Posted on 08/01/2003 9:17:06 AM PDT by DPB101
"The Jews didn’t kill Christ," my stepfather was fond of saying. "They just worried him to death." Nonetheless, there was palpable relief in my Jewish household when the Vatican officially absolved us of the crime in 1965. At the very least, that meant we could go back to fighting among ourselves.
These days American Jews don’t have to fret too much about the charge of deicide — or didn’t, until Mel Gibson started directing a privately financed movie called "The Passion," about Jesus’ final 12 hours. Why worry now? The star himself has invited us to. Asked by Bill O’Reilly in January if his movie might upset ‘‘any Jewish people,’’ Gibson responded: "It may. It’s not meant to. I think it’s meant to just tell the truth."
"Anybody who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability."
Fears about what this ‘‘truth’’ will be have been fanned by the knowledge that Gibson bankrolls a traditionalist Catholic church unaffiliated with the Los Angeles Roman Catholic Archdiocese.
Traditionalist Catholicism is the name given to a small splinter movement that rejects the Second Vatican Council — which, among other reforms, cleared the Jews of deicide.
The Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages, which have lavished praise on Gibson and his project, reported in March in an adulatory interview with the star that the film’s sources included the writings of two nuns: Mary of Agreda, a 17th-century Spaniard, and Anne Catherine Emmerich, an early-19th-century German.
Only after Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, among others, spoke up about the nuns’ history of anti-Semitic writings did a Gibson flack disown this provenance.
Emmerich’s revelations include learning that Jews had strangled Christian children to procure their blood. It’s hard to imagine a scenario that bald turning up in ‘‘The Passion.’’ Indeed, it’s hard to imagine the movie being anything other than a flop in America, given that it has no major Hollywood stars and that its dialogue is in Aramaic and Latin (possibly without benefit of subtitles). Its real tinderbox effect could be abroad, where anti-Semitism has metastasized since Sept. 11, and where Gibson is arguably more of an icon (as his production company is named) than he is at home.
In recent weeks, Gibson has started screening a rough cut of his film to invited audiences, from evangelicals in Colorado Springs to religious leaders in Pennsylvania to celebrities in Washington. But the attendees are not always ecumenical. At the Washington screening, they included Peggy Noonan, Kate O’Beirne, Linda Chavez and David Kuo, the deputy director of the White House’s faith-based initiative.
The screening guest list did include a token Jew: that renowned Talmudic scholar Matt Drudge. No other Jewish members of the media were present, said one journalist who was there.
That journalist must remain unnamed as a result of signing a confidentiality agreement — a practice little seen at movie screenings. Since then, some of those present, including Drudge, have publicly expressed their enthusiasm for ‘‘The Passion.’’
If ‘‘The Passion’’ is kosher, couldn’t Gibson give Jews the same access to a Washington media screening, so they could see for themselves? Such inhospitality is not terribly Christian of him. One Jewish leader whose requests to see the film have been turned away is Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League.
‘‘If you tell everyone they won’t see it until it’s ready, O.K.,’’ Foxman said in a phone interview from Jerusalem. ‘‘But what Gibson’s done is preselect those who’ll be his supporters. If the movie is a statement of love, as he says it is, why not show it to you or me?’’
When I addressed this question last week to the star’s press representative, Alan Nierob, he told me that the ADL was being kept out because it had gone public with its concerns — as indeed it had, once Foxman’s letter to Gibson about ‘‘The Passion’’ failed to net a meeting with the filmmaker or a screening three months after it had been sent.
When I asked to see ‘‘The Passion,’’ Nierob said The New York Times was a ‘‘low priority’’ because The Times Magazine had run an ‘‘inaccurate’’ article in March in which Hutton Gibson, Mel Gibson’s father and a prominent traditionalist Catholic author, was quoted as saying that the Vatican Council was ‘‘a Masonic plot backed by the Jews’’ and that the Holocaust was a charade. But in fact, neither Hutton nor Mel Gibson — nor anyone else — has contacted the magazine to challenge the accuracy of a single sentence in the article in the four months since its publication.
Eventually, Gibson’s film will have to face audiences he doesn’t cherry-pick. We can only hope that the finished product will not resemble the screenplay that circulated this spring. That script — which the Gibson camp has said was stolen but which others say was leaked by a concerned member of the star’s own company — received thumbs down from a panel of nine Jewish and Roman Catholic scholars who read it. They found that Jews were presented as ‘‘bloodthirsty, vengeful and money-hungry,’’ reported The Jewish Week, which broke the story of the scholars’ report in June.
Perhaps ‘‘The Passion’’ bears little resemblance to that script. Either way, however, damage has been done: Jews have already been libeled by Gibson’s politicized rollout of his film. His game from the start has been to foment the old-as-Hollywood canard that the ‘‘entertainment elite’’ (which just happens to be Jewish) is gunning for his Christian movie.
But based on what? According to databank searches, not a single person, Jewish or otherwise, had criticized ‘‘The Passion’’ when Gibson went on O’Reilly’s show on Jan. 14 in January to defend himself against ‘‘any Jewish people’’ who might attack the film. Nor had anyone yet publicly criticized ‘‘The Passion’’ or Gibson by March 7, when The Wall Street Journal ran the interview in which the star again defended himself against Jewish critics who didn’t yet exist. (Even now, no one has called for censorship of the film — only for the right to see it and, if necessary, debate its content.)
Whether the movie holds Jews of two millenniums ago accountable for killing Christ or not, the star’s pre-emptive strategy is to portray contemporary Jews as crucifying Gibson. A similar animus can be found in a new book by one of Gibson’s most passionate defenders, the latest best seller published by the same imprint (Crown Forum) that gave us Ann Coulter’s ‘‘Treason.’’ In ‘‘Tales From the Left Coast,’’ James Hirsen writes, ‘‘The worldview of certain folks is seriously threatened by the combination of Christ’s story and Gibson’s talent.’’
Now who might those ‘‘certain folks’’ be? Since no one was criticizing ‘‘The Passion’’ when Hirsen wrote that sentence, you must turn elsewhere in the book to decode it. In one strange passage, the author makes a fetish of repeating Bob Dylan’s original name, Robert Zimmerman — a gratuitous motif in a tirade that is itself gratuitous in a book whose subtitle says its subject is ‘‘Hollywood stars.’’
Another chapter is about how ‘‘faith is often the subject of ridicule and negative portrayal’’ in Hollywood. One of the more bizarre examples Hirsen cites is ‘‘Sophie’s Choice,’’ in which ‘‘passages from the New Testament are quoted by Nazi officials in support of atrocities that were committed.’’
Now sectarian swords are being drawn. The National Association of Evangelicals, after a private screening of ‘‘The Passion,’’ released a statement last week saying, ‘‘Christians seem to be a major source of support for Israel,’’ and implying that such support could vanish if Jewish leaders ‘‘risk alienating two billion Christians over a movie.’’
Foxman says he finds that statement ‘‘obnoxious and offensive.’’
‘‘Here’s the first time we’ve heard that linkage: We support Israel, so shut up about anti-Semitism,’’ he added. ‘‘If that’s what support of Israel means, no thanks.’’
But the real question here is why Gibson and his minions would go out of their way to bait Jews and sow religious conflict, especially at this fragile historical moment. It’s enough to make you pray for the second coming of Charlton Heston.
I repeat; Rich is a slanderous, venomous little man as he proves once again in this little screed of his. He manufactures his own discredit and only reinforces unfortunate Jewish stereotypes through his bigotry. Why should he should be immune from criticism because of his ethnicity?
Yes, a familiar refrain indeed. Sung by Adolph himself and all his fellow travellers ever since. I'm sure you feel in good company ;).
Completely wrong, Sir Hiss.
According to Gibson himself, the start of all the unpleasantness was with the Catholics, after he consulted them about the manuscript - which subsequently turned up stolen.
Hmmmm....
So you think all of this is just a marketing ploy by Mel Gibson, in other words? Could be, that is certainly a tried and true tactic to raise interest in a film.
I always thought Catholics believed that even though I never heard a Catholic say it. Appears I was skunked by liberal propaganda.
He shouldn't be immune from crticism. Why the need to say that what he says reinforces negative stereotypes of Jews?
Does Clinton reinforce negative stereotypes of Christians? Why the often appearing double standard?
Agreed. The falsified quote from Chomsky has no place in this discussion. Chomsky was talking about science not "The Passion".
Because it does. People, despite their veneer of sophistication and civilization, still tend to categorize and identify with people in a "tribal" way. Do you identify with Rich? And if so, why? Is it because he is Liberal, Jewish, or both?
Does Clinton reinforce negative stereotypes of Christians?
When he walks around with that prop of a Bible under his arm, certainly! But, my feeling is many Christians who know better are not fooled by his blarney. People who have followed the writings of Rich shouldn't be fooled by his, either.
Why the often appearing double standard?
I don't see a double standard at work here because of criticism of Rich. He has declared himself as a partisan for one particular point of view and is buttressing his argument through ethnic identification and stereotyping of the "other" side. He tars Gibson, his movie and his adherents and then claims (without having seen the movie) all these really mean to "bait Jews and sow religious conflict" - just because Frank Rich and Abe Foxman say so.
If anything, it is Rich who is operating a "double standard" by trying to bait people and sow religious conflict by hammering this is some sort of thinly disguised anti-Jewish pogrom dressed up as a movie, and because some people he thought should have been invited to see the preliminary screenings were not! Unfortunately, he has few facts but apparently a lot of prejudice and innuendo to try and make his weak case.
Like it or not, when you evaluate Jews because of what a Jew does you're acting anti-Semitic unless you act similarly with all groups which would be a different ball of wax.
Neither you nor Frank Rich can have it both ways.
Rich claims to be writing this piece from a mainstream Jewish perspective. Therefore, he has set his views up as the voice of mainstream Jews, except the very few oddballs such as "that famous Talmudic scholar, Matt Drudge".
Why should you, he or anybody else be surprised his article is perceived by others as reflecting The Jewish View when that is Rich's intention when he penned it?
There are a good many Jews who fortunately aren't as irrational on this subject as Rich. One can only hope they will add their saner voices to the fray!
Ever hear of a "parody"? Very effective against left wing fanatics such as Frank Rich and Noam Chomsky. They want one to engage them in a marxist dialectic. Don't know about you, but I have no interest in playing their game. As I have mention, Gibson or anyone else should be allowed to write or make a film about their faith in peace. There is no grounds for a debate.
If my title enough wasn't absurd enough for you to know I had "falsified" nothing but was mocking liberals, the footnote link at the end would have made that clear.
"We believe this film in its present form has the potential to set Catholic-Jewish relations back decades with one brush stroke," said Richard Hirschhaut, Midwest director of the Anti-Defamation League. "It is clear that the characters who are the Jews are cast as . . . distrustful, scheming and evil."Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center said on CNN:
Well, my objection, first of all, is the sources. In an interview with the "Wall Street Journal", Mel Gibson said his three principle sources were the New Testament and two 18th century nuns, Mary of Agreta (ph), and Catherine Hererui (ph). Mary of Agreta, subscribed collective guilt to all Jews in her writings. Catherine Hemerui believes that Jews, right into the 18th century, were strangling Christian children in order to practice their rituals from their blood. That is outright anti-Semitism and to have a script based on those two sources is an area of concern by itself.Lewis Regenstein wrote in Jewsweek.com:On top of that, Mel Gibson has said he doesn't believe in the accomplishments of Vatican II. He belongs to a church that doesn't believe the accomplishments of Vatican II. And Vatican II to Jews is very important because it exonerated Jews from the charge of deside for which millions of Jews have been murdered through the ages.
It is unfortunate that Gibson's movie will apparently fail to make it clear who really killed Jesus, and instead will repeat the ancient blood libels that actually contradict the New Testament's account of the murder, and which have been used since that time to stir up hatred for Jesus' own people.From The Forward:
In its June 24 statement, the ADL praised an 18-page report prepared by an ad hoc group of nine Catholic and Jewish scholars who, the ADL said, "unanimously agreed that the screenplay reviewed was replete with objectionable elements that would promote anti-Semitism."Not uncommon for the leadership of civic and religious groups to be out of touch with the rank and file. Let's hope this is the case here."I think we've already impacted [Gibson]," the ADL's national director, Abraham Foxman, told the Forward, citing Gibson's recent statement. "We still have a ways to go in the hope that he and whoever works with him will decide to reach out and engage in a dialogue.
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.