The Passion and BABIES! I mean, BRAINS!
Mar. 1st, 2004 11:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lapsedmodernistI know, at times I come across, at least in this medium, as a disembodied entity that watches the news, therefore she is. Like, I am the Kino-Eye, but in telly-land. Like, Kino-Eye for the Nielsen's Guy. I am like that dude on Mr. Show, the one that reports from under the desk of the news anchors. But lately I have been blunted, deer-in-headlighted, paralyzed by the news, like where to start? Jesus, uterus, nipple, fetus. Jesus fetus. Jetus.
So Mad Mel makes a snuff film. I am not really curious to see it, as gore doesn't do anything for me, but I would see it provided I did not pay money for it, since there's no way in hell I'm funding it. But thanks to the media maelstrom around it, I have been bombarded by clips and stills ad nauseum. So here are my two cents: (Warning: spoilers ahead, Jesus gets crucified.) The thing that is interesting to me is that the film embodies the concept of "out of context." The "passion" is an apotheosis of pain and gore, but structurally, outside of the entire New Testament narrative it's not more and no less than an object of fetish. Fetish is kind of like false synecdoche in m.o.: small part substitutes for something large, functionally defining it, even though that obfuscates the full picture. Like, a sexual fetish where a particular part of the body is reified that the entire discourse of sexual attraction in that situation pivots around it. So, Gibson fetishizes the 12 hours of the passion. Ironically, in stripping the passion from its context, he concentrates the apotheosis-as-gateway-to-mass-hysteria aspect of it, but structurally obliterates the catharsis, which, in my opinion, is the role of the "passion chronotope" in the New Testament narrative. Catharsis, as a product of classical tragedies, cannot exist outside of the three acts, except maybe in some pomo self-referential twist, but I think we all know this ain't the case here. The Jesus story in its totality has the three acts, the first pne culminates in his entry into Jerusalem, the second one culminates in the garden of Gethsemane when he allows Judas to kiss him, and the third one goes from arrest to the crucifiction. The resurrection is a coda. Within the parameters of suffering-as-defining-early-Christianity (martyrdom, really, Jesus was the first martyr), the catharsis is dialectically produced by the one-two combo of gruesome suffering and appended sainthood (again, think of any martyrs/saints narratives). Greek tragedies were pretty fucking gruesome too, so nothing new here. But catharsis as such cannot exist, unless tension has had time to build up, unless it is the climax of the apex and the nadir, up and down the axis of hubris*. Of course, hubris is present in the Jesus story, but in a kind of existential, fatalistic way. Jesus dies for his hubris, his crime being his insistance that he is the son of God. Of course, within the narrative, his actual legitimate status as the son of God makes hubris a wrongful projection, rather than a tragic flaw. [sidebar: the irony! Son of God finally came and they crucified him. Even though he had to be crucified for the world to be saved, so it was crucial that he be deployed before the world was ready. This is really starting to seem similar to the Soviet Marxism model, where the leaders persevered with the building of communist paradise despite the fact that Russia did not fulfill the conditions that would make it ready for such undertaking in Marx's book, namely post-agrarian industrialization and a period of sustained capitalism. And then lots of people suffered and died in the agony and the ecstasy.] Jesus isn't a tragic hero, because he lacks a tragic flaw, but nevertheless, for a story that is so faithful to a three-act progression, catharsis is important. In obliterating the structural and narrative context, Mel poo-poos all over the catharsis.
Also, I think there is a strong connection between the insanity over Mel's blood & gore production and the recent assault, by the legistlative branch, on women's abortion rights. I really think it all comes down to "what if we abort Jesus"? He went unrecognized the last time around, what if this time he will go unrecognized in utero, and those evil abortion doctors will doom humanity, because killing Jesus twice is not okay. So basically, since in the Christian metaphorical-is-literal paradigm, God is in all of us, life is sacred because any and every baby could be Jesus. I know it sounds awful literal-minded, but what separates the crazy fundies from more sophisticated gnostic discourses if not the anvil-like literalmindedness? So as a result we have
a)South Dakota just, like, up and banning abortion, and I'm not just talking about late-term abortion, I mean ALL abortion, with the grumpily conceded exemptions for the life of the mother (no exemptions for rape and incest, might I add).
b) The passage of the Laci and Conner's law, a.k.a. "the unborn victim" law, making an assault on a pregnant woman a double crime by separately criminalizing the assult on the fetus. Welcome to back-door dismantlement of Roe vs. Wade. Granting a fetus legal status and personhood from the time of conception may just trump the "privacy" grounds on which the stature was written back in the day.
c) Then we have John Ashcroft overseeing his personal pet project where for the last month late-term abortion patient records have been subpoenaed from various university hospitals across the country (Michigan, Northewestern, among others), and earlier last week from Planned Parenthood, which
refused. Now either Ashcroft is looking to retroactively prosecute, or is planning a more DIY approach by handing out abortion doctors' information to those websites where they put pictures of abortion doctors with a Target-like bullet aim drawn on their head, and their home addresses and phone numbers. Or it's possible he is spending Homeland Security money to conduct an investigation into whether Jesus has already been aborted. Either way, we're rapidly progressing towards a brave new world of Handmaid's Tale
Oh yeah, if you go to Democracy Now and click on today's 6.30 AM stream you can hear all about how the US kidnapped Aristide and deposited him in Central Africa. You are not going to find anything about it in mainstream press because...well, I could only end this sentence with a tautology, and tautologies this early in the day gives me migraines.
* Axis of hubris: a much more useful concept than Axis of Evil.
So Mad Mel makes a snuff film. I am not really curious to see it, as gore doesn't do anything for me, but I would see it provided I did not pay money for it, since there's no way in hell I'm funding it. But thanks to the media maelstrom around it, I have been bombarded by clips and stills ad nauseum. So here are my two cents: (Warning: spoilers ahead, Jesus gets crucified.) The thing that is interesting to me is that the film embodies the concept of "out of context." The "passion" is an apotheosis of pain and gore, but structurally, outside of the entire New Testament narrative it's not more and no less than an object of fetish. Fetish is kind of like false synecdoche in m.o.: small part substitutes for something large, functionally defining it, even though that obfuscates the full picture. Like, a sexual fetish where a particular part of the body is reified that the entire discourse of sexual attraction in that situation pivots around it. So, Gibson fetishizes the 12 hours of the passion. Ironically, in stripping the passion from its context, he concentrates the apotheosis-as-gateway-to-mass-hysteria aspect of it, but structurally obliterates the catharsis, which, in my opinion, is the role of the "passion chronotope" in the New Testament narrative. Catharsis, as a product of classical tragedies, cannot exist outside of the three acts, except maybe in some pomo self-referential twist, but I think we all know this ain't the case here. The Jesus story in its totality has the three acts, the first pne culminates in his entry into Jerusalem, the second one culminates in the garden of Gethsemane when he allows Judas to kiss him, and the third one goes from arrest to the crucifiction. The resurrection is a coda. Within the parameters of suffering-as-defining-early-Christianity (martyrdom, really, Jesus was the first martyr), the catharsis is dialectically produced by the one-two combo of gruesome suffering and appended sainthood (again, think of any martyrs/saints narratives). Greek tragedies were pretty fucking gruesome too, so nothing new here. But catharsis as such cannot exist, unless tension has had time to build up, unless it is the climax of the apex and the nadir, up and down the axis of hubris*. Of course, hubris is present in the Jesus story, but in a kind of existential, fatalistic way. Jesus dies for his hubris, his crime being his insistance that he is the son of God. Of course, within the narrative, his actual legitimate status as the son of God makes hubris a wrongful projection, rather than a tragic flaw. [sidebar: the irony! Son of God finally came and they crucified him. Even though he had to be crucified for the world to be saved, so it was crucial that he be deployed before the world was ready. This is really starting to seem similar to the Soviet Marxism model, where the leaders persevered with the building of communist paradise despite the fact that Russia did not fulfill the conditions that would make it ready for such undertaking in Marx's book, namely post-agrarian industrialization and a period of sustained capitalism. And then lots of people suffered and died in the agony and the ecstasy.] Jesus isn't a tragic hero, because he lacks a tragic flaw, but nevertheless, for a story that is so faithful to a three-act progression, catharsis is important. In obliterating the structural and narrative context, Mel poo-poos all over the catharsis.
Also, I think there is a strong connection between the insanity over Mel's blood & gore production and the recent assault, by the legistlative branch, on women's abortion rights. I really think it all comes down to "what if we abort Jesus"? He went unrecognized the last time around, what if this time he will go unrecognized in utero, and those evil abortion doctors will doom humanity, because killing Jesus twice is not okay. So basically, since in the Christian metaphorical-is-literal paradigm, God is in all of us, life is sacred because any and every baby could be Jesus. I know it sounds awful literal-minded, but what separates the crazy fundies from more sophisticated gnostic discourses if not the anvil-like literalmindedness? So as a result we have
a)South Dakota just, like, up and banning abortion, and I'm not just talking about late-term abortion, I mean ALL abortion, with the grumpily conceded exemptions for the life of the mother (no exemptions for rape and incest, might I add).
b) The passage of the Laci and Conner's law, a.k.a. "the unborn victim" law, making an assault on a pregnant woman a double crime by separately criminalizing the assult on the fetus. Welcome to back-door dismantlement of Roe vs. Wade. Granting a fetus legal status and personhood from the time of conception may just trump the "privacy" grounds on which the stature was written back in the day.
c) Then we have John Ashcroft overseeing his personal pet project where for the last month late-term abortion patient records have been subpoenaed from various university hospitals across the country (Michigan, Northewestern, among others), and earlier last week from Planned Parenthood, which
refused. Now either Ashcroft is looking to retroactively prosecute, or is planning a more DIY approach by handing out abortion doctors' information to those websites where they put pictures of abortion doctors with a Target-like bullet aim drawn on their head, and their home addresses and phone numbers. Or it's possible he is spending Homeland Security money to conduct an investigation into whether Jesus has already been aborted. Either way, we're rapidly progressing towards a brave new world of Handmaid's Tale
Oh yeah, if you go to Democracy Now and click on today's 6.30 AM stream you can hear all about how the US kidnapped Aristide and deposited him in Central Africa. You are not going to find anything about it in mainstream press because...well, I could only end this sentence with a tautology, and tautologies this early in the day gives me migraines.
* Axis of hubris: a much more useful concept than Axis of Evil.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-03-01 11:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-01 10:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-02 01:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-01 08:16 pm (UTC)Have you also noticed that in many of Mel's films he deliberatly depicts himself undergoing extremes in torture, maiming, disembowelments, and various other colorful forms of disfigurement?. It's quite possible that there is a clause in his contract that stipulates that he must be heroically disfigured at some point in every movie. The Passion is just the latest instance in his project to preach the consolations of heroic suffering and martyrdom.
I also find it interesting that the Roman Imperial leaders are depicted as benign while the Jews (a.k.a. the "insurgents" to the Roman occupiers) are shown as vicious and base. Ah, yes Gibson's been reading his dog-eared "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" again. To insinuate a respect for imperial authority into the story of Jesus at the present moment is not only irresponsible and reactionary, it is diabolical and unholy.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-01 10:18 pm (UTC)The Mel Gibson penchant for self-mutilation has been mentioned in several articles about the movie. I think it is especially creepy that at one point he said something like he slaughters calfs for fun (I believe this was in the New Yorker article, where the author talks about how Mel was giving the actor playing Polonius pointers on the death scene in "Hamlet."
More than the Roman/Jewish good cop/bad cop assessment, I am pissed off by the fact that the main historical reason why the Jewish council would have urged Pilate to crucify Jesus was directly tied to the Roman oppression of the Jews, and their fear of sanctions from the empire if Jesus' shnanigans caused too much civil unrest.
Midwestern Update
Date: 2004-03-02 12:48 pm (UTC)State legislatures have been pulling shit like SD since the Roe decision, carve a little here, a little there. I don't believe Roe will fall under this Court (the Texas sodomy decision gives decent indication that the Court will sit still on privacy issues for a while). Also, I don't think any of the moderates or liberals have any of intention of retiring before the next election.
ZP
Re: Midwestern Update
Date: 2004-03-02 03:44 pm (UTC)Re: Midwestern Update
Date: 2004-03-03 07:10 am (UTC)The trimester and/or viability concepts of Roe have always bothered me as being subject to the advances of science. It's one of those unholy marriages-- the far right (evoluationarians) piggy-backing on the science they abhor to obtain the result they wish. Quite whorish, really.
I have to look into the silent victim concept a bit more before I can assess the threat level. I'm of the impression that several states already afford protections in terms of tort law. But, I'm not sure.
You're right to be concerned about appointments to the Court (the high and lowers), if he's re-elected. It's among the primary basis upon which I cast my vote. Sad, perhaps, but true. Fear drives.
ZP
Re: Midwestern Update
Date: 2004-03-05 10:29 am (UTC)In the meantime, I came across this article a couple of days ago, about how Roe vs.Wade was almost overturned in 1992:
Roe V. Wade Author Was Worried of Politics
By ANNE GEARAN
Associated Press Writer
March 4, 2004, 6:02 PM EST
WASHINGTON -- As the 1992 presidential election approached, the author of the Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade ruling worried that there were no longer enough votes on the court to uphold the right to abortion -- and that his ideological opposites on the court would play politics with the issue.
Justice Harry A. Blackmun suspected that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wanted to neutralize or overturn Roe but would wait until after the fall elections so that Republicans wouldn't pay a political price, the late justice's private papers show.
A majority of justices on both sides of the abortion fight seemed ready to hear a case that tested Roe, but with the deadline for the year's calendar of cases approaching, Rehnquist postponed a discussion of the case.
"The obvious reason," Blackmun wrote in an internal memo in January 1992, was to avoid "the political repercussions of a decision by this court in an election year."
The court risks its reputation if it makes such political choices, Blackmun told his colleagues.
Blackmun's extensive records from 24 years on the court were opened at the Library of Congress on Thursday, the fifth anniversary of his death. The Nixon appointee had retired in 1994.
As it happened, the court quickly agreed to hear the abortion case, with only Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor voting not to do so, Blackmun's papers show. The court heard oral arguments in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that April, and at first it seemed that Roe might fall.
Blackmun's notes show that Rehnquist initially led a five-justice majority to overrule. The four other justices with Rehnquist were Byron White, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony M. Kennedy. Rehnquist himself was to write the majority opinion.
Indeed, Rehnquist was at work on his majority ruling, when Kennedy sent a note to Blackmun.
"I need to see you as soon as you have a few free moments," Kennedy wrote. "I want to tell you about a new development in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and at least part of what I say should come as welcome news."
Kennedy had changed his mind, and ultimately agreed to a compromise position with Justices O'Connor and David Souter that upheld a woman's right to abortion largely free from state regulation.
"It was an unusual case and an unusual issue, because in the vast majority of cases politics doesn't come into play," said Stephanie Dangel, one of Blackmun's law clerks in 1992. "But with an issue that confirmation hearings had focused on, and which could be affected by the next election, it would be disingenuous of us not to think about politics," Dangel said in a telephone interview.
Blackmun had written the Roe ruling in 1973, and had guarded it from previous attack from conservative justices.
After a meeting with Kennedy and the other two, Blackmun picked up a pink memo pad and scribbled, "Roe sound."
the whole thing is here:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-blackmun-papers,0,1994234.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines
Re: Midwestern Update
Date: 2004-03-09 07:48 am (UTC)There was much talk, in June 1992, of the events described in that article. Those court watchers who were "in the know" had heard rumblings about the pairing of justices. We thanked our lucky stars for Justice Stevens.
I'll try to dig up that piece this weekend.
ZP
no subject
Date: 2004-03-03 12:08 am (UTC)Bruce.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-05 10:30 am (UTC)I loved "Secretary," it's one of my favorite movies.