The Passion and the Pope Provoke Distress in Frank Rich

Yesterday, Drudge linked to a Frank Rich article entitled “Chutzpah and spiritual McCarthyism," published in the International Herald Tribune. This piece was also published in the New York Times but with the more innocuous title of “The Pope’s Thumbs Up for Gibson’s ‘Passion’" I’m not certain if this is because the NYT headline writers did not want to mix Jewish and Catholic terms, chutzpah and pope, or because the phrase “thumbs up” is so closely related to movie reviews and utilization of the term may sell more papers as people may think that Roger Ebert has reviewed the film.

The above does not overly concern me though, and neither, in all honesty, does the fact that Frank Rich has his panties in a knot over the pope’s “endorsement” of Gibson’s film The Passion. What interests me is the vapidity of Rich’s distress.  A few examples, with my comments following each example.

The beginning of the second paragraph of Rich’s piece.

"In what is surely the most bizarre commercial endorsement since Eleanor Roosevelt did an ad for Good Luck Margarine in 1959, the ailing pontiff has been recruited, however unwittingly, to help hawk “The Passion of the Christ,” as Mel Gibson’s film about Jesus’s final 12 hours is now titled."

I’m not certain if Rich is upset that the pope is out bizarring Eleanor, or, that even though the pope is ailing and unwitting he is reviewing movies.  Either way, I think the pope’s auction type nod of approval is rather humanizing to the old guy.

Further into Rich’s piece, the fourth paragraph if you are following along, we find this statement by Rich.

"Since I am one of the many curious Jews who have not been invited to press screenings of “The Passion,” I have no first-hand way of knowing whether the film is benign or toxic and so instead must rely on eyewitnesses."

A couple of thoughts on this.  Rich appears to be pissed that he didn’t get an invite to view the film.  Well I didn’t get an invite either Rich, and you don’t see me pissing and moaning.  I guess we’ll both have pay $7.50 or so to get in with the rest of the riff raff.  As for relying on eyewitnesses, well, that’s all and good, in a criminal trial I guess, but it’s more akin to suspending your own judgement in favor of someone else’s dogma.  My experience with this suspension of judgement has been less than satisfactory and I would counsel you to not rely on “eyewitnesses,” as you call them, before passing judgement on a film.  Save that type of reliance for the courtroom.

Rich’s screed goes on and on.  Four pages in the IHT or two pages in the NYT, take your pick, they both read the same.  Meaning, Rich’s piece is the mere whining of a wannabe member of the movie club.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, the book mentioned in the sidebar, left, requires my attention once again.

Posted by on 01/19 at 12:17 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: History in Photos

Previous entry: Are American Muslims Protestantizing?

<< Back to main