Several discussions of the Passion online at websites of varying degrees of credibility have framed their concerns in terms of Gibson's "responsibility not to create bigotry with his work." Well, yes, in a perfect world nobody would make movies that would stir up racial hatred. (Gibson in fact has stated that he is not doing this, and credible critics who have seen the movie insist he has not done this.) Could we also share this particular ethic with Spike Lee? What about musicians -- do they not also have a responsibility to refrain from writing songs that glorify blacks who hate, or kill, whites? When a basketball player tries to invoke racial tension to shrug aside a rape investigation, does he not have some responsibility not to promote hatred?
And what about all the other personal catastrophes elevated in the popular culture by widely acclaimed musicians, actors, directors and celebrities-in-general? Is there no responsibility to avoid promoting battery, drug use and drug dealing, promiscuity, single motherhood or adultery? Should these people not ensure that their movies, television shows and music not promote activities that destroy people, families and communities? Do these problems not, in reality, cause much more suffering than any theological point of conflict about what precisely happened in the events of the Passion?
If any of the tenured classes showed similar anxiety about Eminem's songs about killing his wife, about the creation of "pimp chic" amongst rap musicians, about the serial marriages on display each week in Hollywood, about the actresses who have babies without fathers and then celebrate their independence for doing so, I might be inclined to take more seriously their concerns about Gibson's social responsibility and his filmmaking. Until then, it is very hard to escape the conclusion that violence, drug abuse, promiscuity and vulgarity are infinitely more acceptable in these circles than piety, monogamy and continence.
Posted by Clio at August 30, 2003 07:24 PM