Double Standard?

[Routerider]

Is it a double standard to be against violence in the media and then go watch "The Passion"?

 

[UgL_Quicksilver]

I do not think so....The Passion is a very good movie. Yes it is violent but it shows the last few hours of jesus's life which where not pretty to the eyes....

 

[ZaraDurden]

I think this is a pretty excellent question.

I am an atheist, and I am also highly interested in film... I was a film major for a while and I have studied it in various forms for over 2 years.

That said, this movie--for me-- is almost impossible to seperate from the religious implications. I try to look back on it and ask, "Would it be a good story if you didnt know of christianity?" or "Did it have x or y cinematic quality?" My background in christianity make these questions impossible to answer without extreme bias.

Would someone who is against violence discourage you from seeing Schlinder's List? Probably not, because of its imporant message-- the violence is part of that. Granted, the Passion does not perfectly portray accurate history, and its message is not does not apply to all humanity like that of the Holocaust-- but for those who believe in it, I do not think endorsing this movie would be hypocritical at all.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste all,

if one is against violence in the media, it would be a bit of a stretch to endorse this movie, simply based on that criteria.

of course... many people are against violence on television and not so much at the movies.. at any rate, movies that they want to see you rarely, other than a few book bannings and burnings, see anybody complain about violence in literature.. though it is still "media".

 

[Arikay]

A similar question can be posed about the bible to those who want to ban books for violence and sex.

I think it depends on how they are against violence in the media. If they are against all violence, then no they shouldn't watch it. If they are against violence for no reason, then they might want to watch it. Historical (or possibly historical) movies, general can get away with more (which is sad when you think about it). Like Saving Private Ryan, or Schlinders list, were allowed more violence than normal because of the historical portrayals of the times.

 

[Routerider]

A similar question can be posed about the bible to those who want to ban books for violence and sex.

I think it depends on how they are against violence in the media. If they are against all violence, then no they shouldn't watch it. If they are against violence for no reason, then they might want to watch it. Historical (or possibly historical) movies, general can get away with more (which is sad when you think about it). Like Saving Private Ryan, or Schlinders list, were allowed more violence than normal because of the historical portrayals of the times.

Yeah, I think it has to do whether or not the violence is being used to accurately portray a historical truth or whether it's used for a cheap shock affect.

 

[nadroj1985]

Yeah, I think it has to do whether or not the violence is being used to accurately portray a historical truth or whether it's used for a cheap shock affect.

Yup, this is the main point. It just depends on whether you think Mel's extreme use of gore was too much or not. If you ask me, he went over the top at times. Granted, crucifixion is a horrible death, but the flogging scene was a bit gratuitous IMHO.

 

[Philosoft]

Yeah, I think it has to do whether or not the violence is being used to accurately portray a historical truth or whether it's used for a cheap shock affect.

There's good evidence to support the relative harmlessness of historical/factual violence in media. There's also evidence that supports a desensitizing effect. I think the key is context - the more senseless/brutal/barbaric the violence, the more psychologically harmful in general. The best way to portray violence is to justify it - make sure to show those using senseless violence getting their comeuppance, make sure violence can be justified by good cause.

 

[He put me back together]

Is it a double standard to be against violence in the media and then go watch "The Passion"?

Is it a double standard to hold against violence in the media and then watch Schindler's List? It depends on what the standard is--if you're just being a stick in the mud and repeating what others say, if you're opposed to ANY VIOLENCE AT ALL, I doubt you're the kind of person who's going to approve of the Passion in the first place. Most of those folks are criticizing it. (At the same time, there are those guys who applaud Horror movies, then suddenly get blood-squeamish when they want to criticize the Passion. Now, THAT is a double standard.)
Violence is part of the human condition, and any avenue of mimicking the human condition WILL come to mimicking violence from time to time. Avoiding violence in life is impossible--trying to avoid it in art is silly. Now, what I object to is the demeaning of violence, and the idiocy behind much of the violence seen in hollywood's products. Violence is a serious matter, and to just frag a bunch of red shirts repetitively destroys the meaning of the act, and aside from that, quite frankly makes a movie boring. Nobody seems to realize that when men die, families go without fathers, and wives go without husbands. When people die, they die. When actors fall, they get up. Actors should have more responsibility when they depict death and violence. Hey, I've enjoyed a few action movies myself, but Ahnold single-handedly fragging thousands of neonazi terrorists not only gets old, but it demeans the act of killing a man. Fiction needs to put more weight on the act, and do it less often. Historical Fiction (let's not even make the flawed assumption that Hollywood is capable of nonfiction) is out of the question for demeaning death. When a man dies in historical fiction, he should be a man, and not some subhuman redshirt.
As far as the Passion is concerned, IT'S ABOUT TIME. (Incidently, there's an excellent movie on the life of Christ, which abandons the Stained-glass Jesus and depicts things as they should be depicted, for the most part--it's called "The Gospel of Matthew," by those visual Bible folks. But we're talking about high-budget mainstream Hollywood here) If you're going to concern yourself with semi-accurately depicting ANY crucifiction, let alone that of Christ, there is NO WAY that you're going to pull off a PG-13. Crucifiction ISN'T FOR KIDS! Neither is most of the Old Testiment. You might as well play Schindler's List on the Disney channel. The Bible isn't rated G by a long shot--if one thinks it is, obviously he hasn't read 3 chapters of it.

 

[Battlelines]

I agree with ZaraDurden. This film is unique to films, like the Bible is unique to other books. The Passion portrays violence, not for entertainment, but to give a message. Though, of course, if the conviction of ones conscience tells them not to watch this movie, then they should not watch this movie.

 

[Arikay]

Showing violence to get a message across is not unique to the passion.

 

[theseed]

Is it a double standard to be against violence in the media and then go watch "The Passion"?

No, because the news media is usually shown to a general audience while The Passion is rated R, and is not. Thus you should not equate the two.

About books on sex and violence in books, most Christians only want to ban porno.

 

[Routerider]

Showing violence to get a message across is not unique to the passion.

True, I think Saving Private Ryan would be a good example of this.

 

[He put me back together]

No, because the news media is usually shown to a general audience while The Passion is rated R, and is not. Thus you should not equate the two.

About books on sex and violence in books, most Christians only want to ban porno.

I dunno if "most" is the right word..."many" is likely to be the case. "Most" MIGHT apply to the entire world, but in places with bill of rightsy type clauses, there is a conflict that may mean that most is inaccurate.

But no matter how we look at things, I particularly find it strange that a fellow in the American midwest was arrested simply for writing about thoughts of violence towards children in his own private journal journal (listing them as bad things, even, I think), while Anne Rice writes explicitly in published novels about 13 year olds having sex with grown men (this not being a disturbing scene of abuse, but an erotic scene that she apparently finds arousing), and she gets to run around freely with her money. There's some kind of double standard here, certainly.

 

[wisdom67]

Isn't it ironic that those who oppose violence of any sort and are good Christians, wouldn't have a problem with "The Passion"? Historically speaking violence has permeated mankind since Cain and Abel. The bible itself has countless acts of violence, murder, rape, etc in it that I am guessing that those who are good Christians and abhor violence of any kind probably haven't spent the time reading the book in whole.

I think what you have here is that the bible speaks in very contrite terms. There are really very few adjectives of description in the bible. Reading the bible would be nothing like reading a Tom Clancy novel. The bible is short and to the point while Tom Clancy paints a picture. I guess that would be the difference. It's kind of funny too, because can you imagine how long the bible would be if it became a descriptive narrative of things? Instead of King David "laying" with Bathsheeba we could make a whole two hour movie (or a book in and of itself) about that particular event in the history and context of the bible.

Hmmm...that leads me to my next thought - who wants to make a ton of money putting out biblical movies about certain events in the bible. I think "The Passion" gives us overwhelming evidence that if you put your creative talents to work on a biblical story and bring some "life" to it then you have a winning formula at the box office.

Sorry this is so long. Just my rambling mind at work.