|
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.
|
