Frank Rich: 'Passion' and the U.S. culture war

IHT ^ | 03/05/04 | Frank Rich

[Pikamax]

Frank Rich: 'Passion' and the U.S. culture war Frank Rich NYT Friday, March 5, 2004

NEW YORK Thank God - I think. Mel Gibson has granted me absolution for my sins. As "The Passion of the Christ" approached the $100 million mark, the star appeared on "The Tonight Show,'" where Jay Leno asked if he would forgive me. "Absolutely," he responded, adding that his dispute with me was "not personal." Then he waxed philosophical: "You try to perform an act of love even for those who persecute you, and I think that's the message of the film."

Thus we see the gospel according to Mel. If you criticize his film and the Jew-baiting by which he promoted it, you are persecuting him - all the way to the bank. If he says that he wants you killed, he wants your intestines "on a stick" and he wants to kill your dog - such was his fatwa against me in September - not only is there nothing personal about it but it's an act of love. And that is indeed the message of his film. "The Passion" is far more in love with putting Jesus' intestines on a stick than with dramatizing his godly teachings, which are relegated to a few brief, cryptic flashbacks.

With its laborious build-up to its orgasmic spurtings of blood and other bodily fluids, the film is constructed like nothing so much as a porn movie, replete with slo-mo climaxes and pounding music. Of all the "Passion" critics, no one has nailed its artistic vision more precisely than the journalist Christopher Hitchens, who called it a homoerotic "exercise in lurid sadomasochism" for those who "like seeing handsome young men stripped and flayed alive over a long period of time."

If "The Passion" is a joy ride for sadomasochists, conveniently cloaked in the plain-brown wrapping of religiosity, does that make it bad for the Jews? Not necessarily. As a director, Gibson is no Leni Riefenstahl. His movie is just too ponderous to spark a pogrom on its own - in America anyway. The one ugly incident reported on Ash Wednesday, in which the Lovingway United Pentecostal Church posted a marquee reading "Jews Killed the Lord Jesus," occurred in Denver, where the local archbishop, Charles Chaput, had thrown kindling on the fire by promoting the movie for months. Whether "The Passion" will prove quite as benign in Europe and the Arab world is a story yet to be told.

But speaking as someone who has never experienced serious bigotry, I must confess that, whatever happens abroad, the fracas over "The Passion" has made me feel less secure as a Jew in America than ever before. My quarrel is not with most of the millions of Christian believers who are moved to tears by "The Passion." They bring their own deep feelings to the theater with them, and when Gibson pushes their buttons, however crudely, they generously do his work for him, supplying from their hearts the authentic spirituality that is missing in his jamboree of bloody beefcake. Jews, after all, can overcompensate for mediocre filmmaking in exactly the same way; even the schlockiest movies about the Holocaust (Robin Williams as "Jakob the Liar," anyone?) will move some audiences to tears by simply evoking the story's bare bones in Hollywood kitsch.

What concerns me much more are those with leadership positions in the secular world - including those in the media - who have given Gibson, "The Passion" and its most incendiary hucksters a free pass for behavior that is unambiguously contrived to vilify Jews.

Start with the movie itself. There is no question that it rewrites history by making Caiaphas and the other high priests the prime instigators of Jesus' death while softening Pontius Pilate, an infamous Roman thug, into a reluctant and somewhat conscience-stricken executioner. "The more benign Pilate appears in the movie, the more malignant the Jews are," is how Elaine Pagels describes Gibson's modus operandi in The New Yorker this week. As if that weren't enough, the Jewish high priests are also depicted as grim sadists with bad noses and teeth - Shylocks and Fagins from 19th-century stock. Yet in those early screenings that Gibson famously threw for conservative politicos in Washington last summer and autumn, not a person in attendance, from Robert Novak to Peggy Noonan, seems to have recognized these obvious stereotypes, let alone spoken up about them in their profuse encomiums to the film.

Nor do some of these pundits seem to recognize Holocaust denial when it is staring them in the face. In an interview in the current Reader's Digest, Noonan asks Gibson: "The Holocaust happened, right?" After saying that some of his best friends "have numbers on their arms," he responds: "Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps." Yes, mistakes happened, atrocities happened, war happened, some of the victims were Jews. This is the classic language of contemporary Holocaust deniers, from David Irving to Gibson's own father, Hutton Gibson, a prominent anti-Semitic author and activist. Their rhetorical strategy is to diminish Hitler's extermination of Jews by folding those deaths into the war's overall casualty figures, as if the Holocaust were an idle byproduct of battle instead of a Third Reich master plan for genocide. Rather than challenge Gibson on this, Noonan merely reinforces his junk history. "So the point is that life is tragic and it is full of fighting and violence, mischief and malice," she replies.

No, that is not the point of the history of the Holocaust. Of course, if a Jew points out such callousness, he is not practicing journalism or trying to clarify the historical record. He is instead "rabidly anti-Christian," as James Dobson of Focus on the Family is fond of describing Jews who raise questions about Gibson. The message is clear: Jews who criticize a poor, defenseless multimillionaire movie star and his film are behaving much as Caiaphas and his cronies do in "The Passion" itself. There's a consistency of animus here.

There is also a mighty strange inversion of reality. America is 82 percent Christian, and 60 percent of the population believes the Bible is historical fact. (The Jewish population is 2 percent.) The president of the United States has endorsed Jesus as his favorite philosopher, and Gibson's movie had almost as large an opening week as "The Lord of the Rings." The star has won his battle. He's hotter than ever in Hollywood, a town whose first commandment is that you never argue with a hit. ("If Hitler did a movie with these numbers, we'd give him his next deal," one Jewish mogul told me in a phone conversation this week.) So by what stretch of the imagination is Gibson so aggrieved that he can go on "The Tonight Show," purport to be a victim and not be laughed at by Leno or anyone else? For all his talk of "suffering" for his art, it's hard to see exactly how Gibson has suffered.

The vilification of Jews by Gibson, his film and some of his allies, unchallenged by his media enablers, is not happening in a vacuum. We are in the midst of an escalating election-year culture war in which those of "faith" are demonizing so-called secularists - any Jews critical of Gibson and their fellow travelers, liberals.

Politicians, we are learning, seem increasingly eager to wrap themselves in "The Passion of the Christ" as a handy signal to indicate they are opposed to all those "secularists" whose conspiracy is undermining all that right-thinking Americans hold near and dear. Predictably enough, both the president and Mrs. Bush have publicly indicated their desire to see Gibson's film. But when even Connecticut's John Rowland, a scandal-ridden governor facing impeachment, starts to rave about "The Passion" in public ("unbelievable!" "breathtaking!"), as he did last weekend, it's clear that we're witnessing the birth of a phenomenon. You come away from this whole sorry story feeling that Jesus died in "The Passion of the Christ" so cynics, whether seeking bucks or votes, could inherit the earth.

[h.a. cherev]

It has been an interesting conversation. Thanks for taking the time to chat. I wish you well.

[Rays_Dad]

Bump for later read

[af_vet_1981]

It may be argued that, if you are not Born Again, you don't qualify as a "Christian" or that if you are not a full practicing Catholic you don't qualify as a "Catholic Christian". However, we need to consider what the German people considered themselves and how the Jews saw their Nazi German and Czarist Russian-era Eastern European persecuters. If the common German people shouting Sieg Heil called themselves "Christian" and the Polish or Russian peasants conducting a pogrom called themselves "Christian", then that forms the Ashkenazi Jewish ancestral memory of what a "Christian" is. As I elaborated in my Post 82, it is my belief that that Eastern and Central European Jewish ancestral memory is the underpinning of the hostility that many Ashkenazi Jews have against devout American Christians. Devout American Christians, who wouldn't know a pogrom from a pierogi, are then left totally puzzled as to why so many Ashkenazi Jews react so negatively against them in view of the fact that American Born Again Christians are the Jewish people's strongest supporters. If we narrow the historical definition of "Christian" to a narrow theological defintion that includes only those people that live their lives as Christ wanted them to live it, then the American devout Christian will always be left wondering why on Earth so many Jews have a gut reaction against anything labelled "Christian" and against any American Christian that takes his religion very seriously.

Those are very insightful comments.

[h.a. cherev]

There may have been.

[veronica]

If I were you, if you want to feel "more secure", I would try keeping a lower profile instead of trying to run the country when, self admitingly you only comprise 2% of the population. Keep your mouth shut and just sit back and enjoy the ride.

Or else what?.... ...This??

I feel as secure as I ever did. More in fact. I know America and Americans. Nazis they are not. Most anyway.

We are still free to speak our minds here. Even if it means not liking a movie. If you want to be where people have to "keeps their mouths shut" I suggest YOU LEAVE America. It's not the place for you.

[M Kehoe]

As Rich pours forth his bile, I'm glad I'm on this side of the screen.

5.56mm

[Puzzleman]

Politicians, we are learning, seem increasingly eager to wrap themselves in "The Passion of the Christ" as a handy signal to indicate they are opposed to all those "secularists" whose conspiracy is undermining all that right-thinking Americans hold near and dear.

That’s exactly right! The things that we hold near and dear and that are being undermined include the family, the constitution, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, patriotism, America’s right of self-defense, and the rule of law.

[dennisw]

I saw Edmund Burke's brilliant comment previously.

[SJackson]

"There's always that 2 percent". The saying means different things to different people.

[hosepipe]

Never mind FRANK... Judas will be on in a few days and you can wax wordy about what a statement he(Judas) made toward tolerance and open mindedness or even his weasly ways..

Him(Judas) being a Jew of character and hanging himself was such a waste. Poor old Judas receiving his pound of flesh in hard currency being thrown down in disgust by himself must seem like a waste to you too..

in that you yourself are employed by the same sort of vipers(traitors).. but make good use of you're pay off...

Frank, you were beneath contempt way before this particular gross exaggeration.. still jealous over real talent(Ann Coulter)...eh!..
If Barney Fife became a writer he'd be YOU...

[Iowegian]

One problem with Rich and Krauthammer is that they seem to be ignorant of their own history. One of the reasons that the ancient Jews were hated was because their animal sacrifices were viewed as violent, bloody, disgusting, vile, unnecessary, etc. Sound familiar?

Also, the tone of Rich & C.K. 's columns towards what we view as sacred is the equivalent to Farrakan calling Judiasm a "gutter religion".

[h.a. cherev]

One of the reasons that the ancient Jews were hated was because their animal sacrifices were viewed as violent, bloody, disgusting, vile, unnecessary, etc.

Where did you get this idea?

Sound familiar?

No.

[Iowegian]

Whatever up say buddy, but my point is there is nothing in this movie (and Christianity that it shows) that was said about it's bloody violence that can't also be stated about Judiasm, at least as it used to be practiced. Jesus is our passover lamb.

[h.a. cherev]

Whatever up say buddy, but my point is there is nothing in this movie (and Christianity that it shows) that was said about it's bloody violence that can't also be stated about Judiasm, at least as it used to be practiced. Jesus is our passover lamb.

Silly me. I thought JC was a human being. Thanks for clearing up your position.

Have a nice day.

[Iowegian]

Silly me. I thought JC was a human being.

Oh, He's much more than that.

Thanks for clearing up your position.

Glad to assist. Remember Jesus = passover lamb. But as for Jewish thoughts and understanding on this film. I'll take Michael Medved over Frank Rich and his ilk any day. He does "get it".

Have a nice day.

You too.

[edsheppa]

Nor have I seen any movies where Christians were stereotyped.

What are you, two years old?

[h.a. cherev]

What are you, two years old?

No.

[VRWCmember]

Nor have I seen any movies where Christians were stereotyped.

Either you don't watch movies, or you are oblivious. In almost every movie from Hollywood where a character's Christianity is mentioned at all, it is to portray the character as an evil, hypocritical, self-righteous villain.

[h.a. cherev]

I disagree with your point of view. Just as you may disagree with those who find Passion anti-Semitic.

Have a nice day.

[VRWCmember]

Did you see the remake of Cape Fear with Robert DeNiro?