Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览约瑟夫·索伯伦(Joseph Sobran)档案
吉布森的“过度暴力”
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

Sometimes I think that if people really listened to themselves, I’d be out of a job. When they can’t mean what they say, you are entitled to doubt that they’re saying what they mean.

Few are saying that Mel Gibson had no right to make a film about the Crucifixion. But many are saying he shouldn’t have made it. If they don’t complain that 基督的受难 is “anti-Semitic” — that is, annoying to some Jews — they complain that its violence is “excessive” and “overdone.” Can they really mean this? Twelve hours of torture are compressed into only two, and that’s too much? Has Gibson left out the refreshment break?

Since there have been lots of earlier films about Christ, you might expect Gibson’s critics to name one that got it right — showed just the proper degree of torment — or at least admit that the earlier, softer versions failed to do justice to the horror of nailing a man to a cross.

In Martin Scorsese’s 基督最后的试探, the guy on the cross is shown having sexual fantasies during his agony. Maybe Scorsese’s point is that the victim, even in his agony, has one hell of a libido. Anyway, I don’t remember any complaints that the violence in that absurd version was “deficient” or “underdone.”

XNUMXD压花不锈钢板 “纽约时报” now brings a fresh angle: “New Film May Harm Gibson’s Career.” Why? Because the film is a flop? Not hardly. It seems that some Jewish Hollywood moguls intend to avenge themselves on the film by doing no further business with Gibson, no matter what profits they may be forgoing.

A new Hollywood blacklist, with only one name on it! Maybe we can have a new round of congressional investigations to uncover Christian infiltration of the film industry. You can’t be too careful. (The 纽约邮报 reports that one Israeli politician “said the movie should be banned in his country and called for Gibson to be put on trial.”)

Not everyone shares the hysteria. One Hollywood agent puts the issue in earthy terms: “I don’t think it will hurt [Gibson]. People here will work with the anti-Christ if he’ll put butts in the seats.” The anti-Christ, yes, of course. That’s a no-brainer. But Christ may be another matter.

A decade ago the great English actress Vanessa Redgrave had a scheduled performance in Boston canceled when Jews protested her outspoken anti-Zionism. The reported then only that Miss Redgrave’s “politics” — not Jewish pressure — had “hurt her career.”

If the pressure had come from Christians, the story would have been told differently. The and other media would have shrieked about “religious fanatics” trying to “impose their views” and blighting “artistic expression.” But today the editorialists aren’t viewing the latest hate campaign with much alarm. Even the “straight” news accounts imply that Gibson has brought it all on himself.

The uproar is amusing because it’s hypocritical. 耶稣受难记 has received an R rating for its violence, and Gibson isn’t objecting to that. But reviewers who have seen it all, and applauded “candor” on the screen as long as it’s ungodly, are howling this time. Gibson is using the new tolerance of film violence for a purpose they loathe: Christian evangelism.

But they can’t even admit that. Hence they are bandying charges of “excessive violence,” “sadism,” “masochism,” and so forth, implying — or saying outright — that Gibson enjoys the spectacle of torture. They don’t explain how he might have made a crucifixion look unpleasant without violating their unspecified proprieties.

Anyone who has read about crucifixion — ancient Rome’s answer to “community service” — knows that Gibson hasn’t exaggerated. When the Gospels were written, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn’t have to explain what it meant: a punishment so savage as to make strong men shudder at its mere mention. The only crucifixion modern men remember, that of Christ, has been rendered largely symbolic by centuries of pious Christian art.

By using the techniques of modern cinema, Gibson has made it seem real again. Those who don’t believe that Christ redeemed us may see in it nothing but needless horror. But Christians are seeing it with something more than horror: inexpressible wonder and gratitude for God’s boundless love.

(从重新发布 索伯兰的 经作者或代表的许可)
 
• 类别: 思想 •标签: 梅尔·吉布森 
当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有约瑟夫·索伯伦评论