|
Controversy
Rages on “The Passion of The Christ”
|
By
Dilshad D. Ali
|
09/02/2004
|
Call
it “pushing the envelope”, call it “thinking out of the box”, call it
what you will; with the US movie audience on the brink of the release of Mel
Gibson’s controversial new film, The Passion of The Christ, the hype is
amplifying with every turn of the screw.
Though
movie buildup and curiosity is nothing new in Hollywood, Gibson’s film is
reaching far across the cultural landscape with its uniquely brutal vision of
the last 12 hours in Jesus’ life. Though Muslims are out of the debate, Jewish
and Christian religious leaders worldwide are choosing sides on Gibson’s
vision of Jesus. The enormous amount of hype and well-publicized criticisms are
enough to pump curiosity into most moviegoers.
The
Passion of The Christ, which will open
on February 25, 2004-on Ash Wednesday-reaches extremes of many kinds. The $25
million film has only Latin and Aramaic dialogue for reasons of authenticity.
Originally there were to be no subtitles, but now there will be. It stars actors
James Caviezal as Jesus and Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene.
But
just what is the buzz all about? Other directors have attempted to tell the
story of Jesus before on television and in the movies, but Gibson takes on the
last hours of Jesus’ life. Based on the Biblical gospels of Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John, it is an unrestrained approach to the story.
According
to various news reports, Gibson does not gloss over anything, visually or
narratively, which is what angers many Jewish religious leaders to the point of
calling Gibson anti-Semitic. The movie details the Biblical telling of Jesus’
last day; beginning with him praying in the Garden of Olives after the Last
Supper.
He
is then betrayed by Judas, one of his disciples, and brought before Pilate (the
Roman Governor of Palestine) to be judged. Pilate offers the bloodthirsty crowd
the chance to judge Jesus, and they choose to condemn him. The Prophet is beaten
and brought back to the crowd; in a mad frenzy of hate and fear, they demand his
crucifixion. The scenes of the scourging and crucifixion are especially
gruesome, violent and disturbing-more so than any previous telling of the story,
according to various reports.
The
crux of the controversy stems from Gibson’s seemingly visceral (and apparently
Biblically accurate) rendering of the condemnation of Jesus by the Jews and
Romans of that era. Though the story of Jewish (and Roman) fear-turned-loathing
of the Prophet during his lifetime is well known and well documented in most
religious communities, the film borders on the blasphemous, say some Jewish
groups. These groups worry that the film holds all Jews responsible for Jesus’
death, instead of following the teachings of modern Roman Catholicism and other
religious groups. More so, the worry is that the film will incite violence
between Jews and Christians.
Abraham
Foxman, national director of the Jewish rights group the Anti-Defamation League,
is one of the movie’s foremost critics. After seeing the film for the first
time in Florida last Wednesday, Foxman told the press “ [the film] is an
unambiguous portrayal of Jews being responsible for the death of Jesus.”
Elizabeth
Castelli, a professor of religion at Barnard College in New York, told the New
York Post that Gibson missed the opportunity to replicate the history of the
“theology of suffering … by producing just a picture of brutality.” She
called the portrayal of Jews in the movie “unfair … based on medieval
stereotypes.”
Gibson,
however, has repeatedly released statements through his publicist Alan Nierob,
stating his movie is meant to inspire, not offend. He points out that the
condemnation of Jesus came from Jews and Romans alike, and the larger story is
of good and evil, of Jesus’ all-consuming message of love.
Perhaps
Gibson’s biggest support has come from the Vatican. According to Gibson’s
publicity camp, numerous news organizations and Vatican officials, Pope John
Paul II saw the film and issued this now famous quote: “It is as it was.”
Did the Pope really say that?
As
recently as last Saturday, the Catholic News Service quoted the Pontiff’s
longtime secretary, Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, as saying the statement was
not true. He told the agency that the Pope “does not make judgments on art of
this kind.” Yet Gibson’ people so far say they received various
encouragement to publish the Pope’s words; at this time, the authenticity of
the quote is still being debated.
However,
several top Vatican officials have praised the film and rejected Jewish
complaints about being held responsible for the crucifixion.
Peggy
Noonan, a contributing editor at The Wall Street Journal, wrote she was
relieved to see the film, that it “is a story about Jews and Romans, about
Jewish saints and sinners and Roman brutes and cynics, but it isn’t really
about Jews and Romans; it’s about humanity. It’s about us.”
Well,
the verdict is still out on The Passion of The Christ. Is it unfair to
Jews? Is it an accurate Biblical portrayal? Is the buzz justified? For Muslims,
the fiery debate does not matter much, since Islam’s view of the crucifixion
story is entirely different. The Qur'an’ says Jesus was not killed or
crucified, only the likeness of that was shown to the people, and Jesus was
saved and raised up unto Allah. (4:157-158.)
The
debate will continue among religious leaders, but the final ruling will not be
known until February 25, when audiences will flock to theaters to make their own
decision. For, as shown repeatedly in history, it is the decision of the masses
that lingers in the end.
|
