First of all, let it be said that Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” is a powerful piece of filmmaking. For all its gore and sadistic violence, it’s sure to touch a powerful chord among the Christian faithful.
Watching it yesterday at the first showing on its opening day of general release, I was surrounded by people who were tremendously moved by its graphic depiction of Jesus’ betrayal, trial and crucifixion. Five minutes in, the popcorn buckets had been put away; all around me, men and women cried openly – clearly feeling Jesus’ pain as he was being scourged.
This is not the post-modern Christ that Hollywood has presented in recent decades – not hippie Jesus (“Godspell”), Marxist Jesus (Pasolini’s “Gospel According to St. Matthew”) or horny Jesus (Scorsese’s “Last Temptation of Christ”).
Nor is “The Passion” one of those kitschy star-studded Hollywood epics from the ’50s and ’60s: Watching Max von Sydow being betrayed by disciple David McCallum, condemned by high priest Martin Landau and governor Telly Savalas, then crucified by Roman centurion John Wayne (in the 1965 flick “The Greatest Story Ever Told”) hardly convinced anyone they were seeing actual history unfold on the screen.
But this film – with its unknown cast, who speak only Aramaic (sort of) and Latin, and its fairly straightforward manner – is different. With “The Passion,” it’s far easier to become swept up in the saga; few directors today are as skilled as Mel Gibson.
(Though the blood and violence are way overdone. Surely, this much gore wasn’t necessary to make the point that the Passion was an event of much physical pain and suffering – not the relatively benign crucifixions of cinema past.)
Yet the question remains: Is “The Passion of the Christ” anti-Jewish?
It’s not an easy one to answer.
When I first wrote about this movie last June, I criticized the critics and urged them to wait until the film came out, preferring to trust Gibson’s insistence that “anti-Semitism is not only contrary to my personal beliefs, it is contrary to the core message of my movie.”
But watching “The Passion” left me sincerely disturbed: As I left the theater, I felt I had witnessed a cinematic version of the old European Passion plays that for centuries had inspired pogroms and murderous attacks on the Jews.
And yet, with a few exceptions, the film is faithful to accounts in the Gospels (though Gibson has carefully cherry-picked between the often contradictory versions). Still, the Gospels, for various historical reasons, paint Jews and their role in these events in the worst light.
So with whom should fault be found: filmmaker Gibson or the Christian Bible?
There was no sign that the rest of the audience had been seized with lasting anti-Jewish fervor as a result of the film. It was impossible even to tell whether they left the theater believing that the Jews, rightly or wrongly, had been vilified.
It may be that Jews will be overly sensitive, seeing things that other audiences do not – in much the same way that many Italian-Americans cringe over every episode of “The Sopranos,” refusing to believe that others don’t come away from it convinced that every Italian is a murderous thug.
On the other hand, the criticisms may be entirely correct. Is prejudice strictly in the eye of the beholder? Unfortunately, I can’t view this film as others will from their particular religious perspective.
Yet I don’t see “The Passion” provoking waves of pogroms, as some seem to fear. Films may inspire and move us, but their power to feed mass movements has been exaggerated: “Schindler’s List” – an equally powerful film – hardly wiped out anti-Semitism or Holocaust denial (of the sort, I should add, practiced by Mel Gibson’s outspoken father).
But the attacks on the film by some Jewish groups – and the demands that some lines be eliminated outright – clearly have galvanized many in the Christian community, who see them as an attack upon the Gospels themselves.
That’s something the film’s Jewish critics have failed to understand: Imagine if pro-Palestinian groups demanded that a remake of the film “Exodus” be changed to eliminate Arab enmity towards the Jews.
Too many of Gibson’s critics fail to appreciate why so many filmgoers are rallying around a reverent, orthodox telling of Christianity’s central event – of the kind never before seen in a medium that rarely treats the faithful with a modicum of respect.
And yet Gibson, too, seemingly has failed to truly comprehend the very real concerns about this portrayal of Jews. Because throughout history, the story of Jesus’ final hours has provoked acts of wanton murder and mob violence against entire Jewish communities, too often encouraged by religious leaders themselves.
In the end, it simply may be that neither side can fully appreciate the depths of each other’s feelings – and never will. After all, this debate was formed 2,000 years ago.
It would be heartening to think that Mel Gibson’s “Passion” will provoke open-minded discussion in that ongoing debate. The very real danger is that it may simply just widen the chasm.
