James Caviezel: STFU!
by 1115 at 6:00 am on February 25th, 2004 in STFU!Posted by Sam
From the “Taking Myself too Seriously” Archive:
James Caviezel is an actor. So is Mel Gibson. Now Gibson’s a director, making a film about the death of Jesus Christ. It’s safe to say that Gibson, a mediocre Australian film actor best known for his roles in the Mad Max and Lethal Weapon movies got a little carried away in making his latest flick. And apparently, so did his little protege Caviezel, another mediocre actor, best known for…well, nothing really.
Much like Mel’s tormented Savior, the public has been repeatedly flagellated by Gibson’s religious mumbo-jumbo. Gibson clearly thinks he’s Jesus, and now he’s succeeded in infecting his star with the same strain of Jerusalem Syndrome.
In an interview that ran as a sidebar to John Meacham’s well-appointed debunking of the myths about the death of Jesus that Gibbon’s film has resurrected, Caviezel started to sound a little like his rationality-challenged director.
Of the unemployed carpenter, Caviezel says: “I love him more than I ever knew possible. I love him more than my wife, my family. There were times when I was up there [on the cross], and I could barely speak. Continual hypothermia is so excruciating. I connected to a place I could have never, ever gone. I don’t want people to see me. All I want them to see is Jesus Christ.”
Sorry Jimmy, all we’re going to see is a white guy covered in ketchup, yelping in a language that hasn’t been spoken for 2 millennia.
James Caviezel, SHUT THE FUCK UP!
rob wrote:
every day my ardor for this site grows and grows. you rock.
Posted 25 Feb 2004 at 10:50 am ¶
sam wrote:
We need all the ardor we can get. Thanks for the ups.
Posted 25 Feb 2004 at 10:47 pm ¶
eebmore wrote:
In a perhaps misguided attempt to defend Caviezel, he is a conservative Catholic. Self flagellation is still an often practiced and respected “holy” occurrence of the conservative wing of the Catholic Church. Opus Dei Priests and laymen still often wear hair shirts and spiked bands around their ankles and upper arms under their clothing; not to mention the whip they keep by the bed stand.
As disturbing as it sounds (and I was admittedly disturbed when members of Opus Dei told me this), the general idea is extreme physical discomfort/suffering is a kind of secondary communion with Christ’s sufferings.
For obvious reasons, the Catholic Church rarely openly discusses this side of its faith. But I think it does to some degree explain Caviezel’s perception of his unpleasant experience playing the part of Jesus on the cross. He’s not suffering from a Christ complex, he’s just your average everyday irritating religious zealot.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it is all Nutty Gobbley Goo. But to tell him to “Shut the Fuck Up” is roughly equivalent on the cultural sensitivity scale to telling an Orthodox Jew that he’s a fuck wad for keeping Kosher and not driving on Saturdays.
Not that I’m offended in any way. I’m not religious and was raised in a militant Atheist household. I just thought I had a little (operative word “little”) information that could shed a little light into these loony’s heads.
Posted 26 Feb 2004 at 8:43 am ¶
sam wrote:
Eebmore: your comments are clear, concise and edifying. I don’t doubt that Caviezel had some religious moments during the filming. Even I, a vociferous caustic when it comes to Hollywood self-aggrandizement (is that a tautology?) will admit that actors have to put up with some rough treatment; I know it can be a job like any other at times.
However, it’s the self-important hyperbole that I object to. Neither Gibson or Cavaziel are curing cancer or feeding the hungry with their movie. When someone says that they love a character from history (albeit a rather significant one) more than his family, I wonder about his priorities. Especially when that person is playing the character in a movie.
Not only is Cavaziel an irritating religious zealot, he’s also a movie star. Today, celebrities are more important to the American public than education or art. They are the barometer for the American psyche: what we think we see in them we want to create for ourselves in our own lives. And when celebrities make comments so inane, they deserve to be told to Shut the Fuck Up.
Cavaziel’s comments cannot be likened to Jewish ritual observances that are private and personal. What Cavaziel has done is take a private rumination and make it public in a context (film-makiing) that is too flimsy to sustain its weight.
Posted 26 Feb 2004 at 9:11 am ¶
eebmore wrote:
Sam, thanks for the response. I’m right with you that this movie is a pile of poo. I just think a more accurate understanding of the Catholic mindset makes for stronger informed criticism.
Admittedly, I came from a really strange upbringing that for better of for worse makes me look at this subject a little differently (“Daddy, why are you making read the Bible and explain the differences Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists and Calvanists even though you are an Atheist?” Answer: “Know your enemy, son.” Loony, I know. But that is how Dad was.).
Respectfully, I do disagree with you in the details; but I think it is the “good” kind of disagreement.
“When someone says that they love a character from history (albeit a rather significant one) more than his family, I wonder about his priorities.”
I think it is important to remember that to Christians, Christ is not simply a character from history, or a prophet, but is actually God. According to the Book of Job, one is supposed to love God more than their own family. It’s a basic tenet of both Christianity and Judaism.
I agree with you, it’s a baffling way to look at things. But to a zealot of either faith, the word on the street is God first, family second.
“Cavaziel’s comments cannot be likened to Jewish ritual observances that are private and personal”
It’s important to note that Christianity, unlike Judaism, is an evangelical religion. The point that I was trying to make (although I don’t think I articulated it very well) in my previous post is that, anyone on the extreme end of religious observance, will perceive the world in a manner that is congruous with the tenets of his or her faith. Cavaziel, a conservative devotee of Catholicism, was reacting to his experience in exactly the way he was taught. A Christian of the evangelical strain, will glorify God to bring people into the fold and save their souls. If there is fault to be found in his statements, it does not reflect so much on him directly, but rather in the particulars of his faith. “Jewish observances” by their very nature, are “private and personal.” Christian evangelical observances are expressive and proactive.
From this viewpoint, the statement “James Caviezel, shut the fuck up!” reads, “Christianity, shut the fuck up!” As an outside observer, I can totally empathize with that sentiment (evangelical religions get on my nerves. I personally respect Judaism far more than I respect Christianity), but it is reflective of the very fallacy that “Passion of the Christ” is guilty of, a lack of respect of a divergent faith. In 1967 the Catholic church (to its credit) held the Vatican II councel. It was decided that even though the New Testament made anti-Semitic statements (and the New Testiment does in fact read anti-Semitic), it was disrespectful to a divergent faith and was not congruous with the spirit of the Church. Anti-Semitism was barred from the faith. This angered a fringe group on the right wing of the Church and Catholic Traditionalism was born.
A great article on Gibson, his evil insane anti-Semitic father and Catholic Traditionalism originally published in the NYT Magazine:
http://www.christophernoxon.com/nyt_sub_pope.html
And here is why “The Passion of the Christ” is a piece of shit. And the evangelical nature of the Catholic Traditionalists is what makes it so disturbing.
Basically, my point is to try not to fall into the same trappings as Gibson and the Catholic Traditionalists. And to quote the Catholic Conan O’Brian “Be cool my babies.”
:)
Posted 27 Feb 2004 at 10:50 am ¶
Hoyt Pollard wrote:
In response to Mel Gibson whining about how he has had to “suffer for (his) art” on the Bill O’Reilly show, Jon Stewart said something to the effect of:
“Yes, that is daring. Realeasing a pro-Jesus film in America.”
Posted 27 Feb 2004 at 10:54 am ¶
Lillian Supplee wrote:
you guys could use a little religion..just because you disagree with Gibson snd Cavaziel is no reason to be rude and just plain discussting. You only show yourselves to be what you are……mean spirited individuals who are biased and uninformed about Christianity. Must you resort to profanity to prove your point. Christ died for the iikes of you. Listen to HIs words with your heart not your filthy minds. I feel sorry for you. YOu miss the whole point of why He was born and died for you. See you in the after life. I hope you make it. /
Posted 09 Mar 2004 at 5:30 pm ¶
Lillian Supplee wrote:
you guys could use a little religion..just because you disagree with Gibson snd Cavaziel is no reason to be rude and just plain discussting. You only show yourselves to be what you are……mean spirited individuals who are biased and uninformed about Christianity. Must you resort to profanity to prove your point. Christ died for the iikes of you. Listen to HIs words with your heart not your filthy minds. I feel sorry for you. YOu miss the whole point of why He was born and died for you. See you in the after life. I hope you make it. /
Posted 09 Mar 2004 at 5:30 pm ¶
sam wrote:
I love it when the saved try and reach out to the damned. It’s what our world is all about. But it saddens me that the saved can’t spell.
Posted 09 Mar 2004 at 8:58 pm ¶
whatever wrote:
Many years ago there was a little baby born.Three(4) kings were coming to adore him.
Perhaps those kings represent nowadays different religions. Eventhough they were “different”, they had the same will and wish, and behaved in a way to help each-other to “reach the goal” without changing their “dresses or collours into 1″.
Have a lovely days!
Posted 10 Mar 2004 at 8:35 am ¶
rob wrote:
jesus christ. i go away for two days and look what happens. i’m going to go violently flog myself for not checking the site daily.
Posted 10 Mar 2004 at 11:10 am ¶
jesus wrote:
you guys are all crazy!
Posted 11 Mar 2004 at 12:38 pm ¶
mike wrote:
anyone who speaks out against gibson and cavaziel is obviously scared of the truth. they have courage and they have a right to do what they want. there is no anti semitism and the arguments people use against this new movie proves that jesus was for real and this movie is authentic. they got very mad 2 thousand years ago and they are getting mad now. so keep insulting gibson and the catholics, and keep adding autheniticity to the catholic church. hey liberals, why did schindler’s list have to be so violent? hyocrites!
Posted 14 Mar 2004 at 7:33 am ¶
matt wrote:
Hey mike:
Did you bother to read the post or any of the comments that followed? Or are you just copy/pasting the same dogmatic tripe everywhere this discussion takes place? Step up or step off.
Posted 14 Mar 2004 at 9:16 am ¶
Sheila wrote:
Mr. Caviezel,
I have just read that you will play Charles Manson in a movie, please tell me it is not true.
Thank you for bringing the love of Jesus to a
world that would rather not know Him, but now may have to look, listen, and reason with there hearts that He alone died for all mankind. God is with you. Sheila
Posted 21 Apr 2004 at 11:47 am ¶
C Sammons wrote:
I think you bad mouthing people should see this film, The Passion, again. You will see yourself over and over in the people beating him and the evil one watching him. You are IN the film,and you are just why he died for us. You too, can be forgiven. Watch it and see YOURSELF>
Posted 15 Sep 2004 at 1:12 pm ¶
Mike wrote:
I’d like to ask everyone a question. If a so called Christian lives a conservative life according to the scriptures in the Bible and his or her faith was in vain because Jesus is not real - what have they lost in life? Nothing! Now, if you don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God and don’t believe the Bible where it says He’s the only way to get to heaven - what have you lost? Your soul for all eternity. It’s not wise to make a major decision in life without looking at all the angles is it? The Passion of Christ is just a movie by those who have a passion. It’s the perfect example of America’s right to the freedom of speech. You do belive in the freedom of speech? If you haven’t seen the movie, how can you be an objective critic about something you know nothing about? Just food for thought folks.
Posted 29 Oct 2004 at 7:17 am ¶
Yakonaru wrote:
We won’t really know until we finally leave this world, now will we?
Posted 09 Dec 2004 at 4:57 pm ¶