(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

Many thanks to lady_babalon for catching this article and refering it to me. It is very edifying to see that I am not the only one who noticed the extreme anti-gay hatemongering in Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ.

With The Passion, Gibson... has produced a show that cunningly deploys fear of gays to reassure conservative Christians of their own righteousness. The script's anti-Semitic messages have been detailed by writers such as Christopher Hitchens, who recently argued in Slate that The Passion relies for its effect on a fascistic spectacle whose components include "a hatred of silky and effeminate Jews."

The most effeminate character in Gibson’s gospel, however, is satanic, not Semitic. The devil, who plays no role in the biblical Passion narratives, appears frequently in The Passion. The character is played by a woman... [who] is costumed and photographed to look like an effeminate man. Given Gibson’s past remarks about gay people, and his violent treatment of gay characters in the film Braveheart -- and given that, throughout history, Satan has almost invariably been depicted as male... -- it's reasonable to assume that this conflation of evil and effeminacy is intentional. (Taking a cue from Jesus Christ Superstar, Gibson underscores the point by presenting King Herod as a plump, soft man in Cleopatra eye makeup, attended by a queeny courtier.)

... James Baldwin’s observations on [The Exorcist], from a 1975 essay called "The Devil Finds Work," apply equally to Gibson’s movie: "The mindless and hysterical banality of the evil presented in The Exorcist is the most terrifying thing about the film.... Americans should certainly know more about evil than that; if they pretend otherwise, they are lying, and any black man, and not only blacks ... can call them on this lie; he who has been treated as the devil recognizes the devil when they meet."

[emphasis in bold added]

Comments

[susiebeeca.livejournal.com]

That's why I'm reluctant to see Braveheart---if I wanted to see queers getting slapped around rudely, I'd rent Boys Don't Cry.

[beowulf1723.livejournal.com]

This film is looking more and more like a catalog of Christianity's prejudices and -- dare I say it? -- fetishes.

[qilora.livejournal.com]

oh my goodness, seeing all these films of Gibson's, one would even hazard that the man was a total closeted-BDSM freak! ;-)

he better watch it, he's outing himself left and right!

Juju & Co.

[wetcircuitry.livejournal.com]

I'm a little confused about what the article is saying, exactly, about the fact that Satan is presented as female. Perhaps you could dumb it down for me? *sheepish grin*

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

The article is a little jumbled, in that it tries to present Bush's anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment proposal, and Mel Gibson's film, as two reflections of Christian homophobia. But in short, the position of the article is that the way Satan and Herod are portrayed in the film are meant to confirm the conception held by the intended audience (conservative Christians) of effeminacy as evil.

As I wrote earlier,

Gibson took poetic license with the way he depicted both Satan and Herod. His depiction veers close to being un-scriptural and, I do not think accidently, occurs at the expense of people who are GLBT. If anything, more people will leave the theater with anger towards gays and androgynes than they will with anger at the Jews. It is more homophobic than it is anti-Semitic.

See my earlier post: http://www.livejournal.com/users/sophiaserpentia/360786.html

[liminalia.livejournal.com]

I had a similar reaction when I saw a clip of the Garden scene on Leno. On the one hand, I found Satan's androgyny fitting, because as a fallen angel, the devil should be beautiful and androgynous, imo. I did, however, see the connection to homophobia. Like the other messages in this movie, I think this is more preaching to the converted. The core audience for this movie already thinks effeminates are evil.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Yeah... I would not have nearly the same reaction to the way Satan was depicted, if I thought that the movie was sheerly meant as entertainment. In an "objective" sense, I thought the portrayal was hauntingly beautiful.

But that's the thing -- the intended audience of the movie would respond with revulsion to a hauntingly beautiful androgynous figure. It would scream at them "unnatural!" The effects will mostly be subconscious, beyond awareness -- and occur at a time when the nation is embroiled in an extremely shrill and polemicized debate over gay rights.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

Damnit...I DO NOT want to see this film. Okay, I do not want to erroneously add another figure to the films so called popularity by supporting it financially or in any other way.

I did not want to see the film. But after reading so many posts about it, I kind of want to. Somehow I do not think my desire to see the film is in line with any views intentions of the filmmakers.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Well... neither was mine. I saw it for a number of reasons. I'd be curious to see your reactions, actually, to see how they overlap with or differ from mine.

[adroanzi.livejournal.com]

There way gay-bashing in Braveheart? I saw the movie but I didn't pick up on any of that.

[adroanzi.livejournal.com]

There way gay-bashing in Braveheart? I saw the movie but I didn't pick up on any of that.

No, your right

[lilchiva.livejournal.com]

there was a scene where the gay heir gets thrown out the window with his lover. Given the time period I am not sure how this would be handled differently.