Passion of the coverage

Well, I saw it. For months leading up to the release of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," the media coverage was deafening. There were interviews, debates and opinions written from people who were given advanced screenings of the film (and even opinions from people who hadn't seen the movie but still shouted loudly enough). \nThis has been the slickest marketed movie ever. \nForget paid ads. The media is taking care of it, free of charge.\nOf course, few films are blessed with the ability to leap from the arts section to the op-ed and front page of the newspaper. But Gibson's film polarized the extremes so well that it left millions of people stuck in the middle who will see the movie just to understand what all the fuss is about.\nThe controversy has been largely the result of an "us versus them" mentality. The rift between Judaism and Christianity has been mentioned, but that's not what this is really about. It's about a film that arrived at the perfect time for the ongoing culture war between secularism and religion. \nI've heard some commentators say the "liberal elite" doesn't understand the film. Gibson has made no qualms of saying his "detractors" don't have a problem with him, or the film, but with the Gospels. It's "us versus them," and they want to know which side you're on.\nCritics who did not like the film have been accused of pandering to their editors. Sure, it would be equally unfair to accuse critics who reviewed the film favorably to be panderers to religious crowds, but never mind that. Overall, the message being sent is: in order to be considered an independent-minded critic, you must like this movie. \nI have no doubt some critics will have personal beliefs they cannot overcome when watching this film, but so what? People aren't flocking to this movie based on reviews. Controversy and religiosity are fueling ticket sales and putting people in theater seats. Besides, if you liked the film, why do you need a critic to justify your admiration?\nPersonally, I thought the film was too violent. It's sadistic -- and I don't use that word lightly. People will argue that's the whole point, but then that makes this a pretty shallow movie lacking any spiritual depth. If there is "faith, hope, love and forgiveness," as Gibson says there is, where is it? Eclipsed in the shadow of the gore?\nIt's not any more anti-Semitic than I thought it'd be. I can easily see why Jewish people are justifiably worried about played-up stereotypes and certain liberties taken with interpretations, but the movie's not going to rile hatred that hasn't already manifested itself in the black heart of a bigot.\nEven if "The Passion" is center stage right now, it's still just a movie. You may cringe or cry, but it won't change your life, and it shouldn't shake your beliefs. You still pay admission, you can still buy overpriced refreshments and popcorn to munch on and, afterward, you can buy a number of tasteless promotional tie-ins, including 2-inch crucifixion nail replicas you can wear around your neck on a leather rope. \nRemember, no matter the subject, somebody somewhere wants your money.\nYou'll either see the movie because your faith draws you to it or because everyone else is seeing it. Or you just won't see it at all. Whichever of those you choose is fine with me, as long as you take a deep breath and repeat the following: it's just a movie.