MICHAEL MOORE AND MEL GIBSON

In the July 12 issue (page 70 in print) of Time magazine, Andrew Sullivan writes that he sees similarity in the recent movies of Mel Gibson (The Passion of the Christ) and Michael Moore (Fahrenheit 9/11). He says that the two movies are "just terrible as movies--crude, boring, gratuitous" and that they are "deeply corrosive of the possibility of real debate and reason in our culture." The similarity between the two movies occurs, however, in Sullivan's argument, because "[b]oth movies were appealing to what might be called their cultural bases. They weren't designed to persuade. They were designed to rally the faithful."

In comparing the techniques of the two movies, Sullivan is equally critical of both Moore and Gibson. About Moore's assertions that Bush used the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for oil, Sullivan says, "He cannot prove this, and so he tries to bludgeon the viewer emotionally to that conclusion. He uses innuendo, sly editing, parody, ridicule and somber voice-overs to give his mere assertions a patina of truth." Taking on Gibson's film-making, Sullivan writes, "there is no historical evidence that Jesus endured anything like the sadistic marathon that The Passion lovingly re-creates. But it is portrayed--at fantastical length and in excruciating detail--as historical fact."

In summary, Sullivan argues that whether you are a "red-stater" or a "blue-stater" will determine which one of these men you see as hero or villain. He also argues that it is a shame to see the culture wars going so far to the extremes. "The truth is that both movies are different but equally potent forms of cultural toxin--poisonous to debate, to reason, and to civility. And the antidote is in shorter and shorter supply."

Certainly, Sullivan presents an intriguing look at these two movies/cultural icons. I particularly like Sullivan's argument that these extreme views erode debate, reason, and civility. We are no longer able to have reasoned disagreement in this country without one extreme calling the other some series of names, or creating fabrications and exaggerations to define their point of view rather than relying on fact and civil discourse.