The Passion, Recut

It looks like Mel Gibson is trying to create a new version of his controversial film The Passion, one that is more "family friendly" so that kids can go see it - and, perhaps, one that will earn him even more money. Maybe it should be renamed The Mammon?

Variety reports:

"There are no new scenes, and the cuts are limited to the more violent aspects of the film, if that's the right term," said Bruce Davey, Gibson's partner in Icon Prods. "The scourging scene in particular has been substantially adjusted.

"There has been quite a demand by the religious community to bring (the film) back for Easter. And there has been a lot of discussion about the violence. Mel wanted to try and accommodate those people by making a version that is softer and gentler. Hopefully those people will come and see it, particularly the younger audience."

Shawn Landres comments:

I must say that while I found the violence in The Passion distasteful, I understood why it was there from the perspective of Gibson's penitential theology. And though I disagreed with his choices, I respected Gibson's dogged insistence on pursuing his cinematic vision outside the standard studio system that would have forced him to compromise. ... Gibson always had maintained that The Passion was about something other than gross revenues. Apparently he's changed his mind. Frankly, I'm disappointed in him.

Gibson was so insistent throughout 2003 and 2004 that this was his vision and he had a right to film it as he chose... If there were a 2004 or 2005 interview where Gibson said to an interviewer, "You know, (Barbara, Diane, Bill, etc.), I really am sorry that people have decided not to see the movie because of its violence. I respect their concerns and I wish we could figure out a way to make this film more accessible to them." But there isn't, and he didn't. Absent evidence to the contrary, this decision was about the bottom line.

Well, every movie is at least a little bit about the bottom line, so it shouldn’t be the least bit surprising that money would at least partially motivate this decision as well. It wouldn't be a big deal if it were any other movie. It's only because Gibson and others tried to promote this movie as something more than a commercial product that it seems strange now. People wanted to treat this as one of the defining religious experiences of their lives and to see it more blatantly used for commercial purposes has got to be jarring.

At least, it would be if people allowed themselves to recognize what is going on. I rather doubt that will happen, though. It's more likely that people will ignore the commercial aspect of what is going on and treat the movie as a religious icon, not as a money-making product of a capitalist entertainment system.

Read More:

• Religion 101
• Theism 101
• Does God Exist?