Maybe I’m inviting trouble by poking fun at Mel Gibson’s The Passion of The Christ, but I figure if Penny Arcade can insinuate a business owner expires canines for sexual gratification, I can take my chances poking a bear with a short stick.

Clearly if you haven’t heard of Mel’s “labor of love”, then you’ve been living under some kind of rock for the last 5 months. No movie in recent memory has generated this much publicity – this much controversy – without being viewed by a mass audience.

The Pope has seen it. The President of the United States has seen it. Now it’s our turn.

I don’t know how much of my personal beliefs are fit for public consumption in this context because generally I’m not interested in what entertainers have to say about these things. I’m not particularly interested in investigating Mr. Gibson’s persuasion nor am I convinced my audience should care about mine. But let’s just say that if I make it out this weekend to see the film, I’ll cast a very skeptical eye on it.

I’m sorry, but as he ages, I view Gibson in a much harsher light. We Were Soldiers was a particularly distressing film for me to watch because I felt it put a high gloss on the complicated issue of Vietnam. In retrospect, it’s probably one of the more fierce PRO-Vietnam movies since John Wayne’s The Green Berets – a film viewed by most as propaganda hogwash. It’s this same rah-rah, conservative lean that makes me wary of Gibsons post-Braveheart directorial efforts. I simply don’t trust him to handle the last 12 hours of Jesus’ life without bias. This is explicitly the vision of MEL GIBSON.

For example, much has already been said about the level of gore, violence and torture in the film. If you follow The Bible, that’s how it was described. We’re all taught of His sacrifice. But in most Bible films, the crucifixion is seen in much less catastrophic light. Gibson has freely admitted to ratcheting up the shock value of these images to hammer home the point that Jesus suffered for all of our sins.

That sounds like a good reason. But if are we supposed to register this as historical fact or artistic interpretation? If money is the objective, I’m leaning toward the latter.

Of course all this debate is conjecture on my part. I haven’t seen the movie, so I don’t know if it’s good, bad or neither. If anything, Gibson has succeeded in making a very important movie. Clearly if it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be spending so much time discussing it!

I’m not looking to draw out anyone into a confrontation, nor am I here to debate what you believe. Just trust that I am sold on my convictions as you are in yours. We won’t change each others minds. But when it comes to the realm of cinema, this needs to be explored. If we can poke a little fun at it along the way, then the road becomes easier to tread.

On a totally unrelated note, please check out Syntax Error Comics. They’ve advertised with us before and now they’re back again! This time they’re doing some great Oscar-related comics I think you will all be interested in.

Any if you’re looking forward to any Oscar shenanigans around this web site, don’t worry. They’re coming soon!