Watch, read, think before opining over controversy

In these days of turmoil, it’s hard to find common ground on anything.

To some of us, for example, capital punishment is government-sanctioned murder. Others view it as simple eye-for-an-eye justice.

I lean toward Woody Allen’s point of view: “Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime.”

All jokes aside, I mention Allen so that I can make a point about expressing opinions.

It should be obvious to anyone who took Psych 101 that opinions are reactions filtered through education and life experience.

As a film reviewer, I have no illusions that anything I write is the truth.

Then again, I have no illusions that there is such a thing as the truth.

Sure, like all of us I’m affected by what others think and say. With so many people talking (answering cell phones, scolding their children, eating popcorn at full volume) during the movies these days, it’s difficult not to.

But I work hard at coming to my own conclusions. I try to watch and read and think on my own.

See, what I don’t, what I can’t understand is someone who would condemn a movie without first having watched it. That would be like saying, “I hate brussels sprouts” without ever tasting the wretched things.

I have tasted brussels sprouts. And I loathe them.

But if I had never tasted them, I would never know whether they tasted like a cross between cabbage and broccoli (which they do) or banana cream pie (which they definitely don’t).

But neither would I offer an opinion about them (except, maybe, to say that they look like something Bigfoot coughed up).

The same holds true for two recent controversial movies: Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” and Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11.”

I have problems with Gibson’s film. I question his decision to concentrate on how Jesus died rather than how he lived. And I really don’t understand how watching someone’s flesh get flayed ends up being a holy experience.

But that’s my reaction. I don’t question anyone else’s decision to embrace Gibson or his film. I simply disagree.

Same with “Fahrenheit 9/11.” I question Moore’s insistently adolescent way of dealing with important themes. I wince when he presumes to step into the mind of the man he continually refers to as “Mr. Bush.”

Overall, though, I applaud Moore for bringing up issues that, for the most part, have been reported by the mainstream press on back pages, if at all. Moore’s shotgun approach of accusation may not be fair to everyone who gets hit, but at least he prompts us to ask the questions that need to be addressed as we lumber, as a culture, toward the November presidential election.

And if Moore’s movie pushes you more toward the Republican party, great. If it makes you a Kerry supporter, fine. If your reaction is to go Green or opt for Ralph Nader, no problem.

The same holds true for Gibson’s film. Love it, hate it or find an alternative way of expressing your faith.

But shouldn’t you do whatever your conscience dictates only after having experienced the respective movie on your own? There’s nothing worse than someone who has nothing good to say about a work of art just because he or she doesn’t think it – however you define “it” – should have been created in the first place.

I get letters and e-mails from people who do that on an ongoing basis. They insist that there is “no need” for them to see the movie, video, television show, etc. They already know, they say, all they need.

Hey, we can’t all agree. And that’s good. How boring would life be if no one were arguing issues?

But to even talk about our disagreement, we need a common language. We need to talk specifics based on information we’ve gained first hand, not bandy generalities based on what we’ve heard or read.

Simply stated, if you haven’t seen a film, then your opinion about it isn’t worth Bigfoot’s spit.

Much less, a plate full of brussels sprouts.