A Review: Mel Gibson's The Passion

[The Dude]

I recently saw a private screening of Mel Gibson's film, The Passion, and thought I should share some thoughts with you.

Let me start with a few disclaimers that are relevant and neccessary. I am a Christian, and have been since high school. I currently go to a Christian liberal arts school, and viewed the private screening there. Unlike Mel, I am not Catholic. Much of what I say comes from an interview Mel Gibson gave before the film was screened. Please take what I say as my impressions, and although I am fairly certain they are accurate, this is certainly not a Gibson press release.

First things first. There has been a lot of controversy as to whether this film is anti-semitic. Having seen it in its entirity, I can say this in absalute confidence. On Wednesday, when the movie comes out, there will be no more controversy. Not only is it not anti-semitic, but there is nothing in the movie that could even be reasonably misconstrued as such.

Also, there has been some talk about why the film is only being released in certain theatres, most of which are out of the way. And why is it being realeased so dominantly in very Christian popluated ares? Well, the answer to these are different than most people think - it's pure and simple economics. The Passion is opening in as many theatres as it can. Mel Gibson would love nothing more than for every theatre in the nation to show the movie. The problem is not very many theatres wanted to show the movie in the first place. Contraty to what many Christians believe, the reason isn't because they are anti-Christian and want to stifle the message of the film - they just didn't think people would come watch it. Upon seeing screenings of the film, hundreds of church leaders across the nation have taken the liberty of renting, so to say, entire screens to open the movie on. These churches are eager enough to get this movie shown, that they are willing to gurantee from their own coffers the sale of tickets. Where there is demand, the movie will be supplied.

That said, I was surprised at the 'sermon' of this movie. That is to say that it didn't have one. There is no 'repent and be saved' message. There is no 'give up your worldly ways and follow Christ' implications in the slightest.

The movie simply depicts the 'passion' (from the Greek pathos, meaning 'suffering') of Jesus Christ. A select handful of Jews and Romans put him through the most horriffic 12 hours possibly imaginable. And whether context you watch the film in, you will be moved.

It is entirely possible to watch the film in a secular context. What I mean is, if you choose to watch the film and take no religious implications at all, the movie itself doesn't push you to. It simply takes you through the last 12 hours of the life of a man called Jesus Christ. You do not have to accept the Christian doctrine in order to be moved by what Jesus went through. In fact, as the paragraph above implies, the point isn't even to get you to accept doctine. Simply watch and behold. Many will walk away moved in the same way they have been by other fictitious stories. And that's fine. Experience the film as you will. I will wager to say, though, that there will inevitably be many people who walk out of the theatre and actively seek answers to questions they now have about this Jesus guy.

Lastly, I need to mention just how brutal the film really is. To undertand my following comment, know this: I have seen Braveheart, the Patriot, Saving Private Ryan, and just about every other film with graphic violence - and it has never bothered me. I guess I'm de-sensitized to that kind of thing. That said, there is no single scene in any movie I have ever seen that is as heart-wrenchingly graphic as an hour and fifteen minutes non-stop of this film. It is by far the most relentlessly brutal movie ever made, and it is extremely difficult to watch. No words I can say here will prepare you for what you will see.

[Cyrus]

Quite possibly, a man with ideas disturbing to Romans and Jews alike, of the time, was crucified in the ancient place of what is now Israel, some 2000 years ago, probably by the Romans who used this method for examplary punishment. The man's sufferings have continued to this day, if metaphorically. (Feel free to replace my words with those of your own choice, according to your religious and/or philosophical viewpoints, eg Man instead of man.)

The figure and the story of that man, who was subequently called the Christ, whenever they were recreated in modern times, even by artists trying to generally adhere to the Biblical plot, were met invariably with extreme passion and hostility. That hostility usually comes from Christ's inheritors, ie the Church, which objected, for instance, quite violently in Italy when Pier-Paolo Pasolini, a Marxist, gay Italian director "dared" in the 60s to film "Vangelo, Secondo Matteo" ("The Gospel According to St. Matthew"). Martin Scorsese was villified in the 80s for shooting "The Last Temptation of Christ", based on the book by rebelious Nikos Kazantzakis, a writer who had seen most of his works officially condemned by the Church.

Much ado about ...not much, if you ask me.

Now, Mel Gibson, another Catholic, tries his hand. (What is it with all those Catholic boys and Christ? It's clearly a fascination.) Only, today, it's the charge of ...anti-semitism, rather than heresy, that is hurled at the work and it's coming from Zionists. Who (as usual in all such cases) have not even bothered to see the damn film. Jesus Christ Almighty -- if you excuse the pun.

Maybe Christians would have been better off emulating the Muslims, by forbidding any painting or artistic reproduction of Christian Gods and Prophets altogether. Now, there's a concept that John Ashcroft hasn't thought of yet! (Anyone got Justice Department's number?)

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
Much ado about ...not much, if you ask me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you referring to the story of Christ or your post?

[Cyrus]

But since you understood not much from that post, you may as well pin that label on it.

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

It just strikes me as funny that the same cadre of media folk that defend Oliver Stone's revisionism under the mantle of artistic license, condemn Gibson for the same thing.

Brings to mind something about "casting the first stone."

Freedom of expression is freedom of expression is freedom of expression. There is no "right" to not be offended.

[Cyrus]

"Freedom of expression is freedom of expression is freedom of expression. There is no "right" to not be offended."

Absolutely agree.

"It just strikes me as funny that the same cadre of media folk that defend Oliver Stone's revisionism under the mantle of artistic license, condemn Gibson for the same thing."

FWIW, I think there's a difference between the story of Christ and the JFK assasination. Stone was supposed to show us, as he said, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about a historical fact. The "story" of Christ has been told in the Bible but interpretations of it are allowed in the name of artistic (and philosophical) licence. That's why artists paint the Madonna every which way without offending "historical accuracy" (can't do that with Daley Plaza!). There is nothing about philosophy or art that can be tied to the JFK affair, just politics and History.

[HDPM]

"Many will walk away moved in the same way they have been by other fictitious stories"


[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Gamblor]

Only, today, it's the charge of ...anti-semitism, rather than heresy, that is hurled at the work and it's coming from Zionists.

Naturally, it's those damn Zionists again. All Jews are Zionists, all Zionists are Jews.

And all Jews are too-easily-offended. All blacks are monkeys, all Italians are fat, stupid, wop dagos. I've heard it all before.

Who (as usual in all such cases) have not even bothered to see the damn film. Jesus Christ Almighty -- if you excuse the pun.

"as usual in all such cases"? Is that the same as "Jews are usually always preoccupied with money?"

The problem is that for Jews, the film represents the cause of 2,000 years of persecution at the hands of Christians. Not that the film in and of itself is anti-semitic (although your post might be), it's the potential for the film to incite anti-semitism. Naturally, as usual with bigots like Cyrus, the entire Jewish (read: Zionist) community is a monolith and consists of but one opinion on the film: whiny crybabiness.

Read the Canadian Jewish Congress' statement on the film, smart boy.

Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ, prior to its release date of February 25, has generated much controversy over its potentially negative impact on the Jewish community and Christian-Jewish relations. At the same time, among Christians who already have seen this dramatic representation of Christ's Passion there are those who have praised it and affirmed that it does not stir anti-Jewish feelings.

The story the film depicts is at the core of the Christian faith and as Jews we are sensitive to both the profound meaning of the crucifixion for Christians and to how deeply the Passion engages their intellect and emotions. The subject matter of the film, however, also deals head on with events that are at the very root of the historic divide between Christianity and Judaism.

There are believers who do take all the Gospels literally but it is our understanding that others, equally true to their faith, do not. There are those who, among other things, challenge the veracity of a judicial proceeding before the Sanhedrin and/or the High Priest and indeed question the involvement of any Jews in the trial, condemnation and death of Jesus. Crucifixion it must be stressed, was a Roman, not Jewish, form of capital punishment.

Historically, therefore, what transpired at the time of Jesus is unclear. What is clear and significant specifically for Christian-Jewish relations is that the actualization of the deicide charge, flowing from some of the Gospel accounts and the perverse use to which these were put, has led over these two millennia to the immeasurable suffering of the Jewish people. It is this reality that worries Jews and Christians about Gibson's film.

Admittedly, the state of Christian-Jewish relations in many countries, and certainly in Canada, has undergone a remarkable transformation for the better in the past few decades. We only have to look back over the earlier history of Canada, when two principal themes -- the rejection of Jesus and the deicide charge -- dominated Christian attitudes towards Jews, to appreciate how much things have evolved.

Since the Second Vatican Council of the early 1960s, the founding in 1977 of the Canadian Christian Jewish Consultation (CCJC) and continuing through the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, Catholic-Jewish relations have progressed to a point one would not have believed possible two generations ago. Four documents dramatically reflect these changes in Canada: the Anglican Church's From Darkness to Dawn: Rethinking Christian attitudes towards Jews and Judaism; the United Church's Bearing Faithful Witness; the Roman Catholic Church's Renewing Our Common Bonds with the Jewish Community and the most recent, A Church Leaders' Letter against Antisemitism.

These documents, among other things:

Categorically reject the deicide charge: "This calumny should never again be repeated" (Renewing Our Common Bonds).

Recognize and glorify Christianity's Jewish roots: "Jesus was and always remained a Jew"; (Renewing Our Common Bonds), "Understanding Torah must become an important undertaking for Christians, perhaps the most important biblical study" (Bearing Faithful Witness) and "We... are ... deeply grateful for the Jewish roots of our faith traditions" (Church Leaders' Letter).

Abandon supercessionism (i.e. the notion that Christianity's advent negated God's covenant with the Jewish people) and affirm Judaism's vigour and inspirational power not only for its adherents but also for other believers: "The Jewish people's ... election and mission have a permanent validity and they play a decisive role in the religious history of humanity"; (Renewing Our Common Bonds), and "We...declare our unqualified gratitude for the gifts of the Jewish people to world civilization in general and Canadian society in particular" (Church Leaders' Letter).

Understand antisemitism and its roots and commit vigorously to fight for its eradication: "We acknowledge with sadness and regret, and with no little shame, the historic burden of persecution, which Jews have borne throughout western history; a burden all too often inflicted by Christians, who have maligned Jesus' own people in Jesus' name," and "We challenge all churches, parishes, congregations and people of good will to find ways and means to expose and eradicate antisemitism... (Church Leaders' Letter) and

Commit to pursue Christian-Jewish dialogue, for its own sake yes, but also as a means for tikkun olam, i.e. the repairing of the world: "- our common calling with Jews to align ourselves with God's world-mending work"; (Bearing Faithful Witness).

All these many years, Canadian Christians and Jews, multilaterally and bilaterally, have worked together very hard and very successfully for rapprochement between our two faiths. We are confident, therefore, that our Christian partners are most sensitive to our concerns over anything in the film The Passion of the Christ that might help fuel antisemitism. We are relying on them to play a constructive, harmony fostering role in the viewing of the film for those Christians who have not been engaged much or at all in the dialogue process and for whom the results of this process have perhaps not filtered through.

As antisemitism is dangerously on the rise throughout the world, we are also looking to them for leadership in sensitizing their fellow Christians in those countries where Christian-Jewish relations are less advanced, on the importance of acceptance, respect and peaceful co-existence.

It is our hope and expectation that, apart from the central role The Passion of the Christ is to play in moving Christians and strengthening them in their faith, Gibson's film also will be used to foster greater mutual understanding and further demystification of Christian and Jewish beliefs. In other words, we must not allow the film to be a source of tension; we must translate it into an opportunity.

We conclude with the words shared with us about The Passion of the Christ by Fr. Thomas Rosica, C.S.B., a long-time member of the CCJC, who is one of the representatives of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on this important national interfaith dialogue group: "We have embarked on a journey of reconciliation that only moves forward. To life... to reconciliation and to peace, together."

To this goal, we are all passionately committed.

Keith M. Landy
National President

Rabbi Dr. Reuven P. Bulka
National Chair
Religious and Inter-religious Affairs

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
"Many will walk away moved in the same way they have been by other fictitious stories"

[/ QUOTE ]

I incorrectly worded this statement. I certainly did not mean to imply that I believed the story of Christ's crucifiction (and subsequent resurrection) to be fictitious.

[David Steele]