The word seems to pop up here and there in unfavorable reviews. From Katha Pollitt:
And Christopher Hitchens has called The Passion a “twistedly homoerotic spank movie.”
Now, when I think of “homoerotic” content I think of, I dunno, two guys kissing or something. What is “homoerotic” about Jesus being flogged with a barbed whip?
Well, it’s a very pretentious, mediocre film that portrays Christ as an existential wimp, the sort of thing an easily impressed college sophomore might think of as deep and profound. Maybe that has something to do with it.
No, no, you’re thinking of The Last Temptation of Christ or maybe Jesus Christ Superstar. Gibson’s Jesus wouldn’t know an existential crisis if you nailed him to one.
What’s not homoerotic about a naked guy getting tied up and whipped by dudes dressed like Roman soldiers?
It’s not just the “homo” part that people see, it’s the element of sado-masochism added onto it (and I think the film is more masochistic than sadist. Gibson seems to get off on the idea of characters suffering absurdly unrealistic amounts of brutality and torture.
You’re right. I withdraw my comment.
I think some folks’ logic is:
Mel Gibson => religious => homophobic => repressed homoeroticism.
No, it has more to do with the hunky, naked guy being tied up and whipped for like four hours straight. In most Jesus movie, the flagellation is a small part of the story, usually shown as brief and somewhat sanitized… Gibson makes it the centerpiece of his film, cranks it up to ten amd seems to revel in it.
Really, his whole film is ONLY about a guy being tortured and killed. It’s like Hostel with sandals. Gibson shows no interest in any of Jesus’ teachings (which should be the only thing that matters) and focuses obsessively on his death. What is the message in that?
The buttsex?
When I saw the movie I got the impression that it wasn’t a movie for non-Christians. It wasn’t for converting anyone. The people who were watching were going to be people who were already familiar with the teachings of Jesus.
I think Gibson was trying to highlight the suffering of Jesus as a way to really drive home the “he DIED for you” part of Christianity. And he didn’t die in a very soothing way, like grandpa passing in his sleep.
That’s what makes the movie powerful - but only to someone who believes Jesus died for them and is familiar with the teachings.
I’m a Christian so that’s what I got out of it. If I were a non-Christian I’d be bored and sickened by it. (Actually I was sickened for it, but I have a feeling it meant something different to me than non-Christians)
I’m quite familiar with the teachings andI think most non-Christians get that Jesus supposedly “died for our sins,” but that belief, in itself, doesn’t make much logical sense (God has to commit suicide to save his own creation from himself?) and Gibson didn’t do anything to make it more comprehensible. He didn’t explain why flaying a man’s skin off his back and nailing him to a stick has anything to do with my “sins.”
Apparently, you are not that familiar with the teachings, or it would already make logical sense to you, and Gibson would not have to make it more comprehensible. You just reinforced ZipperJJ’s point, even though I don’t think you meant to.
OK, but what’s homoerotic about that?
The thing I never got was why they felt the need to overdo the torture aspect so much. I mean, yeah, I get it, he died for our sins. Isn’t the existing story bad enough as is without cranking the torture up to 10? There were several times I could almost hear Gibson saying “Check THIS out!”
I’m extremely familiar with the teachings, I assure you. Familiarity does not engender comprehension. It’s a logically incoherent doctrine. The problem is that most Christians have never really examined it very closely.
Again, the point was that to be that the movie is for people who DO understand it, not for people who don’t.
Let me try this again. The point was that the movie is for people who DO understand it, not for people who don’t.
You mean it’s for people who believe it without examining it. Gibson did nothing to make that belief seem any more coherent or any less ridiculous to those of us who do understand how logically problematic it is.
Let’s just say that if you have gone your whole life without being able to understand the theology, then I wouldn’t expect a movie to be able to explain it to you.
I understand it perfectly. Understanding it doesn’t fix it. The logical problems of Christian soteriology are not resolvable. The logic won’t parse systematically. It can really only be believed if it is not comprehended or critically examined. Understanding it leads to a necessary rejection.
OK, then how in heaven’s name did you expect Gibson’s movie to make it right?