The meaning of Gore
As I read Lance Goldenberg's review of The Passion of The Christ, I wondered whether we had both watched the same movie. Analogizing the suffering of Christ depicted on the screen to a "whips-n-chains exploitation flick" is worse than disrespectful; it's asinine. A Roman flagello is not a leather flogger. Any modicum of historical research into Roman methods of execution will show you that what is depicted in Gibson's movie is, horrifically enough, very accurate. Yes, the movie was brutal, and that is the point. No other biblical movie to date has depicted what a Roman flagello would actually do to a person.
And it was the Romans wielding them, not the Jews. These charges of anti-Semitism and of culpability confound me. The depiction of "Jews" that I saw was one of an oppressed people under foreign occupation, one of devoted followers of Jesus (Himself a Jew), one of sympathetic crowds, one of misguided and confused people, and one of horrible people driven by a burning hate. Even amongst the Sanhedrin there were serious divisions as to the treatment of Jesus, and this was shown accurately in the movie.
What it comes to is that all of us, Jew or Gentile, black or white, male or female, have to decide individually how we are going to treat Jesus. We either do violence to Him, or call Him for what He is: The Christ.
Thank you for your attention and for running a good publication. God bless.
—Luis Garcia-Rivera, Esq.
Palm Harbor
I saw a headline on cable news the other night: Relentless Gore Proves Self-Defeating. I'm still not sure if this referred to the Mel Gibson movie or the former vice president.
—Ray Zacek
Tampa
Avian Games
Really bad cover this week. Probably real fun for your demographics. Too bad you had to approve it. My guess is that "editorial statement" doesn't represent an image many of your advertisers, large and small, really want to convey.
Maybe you are right. Maybe those advertisers really don't care what appears on the cover of your paper.
All I can do is send them a copy of this e-mail and ask them if they really felt good about their advertising budget this week. It will be an interesting survey.
By the way the article was very interesting.
—Jim Herren
Treasure Island
Editor's reply: We received half a dozen calls or e-mails complaining about the bird cover, including one anonymous gent who promised to collect all future issues of the Weekly Planet and throw them in the dumpster. "Who the fuck do you think you are?" he asked. Even our own copy editor thought the cover concept was "juvenile."
To be honest, I thought long and hard about that cover when it was proposed, and I admit that I hesitated to run it. For one thing, it's not my own personality. I finally chose to do it for several reasons, chief among them: It's important that we live in a country where it is possible to show disrespect to government authority. (Think of totalitarian countries where that sort of thing can get you jailed.) The exercise of that disrespect has political as well as moral value. Ridicule is not everyone's preferred style, but it is an acceptable way, and to some, the best way to make a point.
Sugg's story raising questions about the abuse of federal law enforcement power was picked up by a number of websites and read on at least three continents. Next week, more letters about the story itself.
—Jim Harper
This article appears in Mar 18-24, 2004.
