The Passion of the 'Controversial' Film Club
On being, or not being, offended.
Recently I saw the re-release of The Passion of the Christ at Vue. It's a powerful, exquisitely violent and incredibly well-crafted film whether you're spiritual or not.
Its director has made anti-Semitic statements, therefore his film must be anti-Semitic. Right? The only characters in the film who are obviously dehumanised are the Roman soldiers who scourge Jesus. Their dialogue is the only dialogue not translated. They have no voice, are portrayed as snarling animals, and take pleasure in increasing his suffering.
It got me thinking about when my film club got banned from one of the few available venues in Leeds after wanting to show it (I agreed to cancel the event but was told I could no longer screen films there full stop).
People choose what media they're offended by. We all have our limits. But we don't always need to vocalise them.
Sometimes our offense is driven by our deep-seated sense of morality or personal taste. Sometimes people take offense because everyone around them has taken offense. Sometimes it's simply a popularity contest: so-and-so says the film is bad so I must think the film is bad too. When offense becomes dangerous is when it doesn't engage with a text, is driven by an absence of critical thinking, and calls for censorship.
It's ironic that I have been held to a much higher standard than a huge cinema for a number of my screenings. Almost all my introductions to films attempt to contextualise them and ask questions about their controversial elements. Multiplexes don't have introductions at all. Would you ask Vue to not show the film? I have a face. I'm just one person. I'm easy to shout at!
The aforementioned venue works in mysterious ways. As someone commented on my post at the time: "So the venue was ok to show films that depict the violent torture, rape and murder of women, but The Passion of the Christ is where they draw the line..." Let me draw up a list of all the films screened there and analyse their directors and content based on their possibility to cause offense...
Off the top of my head I can think of one film chosen by the very staff member who spoke to me. The Holy Mountain director Jodorowsky's statements about incest and rape certainly leave a bad taste in the mouth.
I don't know, and no longer care to know, whether its decisions are based on politics, interpersonal issues, popularity contests, inflated egos or fear. It's a venue I'll continue to support day-to-day for other reasons.
I do, however, wonder about the implications of throwing critical thinking out the window. If decisions are driven by ego and groupthink, how is culture affected? How can we be challenged?