“Suspiria.” “House of 1,000 Corpses.” “Passion of the Christ.”

You can imagine my surprise and disgust when I heard that Newman was showing a shock value horror film to celebrate the Lenten season. As a person who has no religious feelings one way or the other, the strong feelings that led me to attend this showing last Thursday were neither compassion for Christ, nor anger at the blatant anti-Semitism — it was the hatred for this movie. Somebody had to open their eyes. Somebody had to let them know that “The Passion of the Christ” (which I will from here on out refer to as “The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre”) is a horrible excuse for film-making and an even worse example of religious history. I would be that person — even if it meant watching the movie again.

If I had honestly believed that I was going to attend Newman’s showing/discussion of “JCM” and rant pretentiously until my fellow students hated this movie as much as I do, then I am as delusional as Mel Gibson himself. The fact is, the majority of Christians who view “JCM” aren’t worried about violence in the media or anti-Semitism. They’re worried about Christ dying for their sins (brutally) and what that means to their faith. And I have no response to that. Being neither Christian nor Jewish, my perspectives are mostly movie snob downers in a conversation about these things.

But this does not mean that The JCM isn’t a horrible movie. It is, and for two major reasons.

Mel Gibson made a big old fuss about authenticity — he almost didn’t even allow for subtitles. However, Gibson was so set on his own, anti-Semitic version of authenticity that he used the dictated writings of a delusional 18th century nun as a main source for “JCM.”

Disregarding the fact that it’s generally accepted throughout Christianity that you don’t blame the death of Christ on the Jews, Gibson consulted Anne Catherine Emerich’s “The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ” for large portions of his movie. Emerich and her writings would have been made part of the religious canon if it weren’t for one thing: the huge amount of Jew-hating in “The Dolorous Passion.”

I won’t bother listing all of the inaccuracies in “JCM” – you can look them up yourself on Wikipedia. But let’s just say there’s a difference between artistic liscense and being anti-Semetic. If Gibson sees Satan as a bald, Billy Corgan-looking chick without eyebrows, that’s fine. But if Gibson makes a point to go outside respected sources just to make the Jews looks like jerks, that’s a little bit different. It’s mostly just an unnecessary jerk move.

Furthermore, the violence in “JCM” is not realistic; it’s extremist. As much as Christians try to say that it’s an important realistic portrait of how their savior suffered, it’s simply not true. By the end of the 12 minutes of Christ-whipping, Jesus’s whole body is stripped of multiple layers of skin and there’s about a gallon of blood on the ground. If this were the case, Jesus would have died long before he got to Golgotha. Maybe twice.

The real problem with this scene (and the following scenes) is that this key part of the movie – that everyone hails as significant and realistic – is a cheap, manipulative trick being played on countless people who are not desensitized to Hollywood horror. Gibson wanted to give people a religious experience, and instead of actually making a decent movie, he made people so shocked that they thought they were having a religious experience. In reality they were just really upset.

This delusion is a problem — not just because people think a horrible movie is good. It’s a problem for Christians to be blind to blatant anti-Semitism. It’s a problem to consider manipulative shock value an important religious text. If you’re going to celebrate Easter this Sunday, do it with something that makes you think – not something that tricks you with blood and guts.