Thursday, January 29, 2004

Scamming on *The Passion*

I knew there was something funny about the way that Mel Gibson, adherent of a reactionary Catholic religious sect, was promoting his gory film about the crucufixion of Jesus. I figured it was something that went beyond the usual Hollywood courting of benign controversy.

Biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan has now described what it is that's funny about the publicity buildup.  In this article at the excellent site Beliefnet.com,  'Something Between Cover-Up and  Censorship', he describes how he was asked to sign a peculiar kind of confidentiality agreement when he saw the film at a pastors' conference he attended. Gibson hasn't simply been taking care to show it to sympathetic audiences:

... [I]t was not the fact but the content of the confidentiality agreement that surprised me. On one hand, it enjoined me "to hold confidential my exposure, knowledge and opinions of the film." On the other hand it affirmed that, "pastors and church leaders are free to speak out in support of the movie and your opinions resulting from today's experience and exposure to this project and its producer."

I understand that legalese to mean that negative opinions are forbidden but positive ones are solicited. It is one thing to say that nobody can give any information about the movie or even express any opinion about it; but to allow support while denying criticism is something between cover-up and censorship. And its power is that of fear--the fear of ordinary and unprotected persons like myself that they might be sued for giving their opinion, even insofar as that could be done without discussing the movie itself.

It seems to me that the promotion of the film has been aimed at maximizing suspicion of the film among Jews and mainstream Christians, while encouraging conservative Christian leaders to publicly identify themselves with the film before they encounter informed criticism by less receptive audiences they've had the chance to actually see it. This approach will provoke controversy, but not an entirely benign sort.

No comments: