'Passion' viewers too shaken to hate

NY Daily News ^ | March 21, 2004 | John Leo

[presidio9]

My current theory is that Christians and Jews see two different films when they watch Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." For example, when Satan slithered through the crowd, I saw nothing objectionable. It's conventional Christian theology that the temptation to do evil (or Satan himself) is everywhere. But many Jews saw Satan acting through a specifically Jewish gathering. Jews also noticed that when God becomes angry at the killing of Jesus, he doesn't wreak havoc on the Roman forum or Pilate's house, he destroys the temple.

Jews don't understand why Christians don't seem to get this. They tend to think that Christians are either blind to the movie's message or insensitive to the feelings of Jews.

I don't think that's it. Ordinary Christians were so overwhelmed by the film that they didn't much want to involve themselves in yet another debate about whether a few Jews or a few Romans were mostly responsible for killing Jesus.

This was the first movie available to a mass audience that powerfully portrayed the scope of Jesus' sacrifice. That's why so many of the faithful came out of the theater shaken, weeping or talking about their need to become better Christians. Nobody came out wanting to talk about Gibson's father.

The Christian unwillingness to analyze this film showed in a more obvious way. The core audience - evangelicals and fundamentalists - is meticulous about literal reading of Scripture and at least standoffish about Catholic interpretations. Yet they flocked to a film with a profoundly Catholic sensibility, based on the sometimes eccentric visions of a 19th-century nun and filled with free-wheeling scenes found nowhere in the Bible.

You could argue that Gibson's movie departed from the Gospels almost as much as Hollywood potboilers such as "The Robe." But to audiences, this didn't matter much. It was emotionally true to the Gospels, and audiences found that good enough.

A survey released last week by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research reports that 83% of people familiar with the film say it made them neither more likely nor less likely to blame Jews today for Jesus' Crucifixion. Two percent said they are more likely to blame Jews. The results are an indicator that the dire predictions of a big wave of anti-Semitism were wrong. Some 40 million to 50 million Americans have seen the film, and the mainstream press still seems to be awaiting an explosion of anti-Jewish feeling among Christians. It hasn't arrived.

I don't think it will.

[pepsi_junkie]

You could argue that Gibson's movie departed from the Gospels almost as much as Hollywood potboilers such as "The Robe."

But since that would be an absurd argument, I won't.

[maestro]

You could argue that Gibson's movie departed from the Gospels almost as much as Hollywood potboilers such as "The Robe."

?.....Both movies using the same 'gnostic' 3-D glasses?

[LibWhacker]

The movie's been out for a couple of weeks now and I'm still waiting for the massive explosion of anti-Semitic violence liberals predicted it would engender. But I haven't seen any. (I'm not counting that shocking case where the wife scratched her husband during a quarrel she had with him over the movie, since we're not even 100% sure he is Jewish.)

[Liz]

ping

[eastsider]

Nobody came out wanting to talk about Gibson's father.

That's a darned good line.

[onedoug]

Ger Tzedek.

I love and believe in the Jewish religion, and I loved Gibson's Passion.

[TalBlack]

I saw The Passion... last night. I am Catholic. The story is THE SAME story I have heard since I can remember. The violence WAS NOT over done. It was basically what actually happened.

VIolence isn't gratuitious if it A: Is what actually happened and B: is central to the message plot or story.

The violence in "D-DAY" wasn't over done either. A bit underdone actually (I thought)

The violence in Hitchcocks's "Psycho" wasn't over done either but would have been in my opinion if the camera angle had been changed slightly.

[Molly Pitcher]

This movie is still generating opinion pieces...

[Chewbacca]

"....Jews also noticed that when God becomes angry at the killing of Jesus, he doesn't wreak havoc on the Roman forum or Pilate's house, he destroys the temple."


That was the whole point of Jesus' death. The Jews performed animal sacrifices for attonement of their sins at the Temple. Jesus died for everyones sins as the sacrificial Lamb of God. The jewish Temple was no longer needed. Jesus' death abolished the need to perform animal sacrifices.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Uh, duh wasn't God a little POed with the Jewish authorities for their failings as his chosen people? The Romans were not his own.

As far Satan acting within a Jewish crowd. Gee, one might think this occured in Norway to hear these desperate to cast themselves and Jews as victims. How could it not have occured in a specifically Jewish gathering being set in Jerusalem? What mopes.

[Iron Matron]

. . . .Jews also noticed that when God becomes angry at the killing of Jesus, he doesn't wreak havoc on the Roman forum or Pilate's house, he destroys the temple. .....

....Jews don't understand why Christians don't seem to get this. They tend to think that Christians are either blind to the movie's message or insensitive to the feelings of Jews. .....

*****

He destroyed the Temple to Fulfill Scripture! (. . .And rebuild it in 3 days, referring to the resurrection)

Those trying to make this movie anti Semitic just dont seem to get this.

[Lady Heron]

Jews also noticed that when God becomes angry at the killing of Jesus, he doesn't wreak havoc on the Roman forum or Pilate's house, he destroys the temple.

Because Jews don't understand who Jesus was and what God was saying. It has nothing to do with God being mad at the Jews, it has everything to do with what God was saying about who and what Jesus is.

The "Passion's" Christian viewers are not to shaken to hate. The difference is what you are taught about the Christianity and the Gospels.

[RicocheT]

My wife and I saw "The Passion" yesterday. As Christians we were very moved by the portrayal of Jesus' suffering in order to take on our sins and offer us redemption. His wounds were a metaphor for this, so we understood level of violence shown. Thank goodness the director had flash backs to calmer periods in the life of Christ to give us emotional breaks.

As far as blaming the Romans or Jews, we understood it was acts of men 2000 years ago and that all the events were part of God's will in offering his Son to save our world.

Knowing that, few of us are going to look for scapegoats in the present century. I haven't been out knocking over tombstones in any Jewish cemeteries so far.

[Teacher317]

And did the Jewish viewers somehow miss the Roman soldiers causing every one of those many, many cuts; and that not a single Jew was portrayed as a drunken, vicious, sadistic pig; and that every sympathetic, heroic, generous, or decent character was a Jew? Anti-Semitic? Feh. Anti-Roman? Clearly.

Not since "Gladiator" has the Roman empire been so slandered! ;^)

[VRWCmember]

Yet they flocked to a film with a profoundly Catholic sensibility, based on the sometimes eccentric visions of a 19th-century nun and filled with free-wheeling scenes found nowhere in the Bible.

This characterization is a little inaccurate. It could be better characterized as a film based on the four gospels, that includes certain scenes of a profoundly Catholic sensibility. By far, most of the film depicted events as described in the four Gospel accounts -- some with much more detail than provided in the Scriptures and some with less detail. Any detail inspired by the "eccentric 19th-century nun" is more of an incidental addition rather than the basis of the film. As for "free-wheeling" scenes found nowhere in the Bible, perhaps the author refers to scenes like the demons antagonizing Judas as he runs off and ultimately hangs himself or such artistic additions. The Scriptures do state that Judas threw the money back at the temple leaders and then went out and hanged himself. So to add the element of demonic torment to his suicide is hardly offensive to most Christians.

You could argue that Gibson's movie departed from the Gospels almost as much as Hollywood potboilers such as "The Robe." But to audiences, this didn't matter much. It was emotionally true to the Gospels, and audiences found that good enough.

Such an argument would lack substance in reality. The Robe was a fictional story about characters around the crucifixion. These fictional characters who came into contact with the robe worn by Jesus during his arrest, beatings, and mock trial, made for an inspiring story, but the only Scriptural elements of the story were that it related to the crucifixion. While The Robe, and Ben-Hur, and other such movies were excellent films and worthy of admiration, they are not based on the Bible. The entire storyline of the Passion is based on the Gospels, with incidental details and some artistic interpretations added. The film contained several extra-Spriptural elements, but few if any unscriptural elements.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[VRWCmember]

Jews also noticed that when God becomes angry at the killing of Jesus, he doesn't wreak havoc on the Roman forum or Pilate's house, he destroys the temple."

Also, He didn't "destroy" the temple. He shook the temple and rent the veil to the Holy of Holies in two. I wish Mel had depicted the ripping of the veil as described in the Scripture.

[eastsider]

It would take a pretty twisted mind to come out of Gibson's "Passion" a bigot of any stripe. JMO.

[GOP_Proud]

< The core audience - evangelicals and fundamentalists - is meticulous about literal reading of Scripture and at least standoffish about Catholic interpretations. Yet they flocked to a film with a profoundly Catholic sensibility >

Wow! That's certainly a broad brush. Since when are evangelicals and fundamentalists so far different in beliefs about Christ's passion and crucifiction? Of course, many scenes had to be "someone's" interpretation. Mel's version of events did not offend this Christian at all. I found the added touches just as ikely as anything I would come up with. It is with interpretations that are clearly out of the mainstream that we object and disagree...and find ofensive.

Case in point: Jesus Christ Superstar

As for the quiet in the theatre after, I kept thinking...if mine was the only soul He had to go thru that for...He would have done it. It's a bit overwhelming.