Kind of an outdated thought, but it occurred to me that I have a lot of non-Christian friends who went to see Mel Gibson’s Passion in the past few weeks and was just wondering why. Quite apart from the strange phenomenon of it pulling in a large non-religious audience, the entire film was something of a mess of contradictions both inside and out. The trailer resembled that of an arthouse film yet it was marketed on a large scale, to a Hollywood-viewing clientele. Gibson chose to pair ancient languages (and no subtitles) with very typical syntagmatic structure and strong inter-scene suture. The themes of hope and redemption that run as an undercurrent in the biblical text were almost smothered by the sometimes-gratuitous brutality. And a film that should ostensibly only appeal to the faithful ended up pulling in more than US$400 million dollars at the box office.

I suppose that a large reason for the film’s U.S. success was simply its controversy, but I’m a little more skeptical that the people I know were drawn in by that alone. Any insights? I’m not just talking about people who read this blog either; I get the impression that some of my other (non-Humans, non-GEP, non-RJC non-critical-thinkers-about-the-aesthetic-experiences-they-choose-to-
sample-but-still-entirely-good-at-heart) friends waltzed into a cinema on a Friday night and selected Passion on the basis of it being the popular movie to watch at the time. And I’m a little puzzled as to what they got out of it. Gibson as filmmaker is also Gibson as accuser – and if I found myself being accused of the horrendous crime being perpetrated onscreen I would have walked out within five minutes of the first sight of blood. For Christians, I suppose watching the film is equivalent to our usual masochistic penance, the self-administered dose of remorse that gets doled out once a year around Easter time. Heaping on the guilt that is (and has always been) the unfortunate glue of the Church. (Apply your own non-cynical spin to this if you’re offended.) But for non-Christians? All that’s left is the insult, and presumably the voyeuristic sense that one has been privy to a scene not meant for ones atheistic/agnostic eyes.


On the flip side of the coin, how is it that so many of us did not enjoy Kill Bill Vol. I? If Pulp Fiction was the definitive guide to how to write a movie script, Kill Bill is its companion: how to film a movie. It’s as if Tarantino has single-handedly negotiated the free trade agreement of cinematic language. It erases the borders of genre. It has a soundtrack that includes Nancy Sinatra, trashy J-pop and (if it isn’t, what sounds an awful lot like) Mariachi music (played over the Uma Thurman-Lucy Liu fight at the end). Best of all, Tarantino pulls all this off with no hint whatsoever of satire or irony (one of my favorite expressions nowadays, culled from a friend, is to refer to a movie as being “cheesier than the Armadillo Grill". Which makes absolutely no sense if you have never been to the Armadillo Grill, but anyway.) Kill Bill is the encapsulated history of the action movie, a high proof distillation of the goodness of 50 years of B-grade cinema. It makes it acceptable for one to be “lowbrow”. (The last film to do this was probably The Fifth Element)

Anyway. I’ll defend Tarantino to the death so if anyone wants to pick a fight do email me and I’ll make you a convert. Promise.