The Passion, Part 2

Well, it's official...

"The Passion of The Christ" tallied the second biggest opening weekend for an R-rated movie (trailing only "The Matrix Reloaded"), and even beat out the five day total of "Return of the King" with about $125 million. While the box office take for most movies goes into steep decline after the first weekend, this seems to be one of the few exceptions, as critics anticipate strong showings all the way through Easter. (I would imagine the Good Friday showings will be completely sold out).

[Disclaimer: Again, I haven't seen "The Passion", so this post is not based on direct knowledge of anything in the movie]

Statistically, an average R-rated movie will not make as much money in the box-office as the average PG or PG-13 movie. This is easy to explain, as studies have shown the biggest box-office 'cash cow' demographic are teenage boys, who generally attend movies more often than other groups and are more likely to see a movie they like multiple times (followed closely by teenage girls, who provided 'Titanic' with the repeat viewings necessary to obtain its record-breaking box office haul). Both groups (in theory) are not permitted to see R-rated movies, thus significantly reducing the potential audience.

How then, to explain the huge box-office for 'The Passion'? It doesn't have the mass market appeal that the 'Matrix' movies did; in fact, Mel Gibson's move to finance the $25 million film out of his own pocket was considered 'risky' by many, since the targetted demographic was very small. (Gibson didn't make "The Passion" to make money, although now he'll end up earning a lot of it, obviously) It probably isn't repeat viewings either, since the early word is one viewing is hard enough to stomach as it is.

The answer is most likely very simple: "The Passion" is attracting a LARGE number of people who are over 18 but rarely see R-rated movies, or perhaps any movies at all. Namely, conservative Christians who wouldn't see "Bad Boys II" or "Kill Bill" if you put a gun to their heads, but feel that a movie about the Lord and Savior is worth seeing, no matter how violent.

One such person is Dr. Robert Millet, a professor of religion at BYU, who said even though he doesn't normally see R-rated movies, "one that would help draw me closer to God's son would seem to be one that I should be acquainted with." After all, he says, "This isn't Freddy Krueger. This is Jesus Christ."

I know Dr. Millet; he was my stake president in college and one of my top 5 speakers of all time. I won't criticize his decision (or that of any other Latter-Day Saint) to see "The Passion", but I have to wonder if the logical reasoning behind it stands up to scutiny.

"The Passion of the Christ" is a very violent movie. I mean, it is a VERY violent movie. (We're not talking "The Matrix" here, which was widely regarded as a 'light' R-rated movie). Film critic Roger Ebert (who has seen very many movies) says unequivocally, "This is the most violent film I have ever seen." Furthermore, he adds:

The MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or was intimidated by the subject matter. If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic.

In other words, even by R-rated movie standards, "The Passion" is VERY violent. What's the problem, then? If one considers "The Passion" an acceptable viewing experience despite the violence, HOW CAN ONE EVER JUDGE ANY OTHER MOVIE THAT'S RATED R FOR VIOLENCE ALONE TO BE 'UNACCEPTABLE'? If "The Passion" is acceptable because it's 'historically accurate' and/or it's 'a realistic depiction of being crucified', then wouldn't that also apply to any other movie set in Roman times that featured people being crucified? A modern day remake of 'Spartacus', for example? Other highly violent films such as "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" have been excused in the past because they're 'historical' and 'realistic' ('Ryan' was a fictional story, but the landing on Omaha Beach during WWII depicted in the movie was not). Taking this to the logical extreme, any movie with gun violence would also be acceptable since it contains 'realistic depictions of what would happen when someone gets shot with a gun' even if the story is fictional.

I just don't see how the subject of the violence can excuse it, even if it's Jesus Christ. If you believe watching violent content is wrong (i.e. has a detrimental psychological effect on the mind in some way), does it really matter who the target of the violence happens to be, or how historically accurate it is? Violence is violence, and if violence harms the psyche, then "The Passion"'s violence would produce the same harm, wouldn't it? One wouldn't excuse profane, or sexually explicit dialogue simply because that's what that (historical) person actually said at that (historical) place and time? The dialogue is inherently the same whether is true or fictional, and any adverse effects would also be the same. Would one excuse a movie with rampant male and female nudity if it just happened to be about Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden?

I have no doubt of Dr. Millet's spiritual strength and testimony; I've seen it personally. But I think we're all on shaky ground here, because when you admit there's an exception to the rule, that allows the possibility of many more exceptions (for there is never only one exception). One could make a series of movies based on other Bible stories (or on Book of Mormon stories) that could be R-rated in terms of violence. Would the presence of a spiritual lesson excuse the violent content? How would that be different than a violent cop movie produced by Hollywood that also had a moral lesson attached.

The LDS Church puts out many high quality movies and shorts that are uplifting without possessing any 'offensive' material. The Church has created movies with Adam and Eve without nudity, movies about scriptural wars without excessive violence, even (multiple) videos featuring Christ's death on the cross without an undue amount of bloodshed. I just don't see how the increased amount of violence in "The Passion" actually adds to the spiritual experience, nor how to (or why) separate violence into 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' quantities.