Posted on 08/02/2003 4:47:30 AM PDT by DPB101
With his movie about the death of Jesus under attack as anti-Semitic, Mel Gibson is trying to build an audience and a defense for his project by screening it for evangelical Christians, conservative Catholics, right-wing pundits, Republicans, a few Jewish commentators and Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah.
Gibson has poured $25 million of his money into the movie, "The Passion," calling it the most authentic and biblically accurate film about Jesus' death.
Now, seven months before its scheduled release next year on Ash Wednesday, the film has provoked a bitter uproar that antagonists on both sides warn could undermine years of bridge-building between Christians and Jews.
The handpicked audiences who have seen the film defend it as the most moving, reverential -- and violent -- depiction of Jesus' suffering and death ever put on screen. Its detractors, who have read a script but not seen the film, say it is a modern version of the medieval passion plays that portrayed Jews as "Christ-killers" and stoked anti-Jewish violence.
The controversy has been cast by many of his supporters as the Jews versus Mel Gibson. But it began when several Catholic scholars voiced concern about the project because of Gibson's affiliation with a splinter Catholic group that rejects the modern papacy and the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which in 1965 repudiated the charge of deicide against the Jews.
Gibson has screened "The Passion" for friendly audiences but has refused to show it to his critics, who include members of Jewish groups and biblical scholars.
In Washington, D.C., he held a screening for the conservative cyber columnist Matt Drudge, the columnists Cal Thomas and Peggy Noonan, and staff members of the Senate Republican Conference and the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, among many others.
In Colorado Springs, Colo., a center of evangelical support, the film drew raves. A convention of the Legionaries of Christ, a traditionalist Roman Catholic order of priests, saw a preview, as did Rush Limbaugh.
Audiences wept, and many were awestruck. "Mel Gibson is the Michaelangelo of this generation," said the Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals.
"It's going to be a classic," said Deal W. Hudson, publisher of Crisis, a conservative Catholic magazine. "It's going to be the go-to film for Christians of all denominations who want to see the best movie made about the passion of Christ."
Gibson has claimed that his movie will be true to the gospel account of the last hours of Jesus' life. But Matthew, Mark, Luke and John differ greatly, presenting Rashomon-like accounts of the roles of the Romans and Jews in the crucifixion.
A committee of Bible scholars who read a version of the script said that it was not true to Scripture or Catholic teaching and that it badly twisted the role of Jewish leaders in Jesus' death. The problem, the scholars said, was not that Gibson was anti-Semitic, but that his film could unintentionally incite anti-Semitic violence.
One scholar, Sister Mary C. Boys, a theology professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York, said: "When we read the screenplay, our sense was, this wasn't really something you could fix. All the way through the Jews are portrayed as bloodthirsty. We're really concerned that this could be one of the great crises in Christian-Jewish relations."
Gibson, who directed and co-wrote the film, is vehement that any criticism is based on an outdated script that was stolen. He declined to give an interview, and his company, Icon Productions, says it is showing the movie only to selected journalists and critics.
But he said in a statement, "Anti-Semitism is not only contrary to my personal beliefs; it is also contrary to the core message of my movie. 'The Passion' is a film meant to inspire, not offend."
The furor began last March, when the committee of scholars -- five Catholics and four Jews -- asked Icon Productions to show them the script. Five of the scholars hold endowed chairs at their universities, and all have long been engaged in interfaith dialogue. The group was assembled by staff members at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith.
These organizations were wary because they had spent years drafting guidelines for ridding passion plays of anti-Semitism. Some of these same scholars had consulted on the overhaul of the world's most famous passion play at Oberammergau, Germany.
The scholars say the other reason for concern was Gibson's strain of Catholicism. He built and belongs to a Los Angeles church that is part of a growing but fractured movement known as Catholic traditionalism. Considered beyond the pale even by conservatives, these traditionalists reject the Second Vatican Council and every pope since then, and celebrate Mass in Latin.
Gibson also set off alarm bells among the scholars when news reports quoted him as saying that his script had drawn on the diaries of Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich, a 19th-century mystic whose visions included such extra-biblical details as having the Jewish high priest order that Christ's cross be built in the Jewish temple.
Icon Productions did not respond to the scholars' request to see the script. But someone leaked a copy to one of them: the Rev. John T. Pawlikowski, a professor of social ethics and director of the Catholic-Jewish Studies program at Catholic Theological Union. Pawlikowski said in an interview that the script had come to him from a friend, who got it from someone else -- he did not know whom.
The scholars sent a report to Icon complaining about the script, again receiving no response. After excerpts of the report appeared in the media -- both sides accuse the other of leaking them -- the scholars began to air their grievances.
"This was one of the worst things we had seen in describing responsibility for the death of Christ in many, many years," Pawlikowski said in an interview.
In particular, they objected that the Jewish priest, Caiaphas, is depicted as intimidating Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, into going along with the crucifixion. (Several people who saw the film in July say that the version they saw contained this portrayal.) The scholars say this distorts the fact that the Romans were the occupying power, and the Jewish authorities their agents.
Paul Lauer, director of marketing for Icon, said that Gibson's rendering was not anti-Semitic but simply followed the New Testament. "There are some sympathetic to Christ and some who clearly want to get rid of this guy," he said. "And that's clearly scriptural. You can't get away from the fact that there are some Jews who wanted this guy dead."
The script the scholars read was dated October 2002. Lauer acknowledged that filming began that same month. But scripts often change after shooting begins, he said.
Icon Productions threatened to sue the scholars and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The bishops soon apologized, and said that it had neither authorized the scholars' committee nor the report.
Gibson has since sought to mend fences with the bishops. He recently met in Washington with officials of the bishops conference, and has shown the film to Cardinals Francis George of Chicago and Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia, and Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver.
But the scholars and the Anti-Defamation League have not backed down. They are pressing Gibson to show them the rough cut that he has screened for others.
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said: "If you say this is not anti-Semitic and this is a work of love and reconciliation, why are you afraid to show it to us?"
But Lauer said, "There is no way on God's green earth that any of those people will be invited to a screening. They have shown themselves to be dishonorable."
Those who have seen it say that the movie is brutally graphic, dwelling at length on a scene that renders Jesus a bloody piece of flesh before he is even nailed to the cross. He is beaten with a leather strap studded with metal points that, when slapped across a tabletop, stick in the wood like spikes.
The beating in the film is administered by Roman soldiers, said Hudson, the Catholic magazine editor. "By the time the Romans get through with him, you've forgotten what the Jews might have done."
Gibson's vision "pays tribute to Judaism," Lauer said, by underscoring Christianity's Jewish roots. The actor who plays Jesus, Jim Caviezel, appears Semitic, a far cry from the Nordic icon of popular paintings.
All the movie's dialogue is in Aramaic and Latin. (Scholars say that this belies Gibson's claim of total authenticity, because the Romans would have spoken Greek). Gibson had originally said the film would have no English subtitles. But he is screening it with them, and may allow the subtitles to stay, Lauer said.
"The Passion" has no distributor, but Lauer said that "two major studios" were interested. And Gibson may distribute it himself, he said. The controversy, he said, had built a considerable buzz about the movie.
"You can't buy that kind of publicity," he said.
Many like me would buy one AND go to the theatre to see it.
Laurie, methinks you and your fishwrap doth protest too much.
With that logic I better not attend Christian services tommorrow morning.....it could unintentionally incite anti-Semitic violence.
Gibson's strong traditional Catholic views have made him a perennial target for the Left and its mouthpieces. He and his wife don't use birth control, for example. And of course he's quite pro-life. If anything could raise a larger row among the sexual missionaries of Hollywood than those two unabashedly counter-cultural positions, I can't think what it might be.
It was the Jewish authorities of the time who arranged for Christ's execution, of course. That cannot be denied. But it was not "the Jews," in some transcendent collective sense, who bear the responsibility for His death. That would be slanderous even if Christ had not been foreordained to die on the cross.
Christ was a Jew, born of Jewish parents, whose most important statements all paid full respect to the traditions and scholarship of Judaism. Remember "I come not to overthrow the Law, but to fulfill it" -- ? Remember "Not one word of the Commandments will pass away" -- ? Given all of that, plus the immense weight Christianity places on the Old Testament as the foundation of Christian teaching, how could anyone but a person of irrational viciousness -- a Frank Rich, perhaps? -- think that Christianity could vilify the Jewish people?
Collectivism, whether it be racial, religious, ethnic, or other, is always a grotesque perversion of human nature, and a complete rejection of the message of Him who told us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, "for the love of God."
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
You hit the nail on the head, no pun intended. As long as Christians, and Catholics in particular, capitulate and 'tone down' whatever others find offensive, no matter how true, then all is right with the world.
Vatican II, with its pandora's box of good and bad, set the tone by 'inviting' a group of critical eyes from other major religions, to help insure that nothing would be done to offend their sensibilities. And changes were made based on their advice!! Can anyone name any other religion or time or group that would permit this to be done during their conferences??
I am personally ofended by this outragous behaviour.
Indeed, they know what's best for us.
Maybe its just me but the Left seems to have a problem with people professing sincere religious beliefs today.
It helps to think of it this way. The Left thinks of themselves as moderate, all-loving, tolerant, and possessing the best knowledge and wisdom. Anyone else is extreme and just not properly educated yet. There is only their way, the 'correct' way, and other incorrect ways, the rest of 'us' waiting for them to come and save us, like one might rescue a puppy caught in a fence. There is freedom of speech and thought, as long as its theirs.
Screwtape
Screwtape
Sister Mary Boys...of Union Theological Seminary...hmmm... The liberal media seem to have very different notions about what constitutes a reputable Catholic scholar... Maybe that's because they have so few friends and colleagues who are really Catholic. Wonder why?
Let's not forget, anti-Catholicism is back in fashion. Everyone who is anyone (at least in the left, and that includes so-called Catholics) bashes at least a little. It's harmless, after all the Catholics are so extreme. (/sarcasm) They are just showing art. We just don't understand it. If they have to explain it, well, you know..
On the other hand, the movie made by the extreme Catholic group is surely offensive, sight unseen. (more sarcasm) How could it not be?? Imagine using the word Nazi wherever Catholic appears and you have an understanding of how they are thinking.
The Dean at Princton stated ~it was doubtful whether other religions could be slammed like that (moslem)
Absolutely not tolerate the slam, not even permit it.
Yeah, logic, that's it. The writers of articles like this one would like nothing better!! All the more reason to go.
Absolutely. Imagine the inner conflict. And they are afraid that we believe Jesus was not just a man, too.
If people contend that this movie will incite anti-Semitism, then they must concede that all movies have the power to influence behavior.
As for myself, I don't have a problem with it. I plan to see the movie. (I'm also a pastor.)
Wow, you said it!! There must be something they are afraid the public will see and be moved by - the horror!! I plan to see it, too.
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.