MSNBC - Altercation:
Name: D.Z.
Hometown: Mobile, AL
Comments:
Sorry for the gruesomely long post, but a shallow treatment of this topic is exactly what Mel has done and I wouldn't want to repeat his mistake:
A point that I think has been overlooked, although Leon Wieseltier does address it in his review of the movie for TNR, is the stylistic choices that have been made in the making of "The Passion," anti-Semitic and otherwise. Although there is almost nothing that one can say the Bible is "absolutely clear" about, the original sources here seem fairly straightforward (at least they were when I was in Bible school): Pilate, bureaucrat, doesn't really care but decides to have Jesus condemned rather than face anger from the restless natives, led by the Pharisees. None of this is anti-Semitic in and of itself, since most Christians accept that all of humanity is equally responsible for Christ's death, since his entire purpose was to die for our redemption: nous sommes tous Christ-killers.
Gibson's film, however, bypasses these theological aspects and focuses on the sensual and the gory, and this is where it becomes offensive. Seemingly ignoring the bulk of Christian theology, it chooses to highlight the agony and suffering of a man, and the cruelty of his betrayers and tormenters. Instead of dwelling on the central tenets of Christians' faith, that Jesus died for the sins of ALL, the movie places its focus and the blame squarely on the immediate physical causes of Jesus’ death: the Romans and the Jews. Since we don’t have too many Romans left to kick around anymore, the process of elimination leaves us with only one target. The anti-Semitism in the film appears to be an almost incidental byproduct, although one that Gibson clearly doesn't care too much about correcting, the result of directing all attention toward the base technicalities of Jesus’s execution. That it exists at all in a movie in which most of the characters, positive and negative, are Jewish is stunning.
Roger Ebert’s quote here is illuminating: "The movie is 126 minutes long, and I would guess that at least 100 of those minutes, maybe more, are concerned specifically and graphically with the details of the torture and death of Jesus. This is the most violent film I have ever seen."
Ebert having seen quite a few films, to say the least, this statement reveals what is most offensive about Gibson’s work. Even had he left in Caiaphas’ line about killing one man to save the nation, as some critics have suggested, the overall spotlight of the film would have stayed the same. It ignores the spiritual and centers in on the physical -- why make people think when you can shock, horrify, revolt, and wrench them.
In this respect, Wieseltier and Gregg Easterbrook are on the right track: having spent much of his career trafficking in violent movies, Gibson has finally found a topic in which the violence is guaranteed to leave audiences deeply affected. He is playing on the deepest beliefs of his viewers, the vast majority of whom his brand of religion ironically consigns to a fate less than salvation. Clearly, notoriety and possibly wealth, acclaim, etc., are Mel’s main goals here. For that reason alone, Christians have much more to be outraged about in "The Passion" than Jews. He has taken their faith and debased it in a terrible, self-serving way.
Amen.
Name: D.Z.
Hometown: Mobile, AL
Comments:
Sorry for the gruesomely long post, but a shallow treatment of this topic is exactly what Mel has done and I wouldn't want to repeat his mistake:
A point that I think has been overlooked, although Leon Wieseltier does address it in his review of the movie for TNR, is the stylistic choices that have been made in the making of "The Passion," anti-Semitic and otherwise. Although there is almost nothing that one can say the Bible is "absolutely clear" about, the original sources here seem fairly straightforward (at least they were when I was in Bible school): Pilate, bureaucrat, doesn't really care but decides to have Jesus condemned rather than face anger from the restless natives, led by the Pharisees. None of this is anti-Semitic in and of itself, since most Christians accept that all of humanity is equally responsible for Christ's death, since his entire purpose was to die for our redemption: nous sommes tous Christ-killers.
Gibson's film, however, bypasses these theological aspects and focuses on the sensual and the gory, and this is where it becomes offensive. Seemingly ignoring the bulk of Christian theology, it chooses to highlight the agony and suffering of a man, and the cruelty of his betrayers and tormenters. Instead of dwelling on the central tenets of Christians' faith, that Jesus died for the sins of ALL, the movie places its focus and the blame squarely on the immediate physical causes of Jesus’ death: the Romans and the Jews. Since we don’t have too many Romans left to kick around anymore, the process of elimination leaves us with only one target. The anti-Semitism in the film appears to be an almost incidental byproduct, although one that Gibson clearly doesn't care too much about correcting, the result of directing all attention toward the base technicalities of Jesus’s execution. That it exists at all in a movie in which most of the characters, positive and negative, are Jewish is stunning.
Roger Ebert’s quote here is illuminating: "The movie is 126 minutes long, and I would guess that at least 100 of those minutes, maybe more, are concerned specifically and graphically with the details of the torture and death of Jesus. This is the most violent film I have ever seen."
Ebert having seen quite a few films, to say the least, this statement reveals what is most offensive about Gibson’s work. Even had he left in Caiaphas’ line about killing one man to save the nation, as some critics have suggested, the overall spotlight of the film would have stayed the same. It ignores the spiritual and centers in on the physical -- why make people think when you can shock, horrify, revolt, and wrench them.
In this respect, Wieseltier and Gregg Easterbrook are on the right track: having spent much of his career trafficking in violent movies, Gibson has finally found a topic in which the violence is guaranteed to leave audiences deeply affected. He is playing on the deepest beliefs of his viewers, the vast majority of whom his brand of religion ironically consigns to a fate less than salvation. Clearly, notoriety and possibly wealth, acclaim, etc., are Mel’s main goals here. For that reason alone, Christians have much more to be outraged about in "The Passion" than Jews. He has taken their faith and debased it in a terrible, self-serving way.
Amen.
