Mel Gibson has impregnated his mistress

Drew, your points are well taken and I appreciate your thoughtful way of addressing them. First of all, you wrote “Please don't call this type of aesthetic debate self-righteous. You do those of us Christians who take art seriously no favors by perpetuating a stereotype of anti-intellectualism when it comes to the arts.”
First, let me concede that I may have been more than a bit self-righteous myself about the perceived self-righteousness of others, so I acknowledged my own tendency to verbal aggression. Let me also admit that I only saw the movie once, in the theater and not on DVD, where I could have a chance to study it.
Let me try to address some of your points.
“And lets discuss the realism shown in his violent scenes shall we?
How is slowing down the camera speed to show violence in slow-motion anything other than UNREALISTIC, even sensationalistic? Those of us who have witnessed horrible acts of violence first hand know violence often happens quick and we often turn away because of the graphic and sickening nature of it.”
Well, yes and no. I have never seen anyone shot or knifed, etc. I have seen several work accidents where people were injured badly enough to go to the hospital. I also have been in two car accidents where I walked away from something that should have killed me or left me in wheelchair for life. You have heard about things seeming to happen in slow-motion. Well, these really did. As the workman was falling to the ground, or materials were falling on the workman, or a car was flying through air, it really was this horrible kind of slow motion. I have no doubt that what I saw took no more than five or six seconds in the work accidents (and not much more in the car accidents), but it seemed to be three times that long, though let me concede your point that in The Passion of the Christ some of the scenes took nearly ten times as long (perhaps more) as real life.

“Gods creation is being destroyed, we naturally repel when we see it. By sexing up the acts of violence with slow-mo and close-ups, it actually distorts reality, manipulating the viewer.
Your example of Master and Commander is a good counter actually. I love that film as well, and yes the violence is brutal, but way more realistic than Mel's films, as it shows things happen mostly in realtime. Quick, bloody, intense.
But excessive use of close-up and slow-motion during acts of violence in film is a deliberate aesthetic choice made by a filmmaker, and I guarantee you, they WANT you to watch everything put on screen. I simply find Mel's excessive use of those techniques to be questionable, since its actually manipulative, trying to make beautiful that which should naturally repel.”

You are right and here is where we must split from discussing cinematic techniques to ask ourselves how the aesthetic choices intersect with theology.

You are entirely right that God’s creation is being destroyed and Mel indeed does *want* to manipulate us into guilt. Again, it is the whole point, the shedding of blood.

Gibson IS trying to make the horrific violence beautiful, the beauty being that Christ has died for our sins. Of course, everyone who makes a film about Christ, no matter how much or how little they emphasize the crucifixion, puts their own stamp on it, but I have found many of them to be insipid.

One thing I do wonder, and I ask this not in sarcasm, but in genuine curiosity: just how much violence do you consider permissible in a film about Christ, who—let’s face it—died violently? Surely no one would consider making a movie about the last days of Martin Luther King (Spielberg’s trying), Malcolm X (Spike Lee), RFK (“Bobby”), or JFK (Oliver Stone) without dealing with the violent end of those individuals. Where do you draw the line?

So Drew, these are my thoughts. Thank you for approaching this as a gentleman, and again my apologies for being a bit over the top.

Mad Jack,

Thanks for your reply. Some good thoughts.
I guess I just don't really know how to answer your final question:
"just how much violence do you consider permissible in a film about Christ, who—let’s face it—died violently?"
This is because I don't think its the right question to ask if I may be so bold. My issue is not "how MUCH violence" is in a film about Christ, JFK or countless other famous or important figures who died violently or were in violent situations. I really can't say I would draw a line anywhere if the violence is indeed shown realistically. I don't count the acts of violence in a movie and then put it in an excel spreadsheet to see if it passes a certain quantifiable test.
I simply, or not so simply, am questioning HOW the violence is shown in these films.
In Rod's original post he stated that Mel "made something beautiful for God" and I am trying to, as humbly as a arrogant guy can, parse out the implications of Rod's statement.
Did he really "make something beautiful for God?"
I know his death was in actuality a beautiful and necessary thing, I am not questioning that.
You seem to contradict yourself a bit by stating that he "is trying to make the horrific violence beautiful" a point with which I don't disagree, but how does that "manipulate us into guilt" as you say?

I don't claim to know the motive of Mel when using these techniques as he shows acts of violence in his films, I simply find a pattern of these techniques used in all of his films as director, not just Passion of the Christ. And I find them to glorify the acts of violence themselves by being unrealistic.
Yes, theologically his death and shedding of blood is a beautiful reality, it has redeemed my life and all of creation. But the violence which was done to him is my burden, along with all of fallen humanity, because we violently murdered our Savior, which is NOT beautiful at all.

I know I am getting into a realm of film studies referred to as the "psychology of the moving image" by questioning Mel's techniques, but I think its a valid discussion. Films like Saving Private Ryan, Master and Commander and various others have incredible quantities of violence in them, but I don't find them to manipulate the viewer with techniques that make the violence seem almost beautiful. They are raw, realistic portrayals of the ugliness found in the human race apart from God.
But films like Braveheart, The Passion of the Christ, The Matrix and even the Lord of the Rings films, (which I love) tend to overuse cinematic techniques which manipulate the viewer into finding acts of violence mesmerizing and therefore unrealistic.
I just wonder if a filmmaker who is a professing Christian like Mel should be using these techniques which, at least to me, glorify violence.
Clear as mud right?
Thanks for engaging me in this discussion.