My god, just think of what Mel would do to Benjamin Disraeli

I saw the movie last night. Brutal in the extreme. By far the most graphically violent film I have ever seen.

But very very powerful. I'm not a religious man in any way, the film really made me think about man's age old inhumanity to man. The brutality was discomforting on screen, but to be honest, probably far less traumatic than watching an actual person be flogged or tortured, as happens throughout the world on a daily basis.

And, to be honest, I really didn't see what the whole anti-semetic debate is about. Sure, the priests who wanted Jesus crucified were Jews, and they weren't very nice, but so what? There were 'good' Jews in the film, too.

If I saw a film detailing the brutality of European colonial regimes in Africa I wouldn't assume that it would incite racism against white people.

Oh, and as a Brit, I feel I must express my deepest concern at the massive number of British actors denied the work they need to feed their children by Mel's callous decision not to kick any British ass in this movie.

SiberianLight,

A reasonable (and apparently naive) person like you may not see the movie as anti-Semitic.

But rest assured, the rehabilitation of Pontius Pilate and the concomitant blaming of the Jews is an old trope for the Jew-haters.

The problem with trying to avoid antisemitism in a rendition of the passion which tries to be faithful to the gospels is that there are genuinely antisemitic passages in the gospels. Matthew in particular is hostile to Jews, in large part because it was written at a time when the split between Judaism and Christianity was becoming significant. This was a very big deal because the Romans had come to terms with the "peculiar" nature of the Jews in their refusal to sacrifice to the Roman Gods. In a time before church state separation refusal to sacrifice to the Gods and the Emperor was identical with treason. The only reason the Jews were able to get away with not sacrificing was because their religion was ancient, and age conferred legitimacy in the eyes of the Romans (even so, it didn't stop the Romans from trying to force Jews to sacrifice to the emperor, but the resistance was so fierce that an accomodation was made). Now come the Christians, initially protected from the charge of treason by their being a sect of Judaism. When the Jewish authorities reject Christians as not being Jews, the protection is stripped away. In Roman eyes, the Christians become followers of a treasonous superstition, and the persecution begins in earnest.

The Christians to whom the gospel of Matthew is addressed were suffering daily at the hands of the Romans, and the immediate cause of their suffering was the refusal of the Jewish leadership to accept Christianity as an authentic Jewish tradition (which of course the Jewish authorities could not do since that would mean accepting Jesus as the Messiah). People were going to hideous deaths as a direct result of this split, and Matthew is written to give context and meaning to what is happening to them - it could not possibly be anything other than hostile to the Jewish authorities and to those Jews who did not accept Jesus as the Messiah.

None of this bears on the truth of falsehood of the Gospel accounts - it's obvious that they leave a lot out, and different writers tell the same story in different ways, according to the intended audience. I agree completely with SiberianLight - even if the Jewish leadership and large numbers of the people were complicit in the death of Jesus (and it seems certain that at least the leadership was), there is no implication of guilt for any Jew living today, or indeed any person who wasn't actually present and actively involved.

Praktike: Thanks for the back-handed (I think) compliment. Reasonably is something I'm rarely accused of being. Although, what you giveth with one hand, you taketh away with the other :-)

An ice-cream could probably upset the most ardent jew hater. The film isn't anti-semitic. They are.

The fact that they cannot rationally deal with a simple film (be it true to life or simply high fantasy) is entirely their problem. Film-makers, or anyone else for that matter, cannot shy from speaking because of the stupidity of the few.

SiberianLight,

Hey, if you're comfortable with a film being the vehicle for teeth-gnashing and thigh-rubbing among the hard right anti-Semitic crowd, more power to you.

As for me, I respect Mel Gibson's right to make this film (and maybe it is more true to the Gospels), but you ought to be aware of how this plays out in the real world. Anti-Semitism is still alive and well, as Joe has documented.

As for whether the film itself is anti-Semitic, let me ask you this:

What if a movie came out about the Rothchilds, or the Paul Warburg, that insinuated that they were behind an international Jewish conspiracy to make money from countries financing their deficits?

You have to know the history behind these hobbyhorses...

My favorite review:

"Gibson's Passion is a perfect date movie for sadomasochists."

"My God," said my Catholic friend as we left the theater. "It was like an Opus Dei wet dream."

"... we may be lucky that the film doesn't devote any serious screen time to Jesus's resurrection -- the central event of the faith for most Protestants -- since under Gibson's hand it would probably look like something from Dawn of the Dead."

"Jesus doesn't say much in this film beside "Aaggghh!", "Yaaarrrhh!" and "Uggggh!"

"Whenever he inserts various bogeymen and - women into his crucifixion narrative, Passion turns to hilarious high camp."

"That's why we gorehounds need a movie like Gibson's Passion of the Christ, to bring cinematic ultraviolence into the cultural mainstream. Teenagers who have never seen Paul Morrissey's Flesh for Frankenstein (a.k.a. "Liver on a Stick"), Herschel Gordon Lewis's Blood Feast or Meir Zarchi's incomparable I Spit on Your Grave, can finally rock out on the extended flagellations, crucifixions, beatings and general agony of exploitation cinema, this time with the approval of parents and church administrators."

http://mystupiddog.blogspot.com/2004_02_22_mystupiddog_archive.html#107779052316290897

Andrew,

I think you may be missing the point. I don't think there's any doubt that anti-Semitism in the world today (just turn on your CNN for a few hours) but there are a few major issues about this film which I think you overlook:

1. Mel Gibson is a Catholic. The film has a HEAVY Catholic influence. The whole scene with the sharing of the bread and wine is one of the most central aspects to Catholic mass which is not something practiced in many of the Protestant churches. So, from that view, I think the Catholic church more than any group has tried to mend ties with the Jewish community for past wrongs. It's Catholic church policy that the Jews, as a people, were not responsible for Jesus' death.

2. The film does not make an attempt to condemn all Jews. In fact, when Ciaphus first brings Jesus in for questioning, several of the high priests are thrown out of the room for questioning why Jesus is being brought up on charges and why Ciaphus is doing this in the middle of the night without the full council of high priests. I think it's made very obvious both in Gibson's film and in the Gospels that the villian is corrupt leaders in the Jewish faith.

3. Whether Pilate is painted as a conflicted guy or as some evil maniac is not the point. Without a doubt his arrest and the request for his death came from Ciaphus. Now we're just debating whether or not Pilate took pleasure in carrying out his role or backed away from it. This seems to be a central argument of many who claim anti-Semitism so I think it's important to note that there is no difference once he's been turned over by Ciaphus. The only reason he was turned over was the fact that the Jews didn't have the right to condemn a man to death. Ciaphus wanted the death pentalty. Now people can debate for another 2000 years whether Pilate was conflicted or not but the fact is it doesn't change the actions of Ciaphus. And if we're to believe the New Testiment, Pilate found no fault and so did Harrod so it there's at least a reasonable basis for the presumption that Pilate was attempting to stay out of this one.

In the end, I think the Jews standing outside theatres protesting the film are doing more to damage the image of Jews than the film is. For the vast majority of Christians who see it as a wonderfully powerful and impactful film the cries of anti-Semitism sound manipulative and have the potential to desensitize people to actual anti-Semitisim via the boy who cried wolf effect. Ask yourself what you would think if people stood outside theatres and claimed that Schindler's List might stir up anti-German feelings. As much as I'm sure that the vast majority of Jews don't believe the German people to be evil, the Christians do not place the blame for the death of Jesus at the feet of the entire Jewish people.

Joe, truth in advertising please. The first link is everything negative you could want to know about...

Digibum - I'm not sure what point you think I'm missing. All I'm claiming is that an accurate rendition of the gospel account of the passion would inevitably have some antisemitic elements, or at least elements that could be read as antisemitic. The problematic elements don't come from Mel Gibson, they come from the Bible. There is a separate issue regarding Gibson's decision to make the movie in the first place, but if he's trying to do an accurate protrayal of the gospel accounts, there's no way to do it without portraying Pilate as conflicted and Caiphas as evil. To modify those elements would conflict with the gospels.

Youre last paragraph, btw, is spot-on.

I understand that at least half the movie--the last hour--is continuous torture. I mean literal torture, oceans of blood, the kind of gratuitous porno-violence one would find in a snuff film.

As a graduate of 12 years of Catholic schools who now wonders what to teach his young son about religion, Gibson's movie symbolizes everything I find absurd and distasteful about Christianity.

First, there's the attempted emotional manipulation via the guilt stick ("See? YOU bastards did this to him! Now sign up here, or forever burn..."). God forbid, so to speak, that I or anyone should ever try to bully my son into accepting propositions by emotional blackmail.

Second, there's the intellectual dishonesty involved in saying OTOH that Christ's death was glorious because it enabled him and us to triumph over sin but OTOH it was horrible in its agony. The Orthodox icons show a proud confident Pancrator Christ. Gibson shows him as a blood-gushing pincushion. Is it Christ the King, or Christ the snuff film patsy?

Third, and worst of all, I was always taught that the essence of Catholic Christianity was Hope Faith and Love, with the greatest of these being Love. There's nothing but brutality in a film that shows an hour of unremitting, graphic, blood-soaked torture. No love, no hope, no faith in anything but the director's talent for depicting cruelty and blood.

"The Passion of the Christ" is neither art nor entertainment nor inspiration. It's a vile and cheap inversion of an evangelical rapture. Gibson has reminded me why I do not want my boy to have anything to do with Christianity or Christian schools, priests or proselytizers.

"The Passion of the Christ" is neither art nor entertainment nor inspiration.

Funny, I could've sworn you said you haven't seen it.

Chris K,

What makes you think that actually seeing the movie would change his mind? =)

"Gibson has reminded me why I do not want my boy to have anything to do with Christianity or Christian schools, priests or proselytizers."

Gibson may just be an anti-Semite and a wacko who glories in Christ's sacrifice for all the wrong reasons, but that is no reason to paint Christianity as wrong for one man's vision. You are a bigot.

Also, there seems to be some idea going around that not painting Pilate as the embodiment of unrelenting evil makes the film anti-Semitic. I take issue with this. I haven't even seen the film but from everyone I've spoken to, the way you view the film is dependent largely on your politics. Go figure.

Hey Andy....what do you think of Kill Bill?

Andrew,

My apologies then. I was under the impression that you were implying that Gibson had done something to cause it to be anti-Semitic. I agree with you. That is what the Gospels say. One can accept it or not but they can't change it because they don't like it.

I guess I just find it odd, that a historical fact is that the Jews of that time did try to hunt down and arrest/kill early Christians (one of Christianity's greatest saints, Paul, was on such a mission when he converted) yet today simply portraying the Jewish leadership in a negative light via the re-telling of a 2000 year old story written by people being hunted down is anti-Semitism. For some silly reason I'm not wholly surprised if the writers of the Gospels didn't portray the Jewish leaders as good guys.

" No love, no hope, no faith in anything but the director's talent for depicting cruelty and blood."

The love you could not see in the film was in the fact that Jesus "chose" to suffer in order to spare us! He could have taken himself down from the cross at any time! He could have had legions of angels destroy those who wanted him dead! Guess some people need to read the Gospels a little!

If you do not see love when someone gives their life for you.......you will never see love!

I hope this doesn't happen anymore: When I was growing up, I was ganged up on (as in physically beaten up), and got into fights because I was called a "Christ-killer." Especially around Easter.

My family came from Poland and Russia. They lived there probably at least 1,000 years. The only relatives I have are descended from immigrants to the USA. They here came to get away from pogroms. The ones that stayed behind didn't die out naturally.

There's lot of ugly stuff in both Testaments. There is a heck of a lot in common between Judaism and Christianity. Jesus was a Jew operating within the venerable Jewish tradition of the Prophets; the story of the Messiah has been a central Jewish story for a long time. The Romans crucified lots of people for lots of reasons. Jews did not like Romans and Romans did not treat Jews well. The Second Temple was destroyed in 70AD, after a horrific rebellion against the Roman occupation. What were Jewish leaders who had good relations with Roman rulers?

Were the Jews bad and the Romans good? Roman society was pagan, corrupt, licentious but some Romans thought they were bringing civilization to backward areas of the world.

Great review/opinion of the movie (and lots of its surrounding controversy) by a Hollywood film critic Michael Medved:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/commentaries/passion-prejudice.html

http://www.towardtradition.org/article_Passion_Medved.htm

Level-headed and respectful to both Jewish and Christian traditions...

C'mon guys! The Jewish Bible is the most antisemitic. Just read the "nice treatment" the Lord God gives the Jewish people through the profets' mouthes.(Which later became writings).