Mel Gibson re-released The Passion of the Christ this weekend to dismal theater attendance. The recut version of the film deletes much of the gore and violence that bothered critics in its first run. Look for the film to do better as Easter approaches, but starting from a $240,000 weekend gross--down from its take of $84 million in last year's opening weekend--it will have to do a lot better to solidify the film as an annual Lenten tradition.

What explains the collapse? Unlike last year, Mel Gibson doesn't have the benefit of unglued scribes and talking heads providing free publicity. Controversy just isn't as controversial the second time around. With the theatrical release occuring just a year ago to more than a half-billion dollars in international ticket sales, and the DVD selling (buy it here) nearly 20 million copies stateside, the hunger for the film may be largely satiated for now. Gibson listening to his critics may be an overlooked reason for the film's poor showing this weekend. The same people who mocked Gibson for pouring his fortune into the sure-loser The Passion of the Christ, harped on the violence in the film. But the critics weren't representative of the film-goers flooding movie theaters. To his artistic credit and financial benefit, Gibson didn't listen to the naysayers then. So why did he recut the movie to assuage those same critics now?

Dan,
He may not be assuaging his critics. He might be simply re-editing as he sees fit. He may also be looking to generate some interest and ticket sales by offering something "new."

Good luck to him. I hope he is not as crazy as South Park depicted.

My take is that Mel Gibson is trying to do the same thing he intended to do with the first cut last year, and that is reach new people with the Gospel. His objective last year was not (primarily) to make money - no one thought he would.

Same this year. Gibson isn't primarily focused on reaching the same people he reached last year; he wants to reach those who didn't go to the film last year. And one reason they didn't, perhaps, was that they did not have the stomach for the graphic depictions of the violence Christ endured on the way to and on the cross.
The fact of the matter is that the important thing about the story of the Passion is not the how of Christ's crucifixion, but the why and the reality thereof. This, after all, is the emphasis of the NT Gospel accounts: there is very little description of the how, but much about the why and the mere fact of Christ's crucifixion and ressurection.

I too hope he's not as crazy as South Park depicts him to be.

Usually, South Park depicts celebrities with a serious and accurate objectivity that only South Park can pull off.

Eric, I think you're exactly right.

But shouldn't we recognize that Gibson had a good reason to depict the "how" of the crucifixion to graphically? I've heard people say that the fact of the resurrection makes the fact of the crucifixion irrelevant. How silly! And certainly the clean-cross version of Christianity wants to exaggerate the ease of conversion and salvation, as if our sinfulness mattered no more after merely confessing faith. Emphasizing the reality of the crucifixion to America's many easy-living Christians requires showing its "how", to wake them from their slumber.

Short,

Yes, there may be good reasons to show the how, also. I don't think my comments precluded that. The main thrust of my comments was that Gibson is not being a "sell-out" or compromiser - on the contrary, I believe he is acting consistent with the principles he followed in releasing the first cut of "The Passion." And that is to be commended, IMO.

But I also agree with you: the mushy, neo-Gnostic brand of Christianity must be confronted head-on, and I think Gibson's work has helped in that cause.

RE: the statements you have heard that "the resurrection makes the fact of the crucifixion irrelevant," I have not heard such foolishness before. How silly, indeed.

I had read that the criticisms Gibson was responding to were those of various Christian groups, leaders, pastors, etc. It was screening the film to such groups that originally convinced him to put subtitles in the film (which was a good idea). Now he has taken them up on their claims that many people did not see the film out of squeamishness. Anecdotally, a number of people in my family fall into that category, and so will probably see this recut version where they didn't think they were up to watching the original.

lol ASDF, no one could be as crazy as South Park depicts them, that is usually why the show is funny. Oh, well actually, they made Michael Jackson seem LESS crazy then he is in one episode.

ASDF what are you guys doing for St. Patricks ? Send me an email.

Yeah. If serious, maybe Webster would like to think about and retract that last comment.

South Park is very funny and does a great job of making everybody look nuts. No matter who.

Even 'Mr. Hand' who in most cases would be taken seriously.

asdf,

I think SP had less reason than usual to pick on Mel. They were commenting on the extreme violence, which was truly extraordinary for movies. I do think it, the violence, was justifiable, not gratuitous.

For all that, the SP send up was hysterically funny. They are more on target in picking on rich environmentalists. The Earth Day Brain Washing Festival and the Save the Rain Forest episodes in particular.

Agreed. Always well done.

"The World Over" on EWTN had an interview with Gibson last week to ask why he made this change. I don't really see any reason not to believe his answer. He says he's trying to get to Grandma, who upon hearing of the relentless violence of the film, couldn't bring herself to go see it. I hope he succeeds.

Something will be lost, to be sure, from this cut. I think it's something akin to what we've lost when we no longer have to personally kill our own animals for food. We lose sight of the life that we have to take so that we may live. We're less thankful, and less cognizant of the suffering that an animal (or the Lamb of God) has to endure for our sake. And in losing that experience, it makes Christ's sacrifice harder to understand as well. As has been pointed out in earlier posts, Christians have followed suit and tried to "sanitize" the sacrifical part of the faith, and "The Passion" has sparked a little rebellion against that trend, among Catholics AND Protestants. So, I can understand why so many think this "recut" is a bad idea. People very much want to reconnect with the sacrificial.

But, The Stations of the Cross have none of the visual power of Gibson's film, nor does the average Good Friday service, yet both still have the power to reduce grown men to tears. And that power IS also in the film, with our without the blood and violence. So I hope GrandMa goes to see it.