Posted on 03/08/2004 7:54:13 PM PST by Eala
Over the past week or so there seems to have been a huge groundswell of complaints or accusations that Mel Gibson's blockbuster movie "The Passion of the Christ" is anti-Semitic. With this in mind I went and saw the movie again this weekend, notebook in hand, just a week after seeing it for the first time. From my notes:
The betrayal:
In the movie Judas appears (to me) hesitant and uncertain in accepting the money from an arrogrant and distant Caiaphas. Luke's Gospel, the one that discusses this, portrays the situation differently, almost a cheerful discussion. If this film were intended to be anti-Semitic (ITFWITBAS...), it might have done better to stick to the Gospels as written.
The actual act of betrayal in the movie is nowhere as bold as I'd been taught, or as I read in the Gospels, or as is shown in other movies. In this movie Judas is not forward about the betrayal -- he almost tries to run away before the act of betrayal. (ITFWITBAS...)
The soldier whose ear was cut off -- Luke records that Jesus touched and healed his ear. The Gospels don't record the movie guard's apparent aversion to any further participation in the proceedings. (ITFWITBAS...)
The (Jewish) temple guards were cruel to Jesus, according to Luke. Though the cruel treatment was different than portrayed in this movie, he was mocked and beaten. Why the difference? I don't know.
My notes indicate an observation that in the movie the temple guards were cruel towards the Jews as well. They did not seem to regard themselves as being of the same people (as often happens with ruling elites). ITFWITBAS, this distancing between the guards and the Jewish people runs counter to the intent.
[Note: I am not a Biblical scholar. I am assuming the temple guards were Jews.]
Before the Sanhedrin:
The movie deviates from the Gospels here. Matthew records that the court met early in the morning, Luke that it was at daybreak. Apparently a trial could not legally begin until after daybreak. Yet Gibson starts it at night, and one of those protesting the assembly remarks that it is illegal. The result is that more blame is placed on Caiaphas and/or Annas (Mark and John) than on the Jews, two of whom (in the movie) protest the proceedings. ITFWITBAS, it might have done better to stick to the Gospels as written.
One does note in passing that in the movie the assemblage in the court were against Jesus. This is in accord with Mark and Luke.
Judas' suicide:
Once again, Judas is portrayed as a man who has made a grave mistake. Per Matthew he tries to return the money but is rebuffed by the arrogant Caiaphas. The Gospels say no more, but in the movie he is beset by "little satans," demons who drive him to despair, hanging himself outside Jerusalem. (And don't miss the association of the devil with the Lord of Flies in that scene!) ITFWITBAS, it might have done better to keep it simple instead of destroying the anti-Semitic portrayal of Judas as exemplar of the perfidious Jew.
Jesus Before Pilate (first time):
We have skipped over much here, but in this scene the crowd of Jews appears to be noisily agitating for Jesus' execution (but what they are saying in Aramaic does not appear in the subtitles). Luke is the only one to differentiate, or even mention, the two appearances before Pilate with the appearance before Herod intervening. This basically follows Luke, though with much embellishment.
Jesus Before Pilate (second time):
All four Gospels come to accord, more or less, here. The crowd (incited, per Matthew) demanded crucifixion and Barabbas' release instead. In Matthew, Pilate washes his hands, and the Jews say "Let his blood be on us and our children." However, I identified this statement in the movie and it did NOT appear in the subtitles. I think it was in Aramaic (not spoken today over 99.999999% of the human population) and not Latin (not understood today by over 99%? of the human population) so ITFWITBAS, the producer of this movie missed a huge and obvious' opportunity to promote anti-Semitism.
The scourging:
During Jesus' scourging, there are scenes of those who appear to be Jews, not celebrating but instead sympathetic with his plight. That's my own interpretation on what I saw -- perhaps there are other interpretations.
I didn't have a stopwatch, but I did note that much time during the scourging, particularly when it became too much to watch, was spent on flashbacks or diverted to other scenes, and particularly to Mary. The movie was not directly as violent as it initially appeared, though you weren't allowed to forget what was occurring. If this movie played as much to sadists as some reviewers implied, I doubt the diversions would have occurred; we would have been treated to every single rod and lash. Mercifully, for us, unlike Jesus we weren't.
Along the Via Dolorosa (the Way of the Cross, however one calls it):
The first time I saw the movie I barely even noticed the accusatory Jews. But the second time, seeking out any aspect of anti-Semitism, I did see them. But I did so only by looking past the cameras' focus, their angles on the scenes. The accusing Jews are there, but you have to look for them because the cameras are not focusing on them. ITFWITBAS,the producer missed some great opportunities.
Veronica and Simon along the Via Dolorosa:
Others have remarked, "All the good people [in this movie] were Jews." I am not certain that is precisely the case, but it comes close enough. Veronica and her veil --"Permit me, my Lord" as she wipes his bloodied face-- and tries to give him a cup of water (in the movie) appears both to be Jewish and supportive of Jesus, for no discernable reason. Later, as He moves on she cries. ITFWITBAS, these scenes should never have been presented.
Simon, now, develops in the movie. Initially angry at being drafted (Mark), "This is none of my business," he says, he is told by another Jew, "Help Him, He is a holy man." And so later Simon cries, "Stop this!" and "Leave Him alone!" to the cruelly sadistic Roman guards. And there is another scene where a Jewish woman cries, "Someone stop this!" at the guards' brutality. ITFWITBAS, these scenes would never have been presented.
Simon lovingly supports and encourages Jesus along the way: "We're nearly there," and "It's almost done." And when they reach the place of execution the guards have to push Simon away from Jesus, and Simon departs in tears. ITFWITBAS, these scenes would never have been presented.
I don't pretend that this is a complete or scholarly analysis of the purported anti-Semitic elements of this movie. But I will assert that if this were intended to be an anti-Semitic movie, the maker has missed SO many opportunities that one simply could not imagine a producer or director on the order of a Mel Gibson missing them. Another interpretation is in order, and that is that those who are making these accusations have agendas of their own -- they don't want the public to see this movie.
Why doesn't someone poll all the Semites and get an accurate opinion?
But as a Muslim Egyptian colleague wrote me a while back, "How can I be anti-Semitic? I am a Semite too!"
In my semitic opinion, Mel was going for accuracy and effect upon the hearts of his fellow Christians and nothing else.
Not really. I don't know any non-semites that even have an opinion on the subject. I have to admit I don't know any Jewish, Arab or Etheopian type Semites so that is why I suggested they be asked.
This coming from a guy who denied even knowing Jesus, once the going got rough?
I have looked forward to this movie so much. I am going to wait until dvd.
It is extremely distressing that folks like Krauthammer deem the movie anti-semitic, but even wonderful commentators like Krauthammer can have their idiosyncratic take on things.
It just does not make sense to me, someone who has been closely following this movie for a year, that day by day the movie would gets reviews of being a profoundly moving masterpiece by so many people who are utterly aware of the controversy involved. How can so many people come out of the movie expressing awe at the deep connection the movie made with their most finely attuned sense of humanity? Because they hate Jews? Because they are clueless rubes?
I don't think so.
I am looking at the reviews without having seen the movie. The reviews such as this one strike me as being the more natural, the more considered, the more plausible reviews.
The reviews by Krauthammer, Sullivan, the guy at Powerline -- all of whom I respect and admire -- strike me as having an ax to grind.
The reviews of this movie are fascinating, very telling. But not in a good way ... in a way which is unsettling. Someone is wrong ... very wrong, and wrong in a way which is not good for America, or for anyone who does not want to live under sharia.
This is more than a question of religious belief ... it goes to something deeper and more alarming.
Indeed he did as Christ told him he would, but he was forgiven. He was also crucified and requested that his cross be set upside down because he was not worthy to die as Jesus did. Such respect for his Lord is, in no way, to be ridiculed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.