Posted on 02/29/2004 10:02:28 AM PST by Eva
Leonard Pitts Jr. / Syndicated columnist The 'Passion' of Mel: an exclusionary tale
Search archive
"This is my body, which is given for you." — Luke 22:19
The woman on my left watched through a latticework of fingers, a tissue catching her tears. The man on my right made sounds of wordless dismay. On the screen below us, Jesus, a carpenter turned itinerant rabbi, was being brutalized and put to death.
It happened 2,000 years ago on a mountain called Calvary. It is happening again in multiplexes around the country. "The Passion of the Christ," produced and directed by Mel Gibson, is the most controversial film in recent memory, both embraced and feared for its graphic recounting of the killing of Jesus. Some Jews think it revives old libels about Jewish blame for the crime. So they regard the movie with trepidation.
Consider a critic interviewed on the radio the day the film came out. Though usually a straightforward reviewer, she kept demurring about "The Passion," insisting that people would have to "find their own answer." She did fault the movie for emphasizing the bloody death of Jesus over His message of "love and faith."
The phrase struck me because it seemed strangely generic. A moment later, the woman mentioned that she is Jewish, and I understood both her inability to be more specific and her evident discomfort.
One of the radio anchors asked if she found the movie anti-Semitic. She said yes.
I'm hesitant to contradict her. A little over a year ago, when Trent Lott said a racially incendiary thing, it irked me to hear his fellow senator, Bill Frist, assure the nation that his colleague was not a racist. One middle-age white guy vouching for the racial blamelessness of another was hardly the most ringing endorsement.
Similarly, as someone who'll never experience anti-Semitism, I don't know that I have standing to say there's none in Gibson's movie. But I didn't see any. And anybody making that charge will have to go some to convince me.
Which is not to say I'm without empathy for the fears expressed by some in the Jewish community. To the contrary, those fears offer a visceral and poignant reminder of how tenuous a thing acceptance can be, how fierce a grip history can have. Jews have made inroads into the nation's mainstream to a degree that would have been unimaginable 50 years ago. Yet even in the midst of that success, they live with this constant nugget of fear, this need to be on guard, lest acceptance erode and yesterday's nightmares come roaring back.
I can relate.
But there's something critics of "The Passion," Jewish and otherwise, are missing. Namely, that this movie — there's no delicate way to say this — was not made for them — or for that matter, for Muslims or atheists. It is deliberately exclusionary to a degree I've seldom seen. You didn't have to be Jewish to get "Schindler's List" or black to get "Roots." Being those things might have deepened your appreciation, but they were not necessary.
To understand "The Passion," though, you need at least familiarity with the four Gospels and, ideally, faith in them. The movie does not concern itself with back story; it assumes that you come to it with a certain body of knowledge.
Otherwise, all you will see is a man being hit over and over and over again, such extravagantly brutal torture that you cringe and pray for it to be done. But it never is. There is always another blow, a fresh gout of blood.
If you know the Gospels, however, you might see something more than violence. You might see the embodiment of Christ's message. Which was not simply "love and faith" but redemption, ransom, sacrifice, the willingness to take upon himself, upon his body, punishment for all the sins of humankind.
I'll leave it to others to argue whether it makes sense to exclude so many people. I will only say that within its narrow confines, "The Passion" is a work of shattering immediacy and devastating power.
Its point is not that the blood of Christ is on the Jews but rather, that it is upon us all.
Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr.'s e-mail address is: lpitts@herald.com
Copyright 2004, The Miami Herald
I feel "excluded" by foolish liberal writers who assume that in order to be a non-Christian one must necessarily feel "excluded" by the Christian message.
Liberals assume, by virtue of being liberal, that they understand everyone. They don't. And since they don't, I would be quite happy if they would shut the hell up about what I'm supposed to feel and think concerning just about everything.
I thought it was Gilgotha.
Which was not simply "love and faith" but redemption, ransom, sacrifice, the willingness to take upon himself, upon his body, punishment for all the sins of humankind.I'll leave it to others to argue whether it makes sense to exclude so many people.
Think about it. Here we have a large audience of critics acting almost surprised - not just at the new elements of the movie's portrayal - but at some of the basic elements of a story that has been told for 2000 years. Pilate is portrayed as giving into the mob and ordering the execution, even though he didn't want to?!! *gasp* I see this one pop up as evidence of the film's anti-Semitism time and again, and it's right there in the Gospel. It stretches credibility that this is something most of these critics are not aware of.
So, yes, the movie was made by and for Christians. But it's certainly accessible to non-Christians who simply want to look at the Christian faith. It may not be fun to look at, as Mr. Pitts says, "all you will see is a man being hit over and over and over again." But that brutality really is central to the Christian belief in Christ's death.
Hardly! Quick -- think of Sen. Chuckie Schumer, mister in-your-face; think of Jerry Nadler, Representative from NY/McDonald's -- do THEY strike you as "on guard"? "Holding back?" I don't think so.
The only thing greater than your humility is your understanding of other faiths. In my opinion, you are a true Christian.
That's what I thought until I read some of the responses in the Passion threads. The lack of understanding on the part of some, the easy pass they are willing to give Mel Gibson and his film, and the vitriol for those who criticize the film for any reason, have given me pause.
Then what do you think motivates their behavior and why?
Don't get me wrong....Schumer is, IMHO, such a despicable character that anything he says or does is immediately suspect. But a number of Jews are concerned....they are "on guard". And they do hold back on certain issues - for example, the issue of Jonathan Pollard (I'm just using it an an example - don't start a separate thread about the issue) doesn't receive the support of these "high-profile" Jews. They are "on guard" and "holding back". With Mel's movie, they aren't....for very obvious reasons.
Ours is a critical culture, and the criticism concerning this movie have generally been that the movie is anti-Semitic, that it's too violent, that Gibson is retrograde, that Gobson is an evil man because of his father.
In other words, the usual egalitarian smears from the cultural Left. A valid critique is one thing, but I've yet to hear one. Meanwhile, Gibson's "unreleasable" and immoral film has made nearly 100 million dollars in four days.
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.