The Release of Mel Gibson's 'Passion:' Are Concerns Legitimate? by Michael Parker 22 February 2004  In the closing moments of the video series The Ascent of Man, the Jewish philosopher James Bronowski walks out into a pond. Around him are the remnants of old battlements and buildings now uninhabited. "This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz," he explains. "This is where people were turned into numbers." As his expensive loafers are completely submerged under the surface of the pond, he gets down on his haunches, reaches down into the water, and with both hands brings up dark-colored mud, the color of coal and ash. "Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave." With the release of Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ fast upon us, a great anxiety is striking at the hearts of many people, especially those familar with the sights and sounds of those many dark and torturous years not yet forgotten to them. They are years we as humanity promised we would never forget nor let the likes of happen again. And yet, here we are. I wonder what intentions lie behind Gibson making a film that focuses solely on the death of Christ. Does he know, let alone care, that the passion play has been one of the most effective tools used to promote Anti-Semitism and violence toward Jews? Consider a few of the worst moments in Jewish history prior to the Holocaust: "the Crusader massacre of Jews in the twelfth century, the Chmielnicki killings in the Ukraine in the seventeenth century, and the Ukrainian pogroms of 1918 and 1919" (Gilbert, Martin, The Holocaust, p. 108). Consider also the fact that Hitler carried out his murderous campaign against the Jew based on religious belief: "Should the Jew," he had written in his book Mein Kampf, "triumph over the poeple of this world, his Crown will be the funeral wreath of mankind.....And so I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord" (ibid, p. 28). Many in the Jewish community, even scholars, columnists, and historians have voiced concerns that Gibson’s film --whether or not he knows the connect between passion plays and violence toward Jews-- has the potential to reignite a hatred of the Jewish people and spur persecution not seen for nearly half of a century. Why do they feel this way? Abraham H. Foxman, the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, explains that sentiment in the US today proves that Jews are not immune to anti-Semitism today. [The] ADL just took a poll on attitudes in this country, and before the movie was released one out of four Americans believe today that the Jews are responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. If we ever had a doubt what was out there, how fragile it was, how serious it was, all you need to do is to read our mail. Read the e-mails, read the Web sites encouraging people to see the film. How fragile it is out there. What a reservoir of hatred! Furthermore, Foxman, who found his way into one of the screenings in Florida, explains why Gibson’s film causes him so much anxiety. Many good people do not understand why the Jewish community is so concerned with a film they haven't seen.... We, the Jewish people, take history very, very seriously. We have a long history, but also a painful history and a tragic history, and if others have no desire to learn from their history, we have taught our children and teach our children from generation to generation that we must remember and learn from it. For almost 2,000 years in Western civilization, four words legitimized, rationalized, and fueled anti-Semitism: "The Jews killed Christ.".... For hundreds of years those four words - acted out, spoken out, sermonized out - inspired and legitimized pogroms, inquisitions and expulsions. Hitler, in 1934, visited the Oberammergau Passion Play, and when he left, he proclaimed (and I paraphrase): "The whole world needs to see this Passion Play, for then they will understand why I despise the Jewish people." Many during the Holocaust who killed Jews from Monday to Friday went to church on Sunday and there was no disconnect for them, because, after all, all they were doing was killing "Christ killers." So for us, the possible impact of a Passion Play on the global scene with a global producer, with an icon, is not a fantasy, it's a serious anxiety. For us, it is a flashback into history. The Passion of the Christ is being released this coming Wednesday (Ash Wednesday) in approximately 3,000 movie theaters in the US alone. Media coverage of the controversy has created a groundswell of interest. Boxoffice analysts are predicting it could raise over $30 million in its first weekend. There are approximately four other primary concerns I have come across: 1) Mel Gibson’s return to a traditional belief of Catholicism. 2) The sources used for the film highlight Jewish Guilt. 3) Mel Gibson’s behavior when confronted by critics about his film. 4) The manner in which Gibson is promoting the film. 1. Mel Gibson’s return to a traditional belief of Catholicism. Marco Cava writes that Gibson has "reaffirmed the conservative views of his childhood, which range from an insistence on holding Mass in Latin to a rejection of 1962's liberalizing Second Vatican Council," which proclaimed that Jews did not bear responsibility for Christ's death. "[He’s] returned to ... the teachings of his father, Hutton Gibson, 84, whose books rail against the liberalization of the Catholic Church.....[and, who,] as recently as this week...went on radio to reiterate his belief that most of the Holocaust is ‘fiction.’ " This concern was made more apparent when, in an interview with Peggy Noonan, Gibson described the Holocaust in this manner: "The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps." In a reply, Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles responded by letter: "To describe Jewish suffering during the Holocaust as 'some of them were Jews in concentration camps' ... feeds right into the hands of Holocaust deniers and revisionists." 2. The sources used for the film highlight Jewish Guilt. The Passion of the Christ is about the last 12 violent hours of Christ’s life. The content is taken primarily from the Four Gospels. It is known that the writers of these gospels were not kind in their depiction of the Jewish people-- they were the ones who chose to free the murderer Barabbas over Jesus, condemning Jesus to die by crucifixion. The Gospels describe the event differently, as listed here-- Mark blames the Chief Priests, explaining that they went out amongst the angry mob of Jews and swayed them to forsake Christ. John blames the Jewish leaders who stood outside of the Judgement Hall so that they would not, after delivering Jesus to them, be defiled and thus be unable to eat the passover. Luke places the blame solely on the people. But of all the writers, Matthew is most damning of the Jews. He purports that when Pilate washes his hands in front of the tumultuous crowd, pronouncing that he is innocent of the blood of "this just man," the people reply "His blood be on us and our children." It is this one line that has been used to incite hatred and persecution on the Jewish people. In the film, Gibson has promised that the subtitles for this line have been removed. However, the line will still be delivered in Aramaic. In regards to the sources for the Passion, critics of the film are also concerned about the use of controversial writings of a 19th-century mystic and saint, Anne Catherine Emmerich, who "emphasized the Jews’ blood guilt." 3. Mel Gibson’s behavior when confronted by critics about the film. Mel Gibson’s flippant and defensive behavior toward his critics is one of a few reasons that this film is being considered hateful toward Jews. The manner in which he has responded to suggestions and opinion pieces has stunned many-- is this the same beloved super-star who recently impressed many by his role as the ex-preacher who struggles to reconcile his faith after losing his wife to a tragic automobile accident in the movie Signs? The answer, unfortunately, is yes. The most bizarre example of his hateful behavior was his response to a critical piece published in the New York Times by Frank Rich: "I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick... I want to kill his dog." Heather Havrilesky, in her Salon article titled "Passionate Finger Pointing," explains that Gibson’s behavior has her concerned also: [I]nstead of playing the peace-loving Christian, Gibson is swatting at critics, real and imagined. Of New York Times writer Frank Rich, Gibson admits to having said, "I wanted to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick. I want to kill his dog." Throw such statements into the mix with his fervent beliefs, the apparent notion that he has a mandate, the violent images in his film, his unsettling demeanor, and his suspicions that there's a conspiracy against him and his father, and you've got more than a little cause for squeamishness. Naturally, the thousands of Christians pictured weeping after seeing his film add to the unsettled feeling among those who see "The Passion of the Christ" as an unnecessary provocation during an already unstable time. 4. The manner in which Gibson is promoting his film. Controversy also lies in the fact that Gibson has promoted his film in a manner that is exclusive and secretive. The AP article "Faith and Fury Propel Gibson’s ‘Passion’" (USA TODAY, February 19) explains: "The Catholic movie star has restricted most early screenings to thousands of pastors, ministers and Christian leaders; urged use of The Passion for proselytizing; distributed movie tie-in sermons for Sunday morning services; encouraged grass-roots Internet promotional campaigns by Christian groups; and even sought the endorsement of the pope - although whether or not he received it remains in doubt." Foxman, however, is most concerned that Gibson is promoting the film as the Gospel truth. [W]e knew that Mel Gibson was planning to make a movie with an agenda. He's entitled. He's entitled to do a film or write a book or do whatever he wants based on his vision, based on his interpretation, based on his view. But that's not what he was selling. He was not making a film on the crucifixion of Jesus based on his interpretations and those of his father. He was selling it and promoting it as the Gospel truth, the historical truth, the Biblical truth. That's what got our attention. Because Gibson is one of film’s biggest stars, the critics fear that many people may flock to see his film and be utterly convinced in his vision of the Passion. After all, Gibson’s last directorial film Braveheart won him the Best Picture and Director Oscars for 1995. There is no doubt that the cinematography, art direction, and visual effects will be visually breathtaking and convincing. Indeed, Gibson’s name on the film is a major draw. Marco Cava of the USA TODAY (in his article "Gibson Personalizes ‘Passion of the Christ’) reports the potential box office attendees if only Christians see the film-"In the USA, there are roughly 220 million adherents to a range of Christian faiths. There are 2 billion Christians worldwide, roughly one-third of the planet. That's a lot of movie tickets." On Blindness and Hope "Forget the past and you’ll lose both eyes," wrote Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in the opening of his work Gulag Archipelago. To me, Solzhenitsyn is saying that the past is the groundwork, the blueprint, of the future. If we forget or neglect it, we will set our course into the future blindly, without direction. In regards to one’s character, this blindness could also be a condition created by our cultural attitudes. Heather Havrilesky explains it this way-- Whether or not Gibson himself is sainted or despised or both, his message is indistinguishable from the prejudices, rage and persecution that are woven into our psyches and into the cloth of our Judeo-Christian culture. What's most dangerous about such prejudices and resentments is the frequency with which we assign them to some external source instead of acknowledging them in ourselves. While our targets shift with our fickle whims, we prefer to pretend that we alone are the enlightened ones who accept all people and all faiths, self-trickery that is as absurd and as precious as the matching egocentric assumptions of those who suppose themselves to be born into the one true faith, who imagine the rest of the world wearing black robes and worshipping false gods in some forsaken shrine, across the street or across the sea. I like Havrilesky’s thought that we should acknowledge "them in ourselves." After all, awareness of this magnitude does build and retain bridges that span boundaries, borders, and nations. Abraham Foxman, also, talks about acknowledgement and awareness. [I]n the last exchange of letters, the first exchange of letters, where we exchange niceties, compliments, respect, and Mel Gibson reached out in his letter and said to me "Let us love each other. Despite our differences, let us love each other." I'm reminded of a parable from the Hasidic masters who have taught us so much with little stories. It reminds me of the dialogue between a rabbi and his pupil. When his pupil says to the rebbe, "Rebbe, I love you," the rebbe says to him, "Do you know what hurts me?" The student says "No, Rebbe, I do not." The rebbe then says, "How can you love me when you don't know what hurts me?" With this in mind, I take you back to James Bronowski, standing at the pond in which the ashes of millions of Holocaust victims were flushed. With the mud sitting in the palms of his hands, he ends his discourse saying: "I owe it as a scientist to my friend Leo Szilard, I owe it as a human being to the many members of my family who died at Auschwitz, to stand here by the pond as a survivor and a witness. We have to cure ourselves of the itch for power. We have to close the distance between the push-button order and the human act. We have to touch people."

© Copyright 2005 Michael Parker.
Last update: 4/1/2005; 7:04:35 AM.

Powered by