Scott's Review: The Passion of the Christ (long)

[scottcsmith]

I was trying to remember which of the Gospels told the parable of the kitchen table. I've re-read them and there is no mention of Jesus building the world's first kitchen table. It happens in Mel Gibson's new film, "The Passion of the Christ."

I bring up the kitchen table scene -- which is meant as a light moment in between the scenes of horrific violence -- as it is symbolic of "The Passion"; Gibson, like the authors of the Gospels who used the source material in Mark, takes bits and pieces from the Gospels, borrows from the Passion visions of the nun Anne Catherine Emmerich, and adds his own interpretation to the story.

Prior to seeing "The Passion," I had a discussion with a Christian gentleman (I'm Jewish, by the way) and I expressed my reservation that Gibson would include the dialog from Matthew 27, verses 24-25, where the Jewish crowd cries out for the blood of Jesus to be on their hands and the hands of their children. The response I received was, "Why should Gibson change the Gospels to make Jews happy?" Which is a valid point. But I think the argument goes both ways: if Gibson shouldn't change the Gospels, he also shouldn't add to them.

The Passion of the Christ is a story that most people know, even non-Christians. The version Gibson presents is a bloody, anti-Semitic account of the last 12 hours of Christ's life.

The movie opens with Jesus (James Caviezel) in Gethsemane, and events unfold pretty much as told in the Gospels, with Judas (Luca Lionello) betraying Jesus to a large, bloodthirsty crowd of Jews, who are just itching to beat someone. And beat Jesus they do, which establishes right from the start that it was the Jews, not the Romans, that wanted to spill the blood of Jesus.

And oh, how it spills! Everywhere, great red puddles of blood. Caviezel's Jesus is essentially a walking punching bag to be abused and tortured. It's hard to gauge his performance as 95% of it is spent receiving various forms of torture.

The bloodthirsty crowd of Jews pummel Jesus on their way to another crowd of bloodthirsty Jews, the high priests. Soon a large crowd of bloodthirsty Jews has gathered, and everyone, it seems, wants Jesus dead.

Judas, meanwhile, having betrayed Christ, is tormented by a couple of Jewish children. Gibson turns the Jewish children into demons. Nothing symbolic there, eh, Mel? Eventually the demon Jewish children (the group grows to about 10 evil Jewish kids) chase Judas out of the city where he decides to hang himself.

Observing the events of the Passion silently is Satan. We know it's Satan because in one scene Gibson shows us a snake. This androgynous figure (Rosalinda Celentano) pops up every so often, silently mocking Christ. Another bit of dramatic license from Gibson.

The huge bloodthirsty crowd of Jews eventually brings Jesus to the Roman procurator, Pontius Pilate (Hristo Shopov) and demand that Pilate crucify Jesus. Pilate here is portrayed as a thoughtful, compassionate ruler (despite historic accounts of Pilate as a man who hated Jews and liked to see them dead) who cannot find any reason to punish Jesus. Pilate sends Jesus to King Herod (who, for reasons that are unclear, is dressed as a drag queen), and Herod sends Jesus back to Pilate, again stating that Jesus was innocent.

The Pharisees are very intent on seeing Jesus dead (as is the very huge crowd of Jews) and eventually convince the doubtful ruler to carry out the punishment. Pilate literally washes his hands of Jesus and Jesus is sent off to be crucified.

Gibson, apparently influenced by Stephen King, shows in graphic detail Jesus being tortured to death. Blood flies, skin is flayed, and limbs are broken. It just goes on and on and on. Gibson's camera helpfully shows much of the carnage in slow motion. Gibson has created the world's first Christian snuff film.

The Roman guards that torture Jesus are portrayed as mindless brutes, and again Gibson shifts the blame of the death of Jesus to the Jews.

Lost in all of the bodily fluids is the message Jesus preached, which I think has something to do with love. As Gibson spends about two minutes of screen time total showing us flashbacks to Jesus preaching and his last supper, the message is lost in favor of scenes of a crow pecking out the eyes of one of the two thieves being crucified with Jesus, or shots of Jesus' ribs poking out through his flesh. And to think entire families will be seeing this movie. I'd hate to be the parent of a traumatized eight-year-old who has suffered through two hours of watching their beloved Jesus being tortured to death.

There's no denying the film's power; a number of people in the theater with me were crying throughout the film. The cinematography of Caleb Deschanel is at times breathtaking, and John Debney's musical score is rich with middle-eastern sounds and instruments. Gibson's actors speak in Aramaic and Latin, which is a pretty bold move for a director to take.

Make no mistake, this is a film by a Christian for a Christian audience. Anyone else is likely to be in the very least disgusted with the on-screen carnage and wondering why Jesus was put to death in the first place. The Gospels are not particularly accurate when it comes to portraying Jewish life during the time period Jesus was to have lived. The reason the high priests give to Pilate as to why Jesus should be executed is that he was guilty of blasphemy, by claiming to be the Messiah. Jewish law, however, does not consider a claimant to Messiah as someone who is guilty of blasphemy. Jewish history is filled with many claimants to the title of Messiah.

So, the Jews of the Gospels have no reason to have Jesus executed. The high priests may not have liked Jesus, but that wasn't enough to sentence him to death. Also, the Jews did not have the kind of power over the Romans that the Gospels say they did. In fact, Roman rule was brutal and the Jews were barely allowed to live life as Jews. Not that any of that matters to Gibson.

Is the movie anti-Semitic? I think it is. It just goes over the top in portraying Jews as wanting Jesus dead. It's so bad that we're expected to believe that the Jews would rather have a ruthless murderer, Barabbas, freed to their midst than to let Jesus live. It's clear the dialog from Matthew 27:25 is left in the movie; Gibson just had the caption removed.

Is Mel Gibson anti-Semitic? I don't know. I think he is on some level. This movie is his vision, a project he funded with his own money, a screenplay he helped to write, and a film he directed. Clearly, Gibson isn't going to go on Larry King and say, "Yes, Larry, I hate Jews." Whatever his view, The Passion is a troubling film, and there's no doubt in my mind that the film is going to cause anti-Jewish sentiment.

[jeter]

1. Scott, you are totally wrong...

This movie is not anti-semetic. Each and every story of the Gospels tells the same thing. Christ was brought before the council of Priests in the Temple - because he was accused of blasphomy (spelling?).

They were the ones who wanted Jesus killed. All gospels either down play the role of the Romans or don't mention it at all.

The acts of these priests are not an indictment of the whole Jewish people. It's the same thing as calling a movie about Nazi crimes anti-German. It's not. And neither is this movie anti-semetic.

I watched it. I had other problems with it, that you don't even mention.

That this is a movie about the "suffering of Jesus" and how he died for all of us - and yet the scenes where Jesus was attacked were exaggerated.

For instance, the opening scene when Judas gives up Jesus to those troops (who were not Roman by the way), they begin attacking and beating Christ. But in the Bible, all four gospels tell of Jesus being "led away" not beaten.

Also, the brutal scene of Jesus being whipped. Two of the four books talks of Jesus being whipped by the Romans. One, John I think, so Pilote didn't have to kill him. He had hoped that flogging Christ would appease the crowd. It didn't. The second, Luke, it was just mentioned in one line and never went into any kind of brutality. It seemed very ordinary.

In the film, Christ is beaten with whips that had hooks and nails on them. These things ripped out chunks of his flesh. I think this was totally made up by Gibson.

The scene you mention of Christ being the inventor of the modern kitchen table was strange, but inconsequential.

So my problem with the film was that here was a story about how he suffered for us and then it exaggerates his suffering. I think it undermines the movie and its message.

The whole anti-semetic element is much ado about nothing.

Jews are not perfect. Any portrayal to the contrary is not anti-semetic.

[jeter]

2. Jesus was not put to death for claiming to be the Messiah

He was challenging the control of the Jewish authorities. He went to the temple and spoke of the corruption of the high priests; he knocked over the tables where the merchants sold their goods.

He claimed he would tear down the Temple and rebuild it in three days.

He claimed that the Jewish priests had no authority over the people.

He was also popular and gaining much more attention. He had been warmly welcomed during his arrival in Jerusalem just a couple of days before - people were asking questions of him. He was seen by many in Judea/Israel as the new Isaiah, or the new John the Baptist.

He was a threat to their positions.

That was why they had him killed.

Why would the Romans want to kill Jesus? What possible motivation would they have other than to appease a local King or Priests?

[regnaD kciN]

10. Yes and no...

I do think that the incident of the takeover of the Temple gave good reason for the (Sadduceean) Temple priests to want Jesus dead, which is of course a far cry from saying that "the Jews" as a whole wanted the same thing.

But, "why would the Romans want to kill Jesus?" Well, the fact that he was considered to possibly be the Messiah would be a good first reason. Remember that, at the time, the Messiah was considered to be the rightful King who would drive the foreign occupiers out of the land. When someone being thought of as Messiah makes a triumphal entry to Jerusalem amidst crowds of cheering supporters, and then takes over the Temple, that would be more than enough to start Roman alarm bells ringing. In fact, it would be understandable for them to see the seizing of the Temple as the signal to begin the uprising, and it probably surprised them that Jesus and his followers then left, instead of holding it as the centerpoint from which the rebellion would begin.

Both the Roman military administration and the Temple priests would have good reasons for wishing this figure from Nazareth out of the way.

By the way, even if you accept the Gospel accounts uncritically, it would be incorrect to claim that Jesus was condemned by the priestly council (which was almost certainly not the full Sanhedrin, but a hand-picked "kangaroo court" summoned at night to take care of the matter once and for all) for "blasphemy" because he "claimed to be the Messiah." As others have pointed out, that wouldn't have been a capital offense -- the Messiah was always assumed to be a normal human being called by God. What, according to the Gospels, drew the condemnation was his apparent claim to outright divinity:

Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." -- Matthew 26:64

Would claiming to be God constitute outright blasphemy? It isn't clear. But one thing's likely: before a tribunal that was already determined to render a guilty verdict, it would be as good an excuse as any.

[eridani]

15. You're kidding, right?

Judea was a very restive province, with a great deal of unhappiness about Romans tromping all over religious and political sovereignty. A Messiah would have been expected to lead a rebellion against the Romans to restore a true Jewish kingdom.

Judas was a Sicarius and Simon a Zealot--anti-Roman groups that wanted a free Judea, and did random assassinations of Romans to bring that about. When Jesus kept insisting "My kingdom is not of this world," they got disgusted and turned him in. (Or maybe the tactic was a ploy to get Christ to quit having cold feet and start the revolution like a Messiah was supposed to. That would account for later regrets that the tactic backfired, and the resulting suicide.)

Pilate was attempting to appease an angry mob by releasing a political prisoner. The rebellious crowd preferred the guerilla fighter and kicker of Roman ass Barabbas (Barabbas = Son of the Father = a rival Messiah claimant, no more a random murderer than a member of the French Resistance) to Jesus, the advocate of internal ethical and moral struggle.

[scottcsmith]

3. I'm assuming you're not Jewish

Obviously, Christians are going to tell me the film's anti-Semitism is, as you put it "much ado about nothing." Thanks for dismissing our concerns as frivolous.

[adamrsilva]

6. Sorry, but this groups of Jews that are calling the film

anti-sematic, well, quite frankly I see them having more of agenda than Mel Gibson.

[scottcsmith]

9. I'm glad you Christians are so compassionate!

It just oozes out from each and every poster that tells me I have an agenda or am making "much ado about nothing" as far as anti-Semitism goes. I can tell my Christian brothers and sisters are concerned that we Jews might be sensitive to a movie that is likely to open up old wounds we thought had healed. Thanks a bunch!

[Robb]

11. Um, yo.

:hi:

Non-Jew here, seems anti-Semitic to me. :shrug:

Fuller disclosure: you'll usually find me arguing against whatever Israel happened to do on a day.

[regnaD kciN]

19. Forgive me if I'm equally blunt...

I agree that one should be concerned about this film -- while I don't think Gibson himself is anti-Semitic, it sounds like the film does contain lots of material that will probably fire up those already inclined to anti-Semitism. (I also think that the film, from what I've read of it, offers a pretty atrocious vision/distortion of Christianity, so I think we both have reasons to be offended.)

However, in general (and not really referring to Gibson's film at all), I am getting rather weary of the "anti-Semitism card" being played excessively in the realm of Jewish-Christian relations. It is no secret that, in matters of world affairs, a common reply to anyone who is less than 100% pro-Israeli in its conflict with the Palestinians is to call them an anti-Semite. Similarly, too, in matters concerning Christianity -- while I agree that there is a lot of anti-Jewish prejudice that has grown up in Christianity and needs to be stamped out, and a number of passages of Scriptures that need to be interpreted to show that they were referring to certain individuals or groups as opposed to Jews as a whole, I think matters have gone a little too far. It's one thing to point out that those who may have had a part in Jesus's death were but a small elite coterie of Temple administrators rather than "the Jews," it's quite another thing to insist on a complete revision that has no one but the Romans taking a part (i.e. not a single Jewish person!), on Jesus only being executed for political reasons, etc., etc. Considering there are absolutely no alternate accounts from that time that would substantiate such a reading, the only justification for demanding that it be adopted is that...well...it's "anti-Semitic" to identify even a single Jew as having a part in Jesus's death -- and we have to be "sensitive" about such things.

Indeed, the "anti-Semitism card" seems to be the impetus for much revisionism of what I consider a "wishful thinking" nature. It seems that, according to some opinions, the only "non-anti-Semitic" view of events in the Gospels is to insist that there were never any disputes between Jesus and any of the other schools of Judaism at the time (Pharisees, Sadducees, etc.), or, if there were any, they were probably Jesus's fault! Similarly, although certain of the Gospel writers went to great lengths to demonstrate how events in the life of Jesus can be seen to have fulfilled prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures, the only "non-anti-Semitic" viewpoint permissible today is to vigorously deny that those prophecies applied to Jesus. Why? Because it would "offend the sensibilities" of Jews to claim otherwise. What next? Must Christians deny the divinity of Jesus because such a claim is also "insensitive?" Do we have to jettison Christianity entirely because its very existence as a rival creed causes pain to people of the Jewish faith?

To me, there's a huge gulf between legitimately eliminating anti-Judaic bias from Christianity and the sort of guilt-tripping "ecumenical correctness" I've seen over the past few decades in the realm of Jewish-Christian relations. And I suspect that, in regard to a number of sincere Christians of good will but also more theologically conservative than I, were one to suggest that they have to essentially jettison large portions of their faith (such as to throw out the notion of the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts) or else be considered "anti-Semitic," they would choose to accept the latter label, claiming that it no longer meant what it once did, but is now merely a code word for being unwilling to accept guilt-tripping and revisionism insisted on by those hostile to Christianity from the outset.

[wellstone_democrat]

23. Non Jew who also read it in the original

Early Latin translations and Hebrew so, I think I have both the educational experience to look at this movie vis a vis the text and as a Christian

It was a festival of anti-Semitic images. The phrase I hear the most is "touchy, Jews are so touchy about this!" Hell, I would be too if I was portrayed that way.

I will admit, I saw it this evening and walked out about 3/4 of the way through. What a ridiculous mishmash of history, medieval and early modern European "visionary literature" and grotesque violence. It included weapons not even used in that time and place for that purpose.

BTW, the Romans were the authorities. The Romans lined the roads of their colonies with the crucified. And, Pontius Pilate was even too violent and enthusiastic for that crew and was recalled.

But, its easier to think that its someone else's "touchy" imagination isn't it? Ah well, good luck "scottcsmith" but I agree that it wasn't your "touchy imagination" but, in fact, you were quite restrained in your evaluation.

[LeahMira]

16. We Jews...

... are a people who live throughout the world. We are concerned about our Jewish brothers and sisters in Europe where this film will be screened also.

In America, though, it's interesting that so many refuse to see anti-Semitism when it hits them in the face. It's interesting that they imagine some Jewish "agenda"... in itself an anti-Semitic accusation.

[glarius]

7. "Gibson turns the Jewish children into demons."....this one line in your

critique of the movie says it all to me....I haven't seen the movie, and have no desire to, but this line "Gibson turns the Jewish children into demons" says to me that Gibson was purposely pointing the finger of blame at the Jews....There is no other logical reason for him to portray the children thusly....I'm not Jewish, I'm Christian actually, but can see no spiritual gain in watching Christ being slowly tortured to death....I watched Gibson on Diane Sawyer's show and he didn't impress me as the benign filmmaker he's trying to portray himself as....It's my opinion that he IS anti-semitic to some degree at least....When he said "I love Jews, I pray for them" that sounded like the words of a religious zealot...I've heard that phrase from Christians who think unless Jews and other non-Christians convert to Christianity, they are doomed to hell...(That is why they pray for them.) I could be wrong, but this is my opinion

[mjjoe]

13. Is this the result of Gibson's traditionalist views?

Forgive me if I don't get this exactly right, as I'm not Catholic. But as I understand it, Gibson belongs to a small group of Catholics that does not recognize the reforms of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. Notable among them is the Church statement that Jewish people of today do not bear a blood responsibility for those who crucified Christ. That blood responsibility was a frequent justification for centuries of anti-Semitism.

I think those reforms also sought to place focus where it should have been for almost 2000 years: Christian teaching is that Christ died for the sins of all people, and who put him on the cross is irrelevant. Moreover, focusing in his death obscures the reason for the holiest of Christian holidays: Easter, which celebrates the resurrection.

Having said all that, I can't be certain Gibson is anti-Semitic because I don't really know him and I haven't seen the movie. But I would be curious to hear the views of any Catholics in the DU Forum who recognize the Second Vatican Council (ie, not part of this smaller ultra-traditionalist group). Is Gibson's movie at all reflective of what most Catholics have learned from the Church? Where does he diverge?

Any thoughts from those of you who aren't Catholic are naturally welcome too!

(on edit: Changed second-to-last sentence)

[regnaD kciN]

14. From what I've read of the film...

...it's not that "Jewish children turn into demons," but that Judas is haunted by demons disguised as children. There's a big difference there. (Although I don't know why he threw this in, since it isn't in any of the Gospels that he claims to have been so faithful to.)

[glarius]

17. I think it's his subtle way of blaming the Jews.....

Perhaps he doesn't want to acknowledge that he is anti-semitic but unnecessarily highlighting this sort of thing is sort of a give-away that he is....His father is a virulent anti-semite and in the past I understand Gibson has said he believes as his father does. Also on Sawyer's show he refused to disown his fathers ideas....He just kept saying "he's my father and I won't talk about him..."...He could have disowned his father's anti-semitism and still shown respect and love for him...

[belle]

22. Also, hello, homophobia

Completely gratuitous homophobia, one might add, as andro-Satan and drag queen Herod are all Gibson, unless I've *really* misread my Gospels.

[regnaD kciN]

12. The thing is, while I don't think that Gibson is anti-Semitic per se...

...there's one danger that I find takes place in much Christian representation of the Passion.

It's an article of Christian faith that the sins of all the world drove Jesus to the Cross. Not "the Jews," not "the Romans," but everyone -- Christians most definitely included. In fact, much meditation on the Passion is to be guided by the notion that it was one's own sins that brought about the Crucifixion, and that one should look inward rather than pointing the finger of blame at anyone else.

From what I've read about Gibson, I have no doubt that this is his position.

However, at times, people creating these works simply accept that notion, it somehow blinds them to the bias that might exist in their account. It's somewhat like saying "I've already said that we're all to blame, so why does it matter whether one group or another comes out looking more responsible? We're all responsible!" But this ignores, as I said before, that there is a tendency among a lot of people not to be willing to accept an "I'm responsible for this" attitude, and instead to try to focus the blame elsewhere. And, if the account isn't balanced, they will focus that blame on whoever comes out looking the worst, despite the creator's intention.

[KC21304]

4. Thanks for your review. I have found many of them here

very interesting. I have not seen the film and don't think I will. Your comment about Herod being portrayed as a drag queen made me think of Andrew Lloyd Webber's " Jesus Christ Superstar " in which the Herod character was also played as such. Did Gibson steal this idea from Webber ? I don't remember anything like that in any of the gospels.

[regnaD kciN]

5. The "Satan" figure...

This androgynous figure (Rosalinda Celentano) pops up every so often, silently mocking Christ. Another bit of dramatic license from Gibson.

You know, when I first heard about this film, I immediately wondered if Gibson was going to portray Judas as mincingly gay, in keeping with all the other villans of his films. ;-) It appears I was wrong -- instead of making Judas gay, it appears he made Satan gay. (Of course, it wouldn't be the first time -- think of the South Park movie...)

[Must_B_Free]

8. "Lilith" is the Serpent

in jewish mythology of the time... This was removed in the codification because it didn't serve the purpose at that time.

Basically what was taken out by the Romans at that time (325) was the Gnostic stuff - the real "Jesusy" stuff about enlightenment from within, the Gospel of Mary (can't have a female apostle - No womens libbers), colorful stuff about Genesis that raised too many questions...

Clearly, Roman political power was about assimilation - they appropriated Greek mythology and obviously revised Chrisitianity in such a way as to serve their Empire.

Probably this is why, although Romans undeniedly did the actuall Killing of Jesus, it's "the Jews fault"...

Just as Bill Clinton is to blame for all of Bush's failures...

Welcome to politics folks - The liberals are always to blame... Do you think anything really changes in just 2000 years?

[eridani]

18. Why the Sadducees and Pharisees wanted Christ out of the way

They were the high ranking locals dealing with Romans on a daily basis, and they had a realistic notion of the power that Rome could bring to bear on a rebellious province. They wanted rabblerousers put down fast, so the Romans would not react by slaughtering and dispossessing Judea. And they were right. Rebellions did break out later, and the Jerusalem and the temple were indeed destroyed as a result.

[regnaD kciN]

20. That's true of the Sadducees...

...but not of the Pharisees. Although it's hard to "identify the players without a scorecard" nowadays, the Sadducees were the Temple priesthood who were working hand-in-glove with the Roman authorities to maintain "stability." The Pharisees, on the other hand, were a "reform movement" which put great emphasis on a scrupulous adherence to Torah, and less empahsis on the Temple. The Pharisees were not really "in power" in the same way (and, apparently, some factions within them were leaning toward violent rebellion).

Jesus had a number of disputes with the Pharisees over matters of ritual purity and what it meant to "keep the Law," which at times escalated into quite heated invective. However, Jesus had a number of friends among the Pharisee movement, and the Pharisees at one point tipped him off to a plot against his life. By contrast, it was the Sadducees in charge of the temple who actually, according to the synoptic Gospels, participated in the arrest of Jesus and pressed for a death sentence. Only one Gospel, that of John, identifies Pharisees as being part of those events, and John is widely considered among Christian theologians and biblical scholars as less historically-accurate than the other three.

[eridani]

21. Thanks for the more accurate detail

The ritual purity thing was much easier for rich people to do, and Jesus was firmly on the side of the poor who couldn't afford it.

[Ksec]

24. The film is an interpretation

Gibsons. Is it accurate? To Gibson it is. To Smith it isnt. Im sure if Smith would have made the film Gibson would disagree with it calling it inaccurate and pandering to the Jews.

So what can we take from this? We can see how wars get started over stuff like this. Is it a danger to Jews around the world? I say it is because of the hatred for Jews in the Middle East and elsewhere. This will surely throw gas on the flames.