April 11, 2004
A STORY THAT MUST NOT BE TOLD:
Why the Jews are wrong: Observations on Mel Gibson and The Passion (Ann Widdecombe, 5th April 2004, New Statesman)
The claim by some in the Jewish community that The Passion of the Christ is anti-Semitic is both paranoid and hysterical. Before anyone accuses me of being anti-Semitic, allow me to present my credentials: I regularly address Jewish groups such as JACS and B'nai B'rith, I have been a member of Conservative Friends of Israel, the Holocaust was a theme of my last novel and I have had opprobrium heaped on my head for defending some of Ariel Sharon's activities. It would be hard to find someone more pro-Jewish, but my modest contribution to Judaeo-Christian relations is now under threat as I feel so offended and insulted by the ludicrous outcry that greeted the filming of the most sacred part of the New Testament.What with Pharaoh, the diaspora, the pogroms and the Holocaust, it is not surprising that Jews are alert for any outbreak of ill-feeling; and the rest of us should be vigilant on their behalf. But there is a line between alertness and over-sensitivity, and they have well and truly crossed it in their reaction to this film. They cannot credibly propose to make it a crime to deny the reality of the Holocaust, while themselves denying the reality of a shameful episode in their history. You do not have to believe that Jesus was the Messiah to recognise the illegality of His trial or to wince at His suffering. A bit of wincing would not come amiss from the leaders of the Jewish community whose principal concern appears to be not that Christ suffered, but that Mel Gibson should have the gall to portray those sufferings.
I have little patience with the fashion of apologising for historical events for which current leaders have absolutely no responsibility. I do not believe that Britain should apologise for its empire or the Pope for the crusades or Italy for Nero. It is a childish, fatuous, self-indulgent process, and so the last thing I want is for modern Jews to apologise for the iniquities of the first-century Sanhedrin. But equally, they cannot expect that uniquely they should be protected from examination of the exploits of their ancestors.
If you believe this film should not be shown, then you must believe the Bible should not be read.
That would seem to be exactly the goal of many of the critics. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 11, 2004 12:38 PM
In defense of Passion critics, my understanding of the argument put forward is not that such a film should never have been produced. At issue is the particular way Jews are portrayed in the film, and the considerable license Mr. Gibson took in his interpretation (demonic figure appearing among group of Jewish children, etc). Many have also criticized the various historical inaccuracies. Pilate is portrayed as being controlled by the Jews, etc.
Further unnerving are Gibson's evasive answers about the holocaust, refusal to condemn his father's holocaust denying, and vile remarks made toward his critics. I understand that the film should be evaluated on its own artistic merits, but such despicable hemming & hawing heightens my sensitivity to subtexts within the film.
Certainly some of the critics I've heard are bordering on the hysterical. However this shouldn't diminish from sensible comments put forward by both Jews and thoughtful Christians.
It seems every time I try to discuss some of the critiques with a Passion-defender, I get an answer that basically amounts to "Anyone who criticizes The Passion is critcizing the Bible". It is possible to criticize Gibson's artistic vision, theological viewpoint, and filling in of historical blanks without disputing the Good Book itself.
I think Gibson could have dispelled so much of the controversy early on if he took the time to reach out to the Jewish community, rather than assume such an adversarial posture. I don't mean reaching out to the B'nai Brith et al. necessarilly; he could have simply made clearer statements about his intentions to the media. Normally I would think an artist is excused from such obligations, but given the immense impact of this film, extra responsibilities fall on Gibson's shoulders. It would have taken so little from him, I think.
You assume good intentions, or atr least merely defensive ones, on the part of the critics. I assume they're mostly just anti-Christian, especially the liberat Christian theologians..
Posted by: oj at April 11, 2004 6:08 PMI have not seen the movie and I have no intention of seeing it. From what I understand, the movie 1) conflates the accounts of all four gospels and 2) is largely based on the "visions" of a German nun. Those visions in turn seem to be drawn from the Mediterranean tradition of passion rituals based on the mutilation death of Adonis/Dionysus and other incarnations of the dying god.
Charles">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31980-2004Mar4.html">Charles Krauthamer, who is not a liberal and who is a Jew had the following to say about the movie:
"His other defense is that he is just telling the Gospel story. Nonsense. There is no single Gospel story of the Passion; there are subtle differences among the four accounts. Moreover, every text lends itself to interpretation. There have been dozens of cinematic renditions of this story, from Griffith to Pasolini to Zeffirelli. Gibson contradicts his own literalist defense when he speaks of his right to present his artistic vision. Artistic vision means personal interpretation.
And Gibson's personal interpretation is spectacularly vicious. Three of the Gospels have but a one-line reference to Jesus's scourging. The fourth has no reference at all. In Gibson's movie this becomes 10 minutes of the most unremitting sadism in the history of film. Why 10? Why not five? Why not two? Why not zero, as in Luke? Gibson chose 10.
In none of the Gospels does the high priest Caiaphas stand there with his cruel, impassive fellow priests witnessing the scourging. In Gibson's movie they do. When it comes to the Jews, Gibson deviates from the Gospels -- glorying in his artistic vision -- time and again. He bends, he stretches, he makes stuff up. And these deviations point overwhelmingly in a single direction -- to the villainy and culpability of the Jews.
The most subtle, and most revolting, of these has to my knowledge not been commented upon. In Gibson's movie, Satan appears four times. Not one of these appearances occurs in the four Gospels. They are pure invention. Twice, this sinister, hooded, androgynous embodiment of evil is found . . . where? Moving among the crowd of Jews. Gibson's camera follows close up, documentary style, as Satan glides among them, his face popping up among theirs -- merging with, indeed, defining the murderous Jewish crowd. . ."
I really do not understand why American Protestants, including OJ, feel compelled to defend a work that tramples on their foundational motto of solo scriptum and enacts the most sanguinary and superstitious parts of Catholic tradition, a portion of that tradition that has been formally abandoned by Rome.
As a Jew, However that is not my problem. Gibbson may be opposed to John Kerry as I am. But I am not under any illusion that he is my friend.
OJ:
I don't make any assumptions about the intentions of the critics. I am only responding to the film and the criticisms of the film. Given the film's problems, I would say that both Christians and Jews have a right to be upset with it. A film that plants the seeds of hate is an affront to both Christians (both "liberal" and "conservative")and Jews. Hate and lies are not Christian.
Posted by: Dispassionate at April 11, 2004 11:30 PMRobert:
Krauthammer is hopefully just wrong, rather than lying, but in suggesting that it is Gibson who introduces Satan to the tale--with the obvious implication that his purposes must be anti-Semitic--we can see the nature of the assault.
The Gospel according to St. Luke 22
The Plot against Jesus
1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the passover. Ex. 12.1-27
2 And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people.
3 ¶ Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscar'i-ot, being of the number of the twelve.
4 And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.
5 And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money.
6 And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude.
Crucifixion is reportedly a more horrific way to die than the mere scourging would have been, but how long would folks sit in a movie that just had Him hanging there? Presumably the scourging stands in for the suffering on the cross.
Dispassionate:
That's an argument for not telling the Gospel story.
Posted by: oj at April 12, 2004 12:02 AMOJ:
Luke does not have a satan running around in in the crowd. or a bunch of them. of course, You are conflating. And I have heard no justification for it. If you follow Luke, you can have Satan, but you do not get scourging.
The problem with your theory of substitution of scourging for crucifiction, is that it is an artistic choice that is reified by the bloody realism of cinematography. This "artistic" choice like all of Gibson's "artistic" choices is of course motivated by his "love" and "respect" for the Jews.
I'm with the good Doctor on this one. I should also cite another impecable conservative, William F. Buckley Jr.who wrote:
:This kind of improvisation is headlong in Gibson's Passion. Still, the film cannot help moving the viewer, shaking the viewer, even as he'd be moved and shaken by seeing a recreation of the end of Robert-François Damiens or one of those British sailors flogged to death. The suffering of Jesus isn't intensified by inflicting the one-thousandth blow: that is the Gibson/Braveheart contribution to an agony which was overwhelmingly spiritual in character and perfectly and definitively caught by Johann Sebastian Bach in his aptly named Passion of Christ According to St. Matthew. There beauty and genius sublimate a passion which Gibson celebrates by raw bloodshed."
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at April 14, 2004 1:55 AM