 |
As time passes, the debate on the film being anti-Semitic seems to be subsiding |
Well the almighty dollar has spoken: Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, despite all the negative hype and controversy that plagued it for months, is a huge success at the box office. You might say that the fervent, furious anti-Semitic debate, which engulfed the film prior to its release, only served to increase curiosity and bring audiences into theaters across the US.
Very few movies have endured such a build-up as this one. The pre-release buzz, coupled with the accusations of anti-Semitism by numerous Jewish leaders, only served to bring hordes of people into the theaters. According to many reports, this independent film (produced by the small, relatively new company, Newmarket Films) had the third largest mid-week opening ever.
Whether it was curiosity to see how much gore there was, or to make their own decision if the film held Jews responsible for Christ’s demise or just a general interest in Gibson’s interpretation, US viewers shelled it out to the tune of sold-out shows across the country on opening night. By the time the first weekend was over, it had amassed more than a million dollars. And in an industry where the dollar is often the bottom line, that makes The Passion of the Christ a success.
But beyond the money factor is the audience reaction. Were viewers able to see beyond the media and religious hype to make their own decisions about The Passion? An MSN.com article cited that on a five-star rating scale, the movie averaged a three (from reviews in five major newspapers). Yet ask people what they thought, and you’re not likely to get an average answer.
Without a doubt, as time passes, the debate on the film being anti-Semitic seems to be subsiding. Perhaps the real question now is does the excess of violence induce audience apathy? In a March 8 Time Magazine article, columnist Joe Klein wrote that seeing The Passion of the Christ was a “stunning experience in a way that I didn’t expect. The first scene of scourging … evoked a powerful reaction from the audience. There were gasps and audible sobbing, which continued for some time.
“But as the torture went on, and on … the theater fell silent. By the time of the Crucifixion, the audience seemed emotionally exhausted and numbed to the violence. There was no catharsis,” Klein writes.
Klein asks in his article, “Are we addicted to explicit violence and then quickly inured to it?” Some would argue differently. New Yorker Adil Shujaat saw the film on opening night with two friends. He didn’t enjoy the film and said there was so much gratuitous violence that it was “nauseating. [Gibson] could’ve definitely made it less graphic. I couldn’t get numb to it.” Mir Ali, who saw the film with Shujaat, agreed with him. “I think that Mel Gibson could have conveyed the same message—the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made for humanity, the suffering he went through—by being less graphic. I don’t think he had to be that graphic.”
But asking for audience reaction in an interview and observing what people said right after seeing the film seem to be two different things. I saw the film the Thursday after its Ash Wednesday opening. I too had the “Klein” experience of audible crying and gasping when the scourging sequence began and then silence as the torture went on. After it was all over and I went outside, I hung around and listened to what people were saying. Comments ranged from “My God!” to “Not bad, but Gladiator had worse violence” to “Wow … let’s grab a cup of coffee; I had the worst day at work today!”
Two things seemed apparent: That the excess violence did not seem to be too much of a bother, and that the questions of anti-Semitism were not even a concern. However, this is simply after observing people coming out of one showing of the film in one theater in one part of Manhattan. It can’t be extrapolated across the moral fiber of the country.
My gut feeling as a reviewer tells me that in later water-cooler, coffee house and living room discussions the general consensus would be that the film contained excessive violence. There is only so much one can cry or exclaim horror at in a film that is two hours long. You may become numb in your expressions, but the feelings are still inside.
I had many reservations before seeing the film. In fact, I was a little afraid to see it—apprehensive about how I would handle all the gore. It was the first time in my history of writing movie reviews (and I’ve done many) that I did not want to go alone.
As for the original controversy of the film being anti-Semitic, viewers seem to be divided on that one. If you have read my review, you will know that I am in the “not anti-Semitic” camp. It seemed to me that the Rabbinical leadership of the time was out for Jesus’ blood, not the entire Jewish population. There were many Jewish and Roman sympathizers to Christ’s plight. If anything, the film was anti-establishment. Shujaat, however, disagrees. He felt the film was very anti-Jewish. “I didn’t see the point of bringing out such a movie in this era, when such a story could further fuel hatred.” Shujaat found the whole concept of the film offensive.
“It doesn’t make sense to show what Mel Gibson believed Christ was thinking. At the time of his death [the film] shows Jesus to be thinking of his mother and of his childhood—but nobody knows what he was thinking,” Shujaat says. That, if anything, is the real truth about the film. Nobody really knows what Jesus was thinking in his last hours. Nobody can know what any Prophet really endured, what he really felt. People can only go by what they read in the holy books of the three major monotheistic religions.
|
