Michael Moore v. Mel Gibson

Joshua Gibson

Michael Moore and Mel Gibson [no relation to the author of this post] love each other.

Both admit that the divide between their films is fictitious, and created by the media salivating for great Red/Blue splits.  That's right, my friends, Farenheit 9/11 and The Passion of the Christ are more similar than you've been thinking all along.

This has been painfully obvious to many of us for some time.  Neither Moore nor Gibson understand subtlety of expression, historical accuracy, or nuanced politico-spiritual statements.  Neither is interested in exploring issues, but only in hammering their audiences with facile depictions of complex events.  The adoration of the Left for Mr. Moore has never pleased me, an inveterate foe of manipulative, uninspired political grandstanding.  If he would just once make a movie that wasn't about himself, he might have something to add to the dialogue.  As it stands, he's at best an ineffective propagandist.

Gibson, on the other hand, is boldly pursuing an artistic dream.  For all the "missionary" work his film has supposedly done, it was made with no such intention.  Gibson wished to bring an evangelical Catholic vision of Christ's death (which is theologically more significant than his life) to the big screen in an attempt to blot out those other Jesus movies (The Last Temptation of Christ chief among them.)  His film won't convert many secularists, may be offensive on many levels, but at least it is an act of pure artistic bravery in the way that Michael Moore, coddled by his studio, is incapable of. The Passion of the Christ isn't a great movie; It's antisemitic, heavyhanded without subversion, technically solid but not masterful.  But it is, at least, an interesting artifact of the ongoing theological debate about the meaning of Christ's life, death and resurrection.  As such, it will be of great value for many years, whereas Moore's movies, rooted completely in their moment, have no chance to be of any but purely historical interest.

It is fascinating to see two men, more alike in filmmaking temperament than they are given credit for, both fastening onto the cultural divides of our nation at a crucial time.  Both have produced films that cannot be accepted as successful without a prior belief in the subject matter, both seek to mobilize the passions of their audience to act (for God or for politics.)  What separates them is not sensibility, or ideology, Red or Blue, but, put simply, talent.  Gibson has it and Moore does not.  The inability of most film critics to acknowledge this is of grave importance to our artistic culture, for if we let politics become the measure of an artist we are surely doomed to boring art by talentless douchebag hacks.  I prefer my boring art to be made by inspired douchebag hacks.  But that's just me.

By Joshua Gibson Jan. 11, 2005