Gibson film ignites passion, irony

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20030808.shtml ^ | 8-8-03 | Jonah Goldberg

[SJackson]

This has got to be one of the strangest controversies in a long time. A movie that won't be released for months is being denounced by people who haven't seen it. Why? Because they claim the film assigns blame for a crime to a handful of people who have been dead for 2,000 years.

Now, to be sure, the crime in question is a big one: deicide, the killing of God. And the handful of people are a pretty controversial bunch: "The Jews" - scourge of history to some, heroes of history to others, ethnicity of accountants, borscht-belt comics and deli sandwich makers to most.

Nevertheless, I still find the controversy over Mel Gibson's yet-to-be-released film, "The Passion," too rich in irony to take at face value.

First, here's the back story. Mel Gibson is a big movie star, as if you need to be told. He's also a very Catholic guy. In fact, he has ties to a quasi-heretical movement within the Catholic Church that rejects Vatican II and the popes who've run the church since then.

Gibson claims he's attempting to re-create the events of Jesus' final hours before the crucifixion in as authentic a manner as possible. This is an audacious task for a filmmaker for a whole bunch of reasons. According to scholars, the biblical record on the exact details is a bit muddled with different apostles telling slightly different versions of the same event.

But the technical and artistic stuff doesn't get to the heart of why the film is so audacious. The real challenges are religious. Understandably, it's a touchy subject.

The story of the crucifixion is the central religious narrative for over a billion Christians of different denominations and cultures. And, alas, the role of "the Jews" in Jesus' death has been, at various times and places, the most reliable excuse for nearly 2,000 years of Jewish persecution.

In short, getting this movie wrong is a bigger deal than messing up the "Star Wars" series with Jar Jar Binks.

Some scholars, many of them Catholic, who have seen a version of the script believe the film is irresponsible. It gets significant facts wrong - including the use of Latin at a time when Romans spoke Greek - and at the same time, they say, revives the idea that "the Jews" are "Christ killers." The Catholic Church officially exonerated the Jews of the crime in 1965.

Predictably, various Jewish leaders and other like-minded folk have raised their "concerns," too. Unfortunately, none of them has seen the movie, either.

Meanwhile, many people who have seen the film, including several friends and colleagues of mine, say it is a wonderful, albeit violently bloody, film. I'll take their word for it.

But, either way, I still have a problem with the controversy. First of all, what if it's true that some Jews were culpable in Jesus' crucifixion? It seems pretty obvious that some Jews were, in fact, in on it. And, it's equally obvious that some Jews weren't (Jesus, after all, was Jewish). That's why I insist on putting quotation marks around "the Jews," because such a collectivity only exists in the minds of those who cannot see Jews as individuals.

But even if "the Jews" of two millennia ago deserve a share of the blame, so what? If you think it's ludicrous for Americans today to pay reparations for slavery or to hold a German teenager personally responsible for the Holocaust, how much more absurd is it to hold Jews responsible for the actions of a few Jews 20 centuries ago?

How much more ludicrous is it for a religion that champions forgiveness and love to blame all Jews for the actions of a few of our great-great-great-great (fill in the rest of the greats yourself) grandfathers? I'm no expert on Christianity, but group punishment and hereditary guilt strike me as remarkably un-Christian (and un-American) concepts.

Of course, fear of hypocrisy didn't stop some Christians at different times and places from making the lives of Jews miserable. Some Christians persecuted Jews out of a misguided effort to save their souls. More often the persecution was based in a desire for vengeance or simply out of hatred. And that hatred endures. In fact, it will endure regardless of what this movie says.

Yes, "The Passion" will probably stir up anti-Semitic acts by those looking to get stirred up. The Christ-killing story has always been an excuse for anti-Semitism, not a cause of it. After all, while there were attacks against Jews, there were no pogroms to hunt down the descendents of Pontius Pilate and the other Romans who were not only guilty of deicide but also responsible for the centuries of persecution Jesus' followers suffered.

Even if there is zero anti-Semitism in Gibson's heart or in his movie, that won't change the fact that "The Passion" will probably stir up Jew-hatred among some folks who are so inclined. I don't see why that fact should keep Gibson from making his movie. And as to whether it is worth making the movie in the first place, well, we can't answer that question until we see the film.

[arthur003]

The question is why Gibson, why now?

[Lost Highway]

The Christ-killing story has always been an excuse for anti-Semitism, not a cause of it.

Really? I have been in Christian churches all of my 34 years. I have never heard one person express any resentment toward Jewish people because the Jewish leaders orchestrated Christ's execution, let alone advocate any actual reprisal.

[billbears]

The Catholic Church officially exonerated the Jews of the crime in 1965.

Well not to disagree with the Catholic Church, but who do they say did the actual crucifixion then?

[HRC]

I am not a religious scholar but wasn't it the Romans?

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

[billbears] Well not to disagree with the Catholic Church, but who do they say did the actual crucifixion then?

I don't know the details of the Catholic decree, but I expect that they exonerated the Jewish race of collective guilt for the crucifixion. Specific guilt lies on the Jewish religious and political leadership in power at that time.

[Lost Highway] I have been in Christian churches all of my 34 years. I have never heard one person express any resentment toward Jewish people because the Jewish leaders orchestrated Christ's execution, let alone advocate any actual reprisal.

By my observation as well, there has been little of the Jews-killed-Christ rhetoric in our lifetime, but it was much more common in previous centuries.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

I am not a religious scholar but wasn't it the Romans?

It was a political action on the part of the Romans (seeing Jesus as a source of civil unrest; seeking to throw a bone to the Jewish leadership). They had approximately zero interest in Jesus' spiritual teachings.

[SJackson]

I don't know the details of the Catholic decree, but I expect that they exonerated the Jewish race of collective guilt for the crucifixion...By my observation as well, there has been little of the Jews-killed-Christ rhetoric in our lifetime, but it was much more common in previous centuries.

Correct on both counts.

[billbears]

Well of course, but the way the article read I thought they exonerated the leadership as well. I agree it's not the race of people..

[ultima ratio]

The problem with Goldberg's contention that a truthful depiction of the Crucifixion must necessarily be anti-Semitic is that such a statement perceives the death of Jesus from the wrong end of the telescope. This film is not about Jews, it's about Christian belief. Since Goldberg perceives the issue from outside that faith, he can't appreciate what the Crucifixion means or why it should be depicted at all. To him it seems anti-Jewish because the Gospels state Jewish elders and chief priests engineered the death of Jesus. To Christians these are historical facts which only affirm that Christ was put to death by humanity itself. The only alternative would be to suppress the truth of a central fact of Christian faith--which is what those who have waded in on this would propose. This is preposterous. It would be as if Germans were to insist that the Holocaust not ever be depicted because some Germans might be offended. Or as if some Italians were to insist The Godfather not be made because some Italians might be offended.

Gibson, by the way, is not "quasi-heretical." The notion itself is oxymoronic. It is not heretical to think Vatican II was a bad idea and that it was a failure. Nor did Vatican II declare any doctrines that compelled religious belief. Not only is it not heretical to be a traditional Catholic, but there is actually less probability Gibson is a heretic precisely because of his traditionalist outlook. To think because Gibson is a traditionalist Catholic he is therefore a bigoted anti-Semite, is itself an expression of the sheerest bigotry. It is dead wrong. Were some Catholics before Vatican II anti-Semitic?--sure. But this had nothing to do with their Catholicism.

[SJackson]

The problem with Goldberg's contention that a truthful depiction of the Crucifixion must necessarily be anti-Semitic is that such a statement perceives the death of Jesus from the wrong end of the telescope.

I'd agree with you, though I didn't get that message from his column, rather the fact that antisemites will use the film as ammunition, not Gibson's fault, because, in you're words, they're at the wrong end of the telescope.

Gibson, by the way, is not "quasi-heretical."...

I noted that comment too. I doubt Goldberg is qualified to make that assessment, nor am I. Furthermore, it's none of my business, it's between Gibson, other Catholics and the Church.

[ultima ratio]

This is one of the problems I have with this entire controversy. A depiction of the Crucifixion that follows the Gospel narratives is none of the ADL's business. Neither is Gibson's private faith. Neither is what his father happens to believe. This is, on the surface, a smear campaign. Those who attack the film on the basis of Gibson's religion and his father's beliefs and their own aversion to the Gospel narratives--without even having seen the film--are obviously standing on thin intellectual ice. They cover themselves by grandiose claims of fear of anti-Semitism but these do not justify what they are doing--attempting to destroy a film's reputation before it even sees the light of day.

[SJackson]

This is one of the problems I have with this entire controversy....

The problem I have with the controversy is the controversy, everyone should wait to see the *amn film. And if bigots misuse it, so what, condemn them, not Gibson. And if Gibson deserves criticism (Mel, not his dad), I'll be glad to provide it. I have to admit, antisemitic attitudes seem out of character for what I know of him.

[The Iguana]

Is Gibson SSPX or some other variety of sedevacantist?

[ultima ratio]

I believe he is SSPX. Some people I know see him and his family at Mass at their SSPX chapel. According to my daughter, his own daughter is preparing to enter an SSPX convent. I had heard she was contemplating something like this, but still am not certain it was SSPX and not another traditionalist order.

I think it's significant that it took a traditionalist like Gibson to make The Passion. I read Cardinal George's grudging comments on the film after seeing a rough version--which he admits was powerful and moving. It said a lot to me about where the bishops are coming from. It was the American bishops who received the stolen copy of an early script and immediately gave it to liberal Boston University professors to look over. They, of course, found it to be politically incorrect and joined forces with ADL to smear the film and Gibson. The faith itself always seems to take a back seat with this crowd.

In the end, I believe Gibson will achieve what he has intended--to move and inspire millions of Christians all over the world. I also believe the film will be a blockbuster success--and perhaps break records. It certainly appears it will become a classic, shown over and over to each generation. This is because it does not sentimentalize or prettify what happened but is as powerful as it is beautiful.

The two men--Gibson and Caviezel--are both devout Catholics. Gibson's films--The Patriot, in which he starred, and Braveheart, which he directed--are bold and visionary. Both dealt with horrendous suffering and heroic transcendence. So he would be the perfect director to tell a story like this. Caviezel would seem to be the perfect actor to have played Christ--a man who is the exact age of Jesus at his death and who could combine acting talent with the required spiritual profundity--surely an exceedingly rare combination in most actors. In this sense the film is a miracle and will provide a major corrective to the relentless attacks on Christianity that normally emanate from the entertainment industry.

[The Iguana]

UR,

Thanks for the info.

[ChewedGum]

I agree wholeheartedly (per your comment about Gibson being the one to do this based on his past experience with Braveheart & The Patriot)

Gum

[RobbyS]

It said a lot to me about where the bishops are coming from. Why they won't fight even when viciously attacked from the left? Because most Catholics with money and position in this country are very much like John Kennedy in their ignorance of Catholic doctrine and lack of connection with the Church. I was reading the biography of Kennnedy, "An unfinished Life(?)" and was reminded the John Cogley was his mentor before the Houston "Inquisition." (my term). Cogley, the editor of Commonweal. After Humanae Vitae, when he found out that his crowd could not bully the pope to go along with him far enough, bailed out and joined the Episcopal Church. Of course, who do the bishops invite to speak to them last year? She should go where Cogley went. Oh, he's dead?

[NYer]

The two men--Gibson and Caviezel--are both devout Catholics.

EWTN's The World Over Live, with Raymond Arroyo has planned a repeat of their interview with both Mel Gibson and Jim Caviezel.

Friday, August 15
Mel Gibson & Jim Caviezel
Re-air of their most recent interviews about the film “Passion”

Check your local cable company for channel and times. Otherwise, click below for live transmission via the internet.

WORLD OVER LIVE

[american colleen]

I don't think Mel Gibson is SSPX at all. In this week's "National Catholic Register" (probably not yet on-line) there is a long story about Mr. Gibson being a guest at the "Regnum Christi Youth and Family Encounter" on Chicago's Navy Pier. It was attended by 5,000 people. I belive "Regnum Christi" is one of the newest movements in the Catholic Church and it has been blessed by JPII. Looks to me, going by the story, that the "Regnum Christi Youth and Family Encounter" was sponsored by the Legionnaires.

The first thing Mr. Gibson did when he got on the podium was to pull out his rosary beads and say "Nothing is more powerful than prayer."

Ya know, if I was as wealthy as Mr. Gibson, I would build my own parish and have it staffed by Legionnaires. Too bad Hollywood never beckoned and too bad I don't get in the habit of buying lottery tickets!