"My own viewing of the film" + "Mel does a Tarantino job on Christ"

Summary
I saw a nearly completed version in Denver in January at the conference of the Fellowship of Catholic University Students. Based on that, I can affirm that all the statements made about the movie I've quoted above are true, both the comments from those who loved it and from those who are concerned. It is a beautiful and well-crafted work of art. It is a clearly Catholic work, accenting the self-giving of Jesus, his relationship with Mary, and the Eucharist. It is gory, with excessive and gratuitous violence (including a crow plucking out the eyes of the "bad thief" after his taunting of Jesus).

And it does exaggerate the role of the Jews. There are many examples that could be cited. Jesus is beaten to a bloody pulp by the temple guards (and thrown off a bridge) before he ever gets to Caiaphas. Jews are present in the Praetorium for the scourging of Jesus--and only Romans express concerns about the excesses inflicted by both their own guards and the Jews. There are no sympathetic figures on the via dolorosa, except for figures from Scripture and tradition, such as Simon and Veronica, who have generally been seen as people who came to believe in Jesus--Gibson inexplicably left out Jesus greeting the women of Jerusalem. Caiaphas leads the procession to Calvary on a donkey, and presides over the execution as if he were in charge. The earthquake at the end, an act of divine vindictiveness, is barely noticed by Pilate, but creates a chasm in the temple (the Biblical tearing of the veil is left out, though).

It is a movie, with good and bad. For most Catholics, it will be a moving meditation on the sufferings of Christ. For others, it will be perhaps puzzling, perhaps just a work of art, perhaps revolting. For some, it will confirm their deepest prejudices.

Unfortunately, in the months since we first heard details emerge, advocates of the movie have refused to discuss it in objective terms. They have slandered those who have asked questions, glossed over the movie's inaccuracies and distortions, and have made excuses for its horrific violence.

And yet discussing such a movie is essential. We should be able to ask the same questions of it as we would ask of any film--What's good? What's not as effective? Where does it follow Scripture? Where does it depart? Why? Unfortunately, we've seen that those who have asked such questions to date have far too frequently received blank looks or hostility in return.

This movie needs to be evaluated in terms of the objective criteria provided by the US Catholic Bishops, and in the context of the history of passion plays. This is what a group of scholars did when they obtained the script. But the defenders of Mel focused on the question of how they got the script, and not on the issues they raised.

For my own part, I don't think Mel was being intentionally antisemitic. He wanted to make a movie focusing on the meaning of the Passion for us. He used the writings of an 18th century German nun, Anne Catherine Emmerich, as the basis, and this resulted in the inclusion of some problematic elements. Her Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ is the product of a pious but overworked imagination, and reflects both misunderstanding and ignorance of Scripture and unquestioning acceptance of antisemitic assumptions that prevailed among Catholics of the era. Some of her most bizarre scenes that were in the initial script, as indicated by the Scholars Report, are not in the movie (e.g., Caiaphas having the cross made in the temple courtyard, Jesus having the Passover lamb killed in the upper room rather than the temple). But her "visions" are so much a part of this movie that it would be fair to say it is a movie of her book, not of the Gospels.

In months gone by, some few spoke of boycotting or protesting the movie. That, I think, would be extreme, and inappropriate. But the reaction to this film (and questioning of it) does underscore the question of how well Catholic theologians and leaders are communicating contemporary Catholic teaching on the Passion and on relations with the Jews, and so provides an opportunity for discussion and education.

Would I recommend it to people who want to know about Jesus and the gospel? No. I'd tell them to see "The Gospel of John," "Jesus" (based on Luke's gospel alone), or even "Jesus of Nazareth." But I would use "Passion" as an example of a great work of art that unfortunately presents wrongful stereotypes and pre-Vatican 2 theology.

The positives
The movie, as I said, is a very Catholic vision. It is easy to see why so many Catholics have got so caught up in it that the offensive parts have slipped by them. It is harder for me to understand why Evangelicals have shared their enthusiasm.

The film opens with a scripture that accents the theological point Gibson wants us to focus on: Isaiah 53 ("He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities--with his stripes we are healed"). We are then in the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus confronts Satan. The scene is a creative parallel to the temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden, and raises the question: Can Jesus really bear the sins of the world? Can he go through with it? Does God even want him to? (This is really the same question posed by Kazantzakis, though in a different way).

I like the way he deals with Malchus, whose ear is severed by a frightened Peter, and restored by Jesus.

I think it oddly effective the way Mary wakes up at night and asks the question from the Seder, "Why is this night different from all other nights?" (a contribution from the actress herself).

There are some very effective scenes highlighting the relationship between Jesus and Mary, including a humorous exchange in the carpenter's shop which shows some playfulness between them (a scene that really surprised me, because no one had mentioned it to me).

Though it is not scriptural, I appreciate Gibson's use of the Stations of the Cross and the Pieta. These make the film a piece of devotional art, rather than an historical portrayal. If this had been accented from the beginning, instead of the claim that it was "the most accurate movie ever," things may have been a little different.

Though it is not scriptural, I think the scene of the child-demons taunting the despairing Judas is an amazing interpretation, and quite chilling.

The various flashbacks are very well done, and serve both to break up the violence and to accent theological points.

The Eucharistic themes are very powerful; flashbacks throughout the crucifixion take us back to the Last Supper, and the unwrapping of the bread, and the blessing of the bread and cup.

In a scene at the end, the camera follows a raindrop from the sky (a tear from heaven?) until it splashes at the foot of the cross; the sound reverberates and leads into the earthquake. A striking piece of film--though theologically suspect, as I'll highlight below.

It is easy to understand why Catholics get so emotionally caught up in it that they have often failed to notice the problems--and these are many.

The negatives
Gibson is not merely telling the Gospel account, but adds to it in ways that consistently accent the culpability of Jews and mitigate that of the Romans. He adds violent beatings of Jesus--by Jews--that are not in Scripture. He changes the entire feel of the story as the Gospels tell it. In the Scriptural account, Jesus is snatched quietly, at night, to avoid the crowds. Jesus is willing to go quietly, and keeps the disciples from fighting back. He is held while the high priest gathers his council. During it, there is some physical abuse by the guards and some taunting and one slapping of his face, but the Evangelists don't elaborate on this or draw it out. Then he is delivered to Pilate. Gibson changes the tenor of all these scenes, making them more dramatic, more violent, more frightening. He also adds scenes that contradict explicit statements in Scripture. According to John, the Jews refuse to enter the Praetorium. No Jew--not even a disciple--is depicted as present in the Praetorium. But Gibson has them there.

In Mel's version, the beating of Jesus begins immediately upon his arrest, contrary to the Gospels. He is wrapped in chains, and at one point thrown off a bridge. These added beatings, by Jews, and the behavior of the Jews in subsequent scenes, make them a bloodthirsty, barbarous people--the only exceptions being those who believe in Jesus or are sympathetic to his cause. Jews are depicted in customary stereotypes, as greedy and money-grubbing, who can be easily bought off in the middle of the night. The Jewish leaders are seen as the equals of or more powerful than the Romans, which is contrary to history. The Jewish high priest at the time was a Roman appointee, answerable to Pilate--not in Mel's version, though.

The Jewish violence which began in the garden is unleashed without mercy in the court of the high priest. Jesus arrives, a bruised and bloody mess--perhaps a hundred people are crammed into the room, anxious for the spectacle to begin. Immediately after the "trial," the priests take turns hitting and spitting on Jesus, and then the guards and observers join in, beating him with sadistic glee. In this melee Peter, who is in the room itself, is grabbed and manhandled, and accused of being a follower of Jesus.

Gibson's Pilate is a weak and indecisive administrator who grouses about the rabble and about being stuck in this stinking outpost. When the excessively large crowd gathers in the courtyard of the Praetorium, Pilate goes out and, seeing Jesus for the first time, is disgusted by what the Jews have done. He asks the priests, “Do you always punish them before you judge them?” In the scenes which follow, Pilate appears as a lone and weak representative of Rome, with inadequate troops at his disposal, not the brutal governor know from history. He muses, “If I don’t condemn him, Caiaphas will rebel. If I do, his followers will. Either way there will be bloodshed.” Soldiers inform him that there is already an uprising. The priests, temple guards, and people are growing ugly. But instead of putting them in their place, as the historical Pilate would have done, they are appeased.

Pilate decides to have Jesus beaten, thinking this will satisfy the bloodlust of the Jews. Jesus is taken within. The leading priests go in, watching through a gate--but clearly on Roman soil, contrary to the Gospels. Jesus is beaten first with rods until he collapses. There’s a pause. Jesus stands. The Romans are perturbed. They get the flagella. One hits the table—the metal embedded in the strands of the whip sticks fast in the surface of the table. They begin to apply it to Jesus’ back. It sticks, and rips skin away. The violence goes on longer than any human could withstand. The camera lingers, fascinated, voyeuristic. The only breaks are to follow Mary as she leaves the scene, unable to watch any more (yes, she is there--and she will wipe up the blood afterwards, using towels given to her by Pilate's wife).

A Roman comes and orders them to stop: “You were ordered to punish him, not to scourge him to death.” This is but the first instance where Romans are depicted as having a conscience, or at least a limit to what they will inflict on a person. The Jews have none. The Romans are egged on by Satan, wandering through the crowd--the Jews need no such encouragement.

In the version I saw, after Pilate gives in to their demands the crowd shouts, gleefully, “His blood be upon us and our children.” Pilate gives up, and says to his men, “Do as they wish.” Rumors say Mel has taken this line out. That's good, as it was traditionally understood by Christians to extend the guilt for Deicide through history to contemporary Jews; but it doesn't minimize the exaggerated depiction of the Jews that we've endured to this point. And more is to come.

The procession to Calvary appears to be a religious event, led by priests riding donkeys; flashbacks recall Palm Sunday. The crowds lining the road this time are hostile and merciless, berating and pummeling Jesus as he passes. The Romans beat them back. Arriving at Calvary, Jesus is nailed to the cross--again, the violence is exaggerated and excessive, with the camera lingering over the scene as the cross is flipped over, with Jesus face down; blood dripping; the protruding ends of the nails are bent over, and then the cross is flipped over the other way.

A thief taunts Jesus to save himself and them. The crowd joins in the taunting, as does the High Priest, who says, “If he is the Messiah, let him come down that we may believe.” Caiaphas walks around as if he is the senior official presiding over the execution. He does not protest at the sign nailed to the cross by the Romans. There is no division of roles here--they are doing his bidding.

When Jesus prays, "Father, forgive them," the good thief says (as in Scripture), “Listen, he prays for you. We deserve this, but he doesn’t. Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom” Jesus promises that he will be in paradise. The bad thief, Gesmas, laughs. A crow drops from heaven and pecks out his eyes. Hardly an answer to that prayer for forgiveness, is it?

The sky darkens, and the priests leave. The Romans let Mary approach. Throughout, they've shown her sympathy, assisting her in the crowd, casting nervous glances at her, talking amongst themselves.

Jesus dies. The camera looks down on Calvary. A drop of rain condenses, and the camera follows it down to the ground. It hits with explosive force, and an earthquake rocks the hill. Pilate is rattled. The temple is hit hardest; a chasm opens in the floor, and rocks fall on the priests. The sense is clearly one of divine judgment (like the crow eating the eyes of the thief). The drop of rain is like a divine tear; we see a picture of God as grieving in human fashion, his grief quickly turning to anger, and lashing out, not at the Romans, but at the Jews, and particularly at the Jewish religious authorities.

It is an awful depiction, and recalls the worst of medieval passion plays. Yet most of the Christians in the usually select audiences that have seen it so far are oblivious to these things. Even a handful of politically conservative Jewish commentators claim to have seen nothing problematic. But those Jews who have seen it who are not predisposed to be generous to Mel have been shocked by the portrayal. A special screening in Houston included local Jewish community members and representatives of the national offices of the ADL and American Jewish Committee. All had similar reactions. They sat like strangers in the auditorium, unable to understand the emotional reactions of the Christians around them, and unable to understand, when they spoke with those Christians later, how they could have missed the parts of the film that so troubled the Jews.

Here are some comments from viewers of the film here in Australia, including Jews. This was published in the Daily Telegraph:

Mel does a Tarantino job on Christ
February 20, 2004

FEDERAL MPs were 'visibly shaken' by Mel Gibson's film on Christ, reports TORY MAGUIRE.

Jewish MP Michael Danby hadn't seen such violence "since I went to a Quentin Tarantino film", he said after an advance screening of Mel Gibson's new film about Jesus Christ.

Multicultural Affairs Minister Gary Hardgrave had to turn away from the screen many times and left the theatre with pulse racing.

And Sydney MP Bruce Baird called it "brutal" and "gory".

Three hundred MPs and staffers got to view The Passion of Christ at Parliament House on Wednesday.

Filmed in Aramaic, the movie has raised allegations it is anti-Semitic and too violent.

Verdicts on the film's merits differed but the consistent theme was that it was "confronting", "gory" and "brutal." Some viewers left the theatre in tears at the end of the screening and many, including Treasurer Peter Costello and Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson, were visibly shaken.

Sydney MP Bruce Baird said he thought the movie was a faithful depiction of Christ's final 12 hours but "I wished they didn't spend quite as long on the floggings".
Parliamentary Christian Fellowship chairman Mr Baird helped organise the screening. He said parents should not take children under 16 to see the film.

Mr Hardgrave said he would advise those who were disturbed by the film to see their priest or rabbi or other religious elder. "The amount of violence was just breathtaking," Mr Hardgrave said.

"We all knew that Jesus suffered, died, was buried, and rose again, but to see the suffering portrayed was very confronting."

Mr Danby was "taken aback by the violence and, frankly, I found that two hours of Aramaic and subtitles is hard going".

"I was probably the only person in the whole audience who understood large parts of the film because Aramaic is like Hewbrew and I speak Hewbrew," he said.

Just yesterday, Gibson's father Hutton Gibson caused a stir in the US when he said on radio he thought claims of the Holocaust were "exaggerated". "It's all – maybe not all fiction – but most of it is," Mr Gibson Sr said.
Mr Danby, however, said The Passion of Christ would not stir great anti-Semitism.

"I don't think there will be any major implications of this film," Mr Danby said.

"But it is my feeling from the film that Mel Gibson is his father's son.

"I think the Catholic Church and the Pope have over the past 30 years affected a reconciliation between Judaism and Christianity that is really wonderful and as far as I am concerned the Pope speaks for Catholics, not Mel Gibson."

I agree. This is a biased review. The line is *in* the Gospels (Mark?) and is not in any way an excuse for 'collective guilt', a nonsensical view. As Gibson himself has pointed out, how can this really be anti-semetic, when Jesus himself was born in the House of David, his disciples and apostles were all Jewish, everyone but the Roman soldiers living there were Jews.

... Nevertheless, Gibson took out that line because it was one of the points used to make this out to be of concern for the 'anti-semetism' content.

Frankly, I was astounded by the reviews own anti-Catholic bias influencing his own view of it. the reviewer seems to have a 'thing' for the Catholic persepective, as if that is a big problem... well, excuse, me ... It's the same gospel and the same story!

Still, I will reserve my own full judgment until the time I see the movie. This is clearly a must-see movie.

I'll add the caveat that I have not seen The Passion but intend to do so.

I have mixed feelings--very mixed feelings about this film from what I have read on multiple sources from a myriad of POVs. What bothers me greatly is the license taken regarding the Praetorium scene. The only "Jews" by any stretch of the historical imagination that I could ever conceive of showing up would be paganized supporters of the Herods, and even that is probably unlikely given the intense nationalism and protectiveness of their cultural and religious identity like the Jews of that period (yeah, can anyone think of a group of that time with the propensity to revolt against conquerors from Syrians to Romans?). To be in that forum as a Jew would be considered a treasonist act against Self, neighbor and God.

The New Testament is clear that the execution of Jesus was a Roman decision, prompted by a collaborationist faction of the priesthood. What anti-Semites never consider in their ravings regarding the execution of Jesus is that question was settled most brutally by the Romans themselves by the destruction of the priesthood after the Revolt. "The Jews" did not kill Jesus, a couple of corrupted toadies backing the Roman government at best "advised" Pilate. They put him on trial, then handed him over to the Romans. Pilate based his decision on his own questioning of Jesus. The execution was for treason, not because Jesus ticked off the Jewish priesthood.

In the descriptions of the scourgings, who held the whip hand? Who placed the crown of thorns? Who chose nails instead of rope? Who beat Jesus on the streets to Golgotha? All the while verbally humilating Him?

Also, that city was quite "multi-cultural". The mobs represented a mixture of the ethnic and religious types that inhabited the area.

Finally, it is true a couple of Romans found it within themselves to be kind. It does not surprise me because His execution was brutal and unusual even by Roman standards.

Again, that was Pilate's decision. All his. A Roman.

The reaction to the film I hope is taken in its proper context, and that the debate remains real and sane. I certainly hope this doesn't turn into another baby on the doorstep.

Those who know that painful aspect of Jewish history understand that reference. It damn well better not happen, again.

WFTR: Often, the people who were the most "enthusiastic" for their faith were also the most ignorant.

repub32: So you have turned from your faith one day a christian the next not!!!!!!!! sounds like you have no faith in "The word" or it's you who doesnt who know's not what he reads. That is the biggest slap to christ. The truth is in there learn it. Jesus suffered suffered anyway Mel puts it for you and me something Im sure you could never endure.... and the truth is there for everyone to learn Mel Gibson is a soldier and is being attacked by the usual kenite scum....

I forgot to mention that they are also some of the least coherent in many cases. Here we have a case in point. It reminds me of one of the reasons that I don't miss church.

Well, four and a half
Bill

The New Testament is clear that the execution of Jesus was a Roman decision, prompted by a collaborationist faction of the priesthood. What anti-Semites never consider in their ravings regarding the execution of Jesus is that question was settled most brutally by the Romans themselves by the destruction of the priesthood after the Revolt. "The Jews" did not kill Jesus, a couple of corrupted toadies backing the Roman government at best "advised" Pilate. They put him on trial, then handed him over to the Romans. Pilate based his decision on his own questioning of Jesus. The execution was for treason, not because Jesus ticked off the Jewish priesthood.

Your are contradicted by scripture:

Luke 23:

20 Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them.

21 But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.

22 And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.

23 And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified: and the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.

24 And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.

Don't be so quick to say that this is a "Tarantino version" or that older films that dealt with this subject could not also be graphic.

See the IMDB listing of The Lash of The Penitentes (1937)

This film was butchered and no full version has appeared (altough the film has been available on video for over 20 years). It deals with a group of Spanish Catholics who are into flagation and crucifixtion in their religious order. Part documentary, part fiction.

Also remember the violence that the main character endures in Braveheart.

Its Mel Gibson's version and presents a very traditional understanding of Christian faith. As a Jew I don't relate to the theology and I can understand why Jews are offended by the elements in the film that seem to recall the ugly deicide charge rightly repudiated by Vatican II. Still the fact of the matter is Mel Gibson has taken a stand and as Rush Limbaugh said to be firm in your beliefs is frowned upon in polite society. The movie I think is resented by liberals less for the way it depicts Jews (and I reject that depiction as virtually Jews do) than for the fact it says faith is as much a part of human nature and carries historical consequences that reverberate down to our day. Gibson's "Passion" if nothing else, is a good illustration of how something that happened thousands of years ago can affect our lives, our politics, our culture, and even the relations between people of different faiths. Its worth thinking about.

They sat like strangers in the auditorium, unable to understand the emotional reactions of the Christians around them, and unable to understand, when they spoke with those Christians later, how they could have missed the parts of the film that so troubled the Jews.

And, that statement sums up what this entire controversy is about. The Jews (for the most part) do not understand our scripture. They don't understand what is meant by what is written.

These Jews who saw the film did not see anger on the part of any Christian who watched. They don't understand how the Christians didn't see what they saw, but the Christians are guided what God wants them to see by the Holy Spirit.

Of course, I guess you could say that all the Christians that saw this movie and did not react they way these reviewers did are all anti-Semites already.

Either the Christians are anti-Semitic (which is close to what abe foxman claims), or some Jews just do not have the capacity to understand the New Testament in the same way as the Christians do (which I credit to the Holy Spirit).

I know this statement will get flamed. That's fine. But my belief in the Holy Spirit which indwells within all Christians is my belief, and nothing you can say will change that.

Flame if you must, but that's my opinion.

Seems to me Jews are feeling some what guilty.... I dont hear the same people coming out against Holocaust movies that story they want told I dont hear the same people coming out about movies of slavery whats the problem here.... The truth is being told The high Priest's were jews and they handed Jesus to the ROmans who were the only ones that could in those times sentence one to be Crucified and it is the jews not all but most who still dont to this day believe that Jesus was the Son of God. Are you going to tell me you dont believe they would beat this man more then any for the simple fact that he came claiming to be The Messiah (who didnt save himself) which made the High Priest mad in the first place. Just like today fools follow fools or the crowds I should say, so yes I believe jews spit,spat,hit and threw stones at christ but it is not up to me to judge them they will be judged as soon as he returns......

And some people wonder why many Jews have trouble trusting "Christians"...

I am beginning to "have trouble trusting" Jews. I am also seriously rethinking my support of the National Conference of Christian and Jews . I think I have about had enough of the Christian bashing. I can see there is a real hatred of the Christians (behind our backs)who have supported the Jews and I HAD NO IDEA!

BTW, since when are Christians, "Christians"?

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.