will not be as historically accurate as hyped (many articles highlight issues from Latin to crucifixion practices to Mary's pieta). The historical Jesus, seen in works as varied as Fredriksen's own "Jesus of Nazareth" to N. T. Wright's "Jesus and the Victory of God" to the misguided ramblings of the Jesus Seminar (of which P. Verhoeven is a member, btw), would make an excellent film--one that would cause controversy (whose historical Jesus I wonder?--one cannot imagine a more different pair of Jesus's than N.T. Wright's and J.D. Crossan's) and contemplation. Each film, in asserting its own historicity, will have to make choices and arguments and narratives based on more or less studied opinion, and will have proponents and opponents arguing over the details. This should not detract from its own value as a film. In much the same way, the Jesus of the Passion's trailer is a compelling, heart and gut wrenching image--and my guess, eagerly awaiting its confirmation or denial in the final product, a passionate, traditionalist Roman Catholic icon of the Christ--historical inaccuracies and all.

3) Marketing this film delves right into the middle of points one and two-in effect, its marketing has become an apologia for its historical nature (unfortunately so, I think) and its non-anti-Semitism (which I think is necessary given that it is being condemned unseen and without much more than straw-man arguments). I think Mel's got a right to market his film in any way he chooses, but he'll face the consequences of those choices. Play to the conservative community, Christian and otherwise? His consequence will be a lack of credibility and perceived integrity to his art. "Preaching to the choir", anyone? But if his film is good (well crafted, thought and heart provoking), it will stand on its own. One other note, Mel's comments in the media take on an almost small "e" evangelical flair--Passion is an appropriate title, and it characterizes I think his feelings for the heart, faith, and truth of what he's committed to tell. I think, being on the "inside" as it were to Evangelical Christianity, that Mel's comments sound as if he feels that this is his contribution to the Kingdom, that this is his opportunity to "Preach the Word, in season and out of season". I respect him for that, and deeply believe in his right to do so, even if I may disagree with his message."

Finally, on a more serious note, NOT CHRIS GORE writes: "I am writing with regards to today's article on the Passion and Mel Gibson's screening of it Monday in Washington. I disagree with your assessment of his behavior and motivations on several counts.

Mel Gibson's critics have been gathering their forces against him for the better part of six months now. To imply that his screening is an offensive move is incorrect. Mr. Gibson clearly knows that the critics of his film will not be satiated regardless of what his film's content is. Like yourself, I too was discouraged when I read that Mr. Gibson showed his film to a predominantly conservative audience. What bothered me though was that this would give his liberal detractors perceived ammunition against him, when in fact they were the ones who began the attack in the first place.

Mel gathered this group together for support and I clearly understand why he would do it. I cannot believe for one minute given the smug, academic tone of her article that Paula Fredriksen would go into this film with an open mind. Instead she would go in and merely use it as a tool to reconfirm her beliefs regardless of what the content was.

I also disagree with your assessment of his audience as <<people who have made their careers by promoting an "us versus them" attitude>>. Since my days as a film and politics student at university in the early nineties I can honestly say that if any group or demographic has earned the right to have your phrase used as an accurate description of them, it is duly afforded to the left. They often say one becomes what they hate, and since the late eighties when political correctness by the left came to be the order of the day, the left has conducted itself with as much vitriolic judgment as any member of the evangelical religious right. If there is truly a group that runs around with righteous indignation, shouting down people with career wrecking accusations of racism, misogyny, homophobia etc.

Mr. Gibson knows this. He knows that most university academics (of any religion) teach that Catholicism is just a "patriarchal, moralistic, oppressive faith that promotes all that is wrong in the world". This is certainly what I was taught during my years at university in Canada. I entered as a very liberal minded Catholic student, but after four years of explicitly being told my faith was responsible for all of societies ills, I started to see the lies and anger for what it was; just as bigoted as the hatred the left purports to be against.

My reason for mentioning my university years (sorry for the long digression), is that even if Paula Fredriksen sees the film with her academic friends and concludes that the film is anti-Semitic, I 'm quite sure I wouldn't take her word at face value.

Ms. Fredriksen says she is afraid of the film promoting anti-Semitism. Frankly, I'm afraid she and the left will use it to keep up endorsing anti-Catholicism. On a regular basis I hear derogatory comments made about my faith from people that if they were to be made about any other demographic would be considered unacceptable in the extreme. Yet, these are good people, they have just been so engrained by our liberal minded academic establishment that they don't see the remarks as being offensive. They consider themselves enlightened.

Again, you wonder why Mr. Gibson showed the film only to those he knew would probably like it, yet you answer your own question with your analogy to the film The Believer. Mr. Gibson is smart enough to know that the audience response for the film probably will fall down along lines of what is politically correct or not. The left and academic types will most likely hate it, the right will endorse it. There will be exceptions to both sides of course, but in the end, how can most liberal academics (again of any faith) endorse a sympatric portrayal of Jesus when they see Jesus and the religion he spawned as the chief source of what is wrong with the world?

Ms. Fredriksen is already trying to silence the film's proponents. If one likes it, one is endorsing anti-Semitism and racism.

What is more troubling is the lack of support Mr. Gibson is getting from his peers. You mentioned the silencing of people. Think of the untold millions Mr. Gibson has earned for Hollywood over the years. All of the people he has employed. The constant success of his films in terms of box office performance. No one from the Hollywood community has spoken up for him that I can find. Not one. Yet I find it hard to accept that no one believes in the film. Why aren't they speaking? These are the ones who are being silenced. Remember, when true censorship and silencing occurs, and someone is afraid to speak up, we'll never hear it. I've heard from Mel's detractors for half a year know. They are very confident and get plenty of publicity every day. I've not heard anyone in Hollywood supporting him. For an industry that has made headlines recently about claims of being censored and silenced for their views, the lack of support for Mr. Gibson is truly disturbing.

Let's be blunt, to hold onto the Dixie Chicks as a standard of free speech and then not stand by Mr. Gibson, shows true bias at work and a real lack of principles.

I look forward to this film eagerly as do most cinephiles, and I applaud Mr. Gibson's courage. Unlike most filmmakers and actors who cash large cheques for dreck and then complain about lack of good scripts, Mr. Gibson is putting his money to the purpose of his art. There are a plethora of films out at any time that criticize and joke about Catholicism (one of the few topics one can ridicule in these politically correct times), kudos to Mel Gibson for making a film that celebrates it.

Again, thanks for reading this long correspondence and I'm sorry for the length and perhaps disagreeing tone, but hey, you pushed my Hot Button."

E ME: What's the talk…. Tell me what's a'happenin…

Back to Top

The Matrix Reloaded. Reloaded.
Read Part One
Read Part Two