Just so wrong ...

There's a lot that's being said about Gibson's "The Passion of Christ", and frankly just about everything worth saying about why one might take the unusual stance of objecting to something you have no intention of seeing has been said with more intelligence, articulateness and research than I could muster by Lyn at her film site.

(And a hurrah to Lyn for breaking out into her own blogs after a fine run of comments and guest writing here and at fridaysixpm. Beth, the blogosphere owes you for another initiate.)

However, I am still having serious trouble, even as a mere tepid agnostic, with the movie tie-in merchandise - or specifically the nail pendants.

It raises an intersting point though - why isn't a nail as powerful a Christian symbol as the crucifix? Perhaps because, like Gibson's film, it's just a little too starkly violent? It strikes me as elevating the violence of the crucifixion over any message of sacrifice, tolerance, faith or non-violent civil disobedience.

I suppose that is Gibson's basic intent: he is not particularly interested in telling a story about the values and ideas for which Christ was put to death, he is interested in making a deeply viseceral statement about the manner of that death.

I have to say that I find the idea of using our society's perverse relationship with cinematic violence for evangelical ends quite disturbing.


PS Freshly squeezed pulp noir

New Naylor is up for the week. Elliot finally gets a drink, but very little good news.