|
The closest thing to the
pre-release ruckus kicked up by Mel Gibson’s new movie “The Passion
of the Christ” might have been the fuss over David O. Selznick’s
“Gone with the Wind” in 1939. The difference is that Selznick had
to whip up the storm himself while Gibson’s picture seems to draw
lightning effortlessly.
I’m sure Gibson understands
the value of publicity even if he’s getting more than bargained
for. His plan for a faithful portrayal of the last hours of Jesus’
life has brought tremendous attention since the moment it was
announced, much of it hostile. The attacks have come from people
who have seen the film, set for a February 25 general release, as
well as from those who haven’t.
There is even a squawk
over who has seen the film. Representatives of various Jewish
groups complained about being left out of early pre-cut screenings.
Internet muckraker Matt Drudge, a Jew, reported favorably on some of
the first edits but wasn’t Jewish enough for some critics, most of
whom have now seen at least a near‑final version.
Pope John Paul II was
reported to have seen the film and commented, “It is as it was.”
This was later denied, until a Vatican press release confirmed the
pope had seen the film but that it is “the Holy Father’s custom not
to express public judgments on artistic works.” Yet if John Paul
isn’t gunning for a spot with Ebert & Roeper, everyone else seems to
be.
Gibson has made several
changes in response to charges of anti-Semitism, most notably axing
a scene in which a Jewish high priest says of Jesus’ imminent death,
“His blood be on us and on our children.” The sequence was dropped
despite the fact that the quote is Biblically accurate, though not
attributed to any particular person.
As tempting as it is to
scream, “It’s just a movie for Pete’s sake!”, “The Passion of the
Christ” really is more. It is more because Jesus was more than a
man.
I will not critique the
picture until I see it and may not then, but I can easily guess why
it might be offensive. Simply put, the story of Jesus is offensive
because he was.
Jesus seems particularly
galling in this age when the worst social crime is to believe in
absolute truth. He wanted us to not just follow rules but be right
in our hearts. He touched the untouchable and chased
merchants from the temple with a whip. He associated with
prostitutes and other social outcasts, claiming “It is not the
healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.”
He addressed religious leaders who
violated the scriptures with little endearments like “You brood of
vipers” and “You whitewashed tombs.”
Today we don’t bat an eye when a prominent clergyman
like Virginia’s Episcopal Bishop Peter J. Lee tells a church council
“If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose
heresy,” as the Washington Times reported last month. I won’t
presume to guess what Jesus would say but it’s a safe bet it
wouldn’t be “Amen.”
“The Passion of the Christ”
isn’t the first film to depict the crucifixion. There have been
several, none of which caused nearly the uproar. This is partly
because Gibson’s movie is different; the dialog is entirely in Latin
and Aramaic with English subtitles, and the violence is graphic
enough to have earned an R rating.
Still, I suspect the main
reason the reaction is different is because we are. I doubt Gibson
could do anything to satisfy those who are determined to hate his
work, and if he has truly made a Biblically accurate film he
shouldn’t try.
|
