THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MEL: After nearly a year of nothing but hype and controversy, tonight I finally saw Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." So far this week the film's critical reception has been mixed, with a consensus forming around the view that the blood and gore was excessive, but that Gibson deserved to be exonerated of anti-Semitism charges.
Aside from the "mixed review" part, which I agree with, my conclusion is the opposite: I was less put off by the violence than most, yet there were indeed moments when I found "The Passion" uncomfortably- and disgustingly- anti-Semitic.
Now perhaps it's impossible to view this film through an objective lens, after following the firestorm for the past year and reading strong reviews both pro and con for the past few days. That said, Mel Gibson's unstilting arrogance, his disregard for the history of the Jews-killed-Jesus canard, and the well-established martyr complex that has seen his hero-characters tortured and (in the case of "Braveheart") crucified in the majority of his action pictures, have all been well-documented. Perhaps it is unfair to tar his film with that brush, but he has made it incredibly difficult not to.
Still, from a technical and filmmaking standpoint, 'Passion' is for the most part a marvelous picture, with beautiful cinematography by Caleb Deshanel and excellent storytelling (it is, after all, the "greatest story ever told.") Jim Caviezel, despite barely speaking, gives a very impressive performance as Jesus, and there are no weak links in the generally unknown cast. The violence has gotten all the attention and it was more than a little disturbing, but while cringing like I everyone else I wasn't "offended"- the massive amounts of gore were necessary for the film, and for that I give Gibson a pass- I'm not about to throw around the "pornography" charge, because I can't imagine anyone found this titillating.
Now there are certainly all sorts of questions about how faithful Gibson was to the Gospels, questions which might be better answered by a theologian or a Christian, of which I am neither. But my charge of the film as anti-Semitic has nothing to do with the words that are spoken and how they correspond to the New Testament, and everything to do with the choices Gibson makes as director- he casts every major Jewish role with stereotypically Jewish-looking actors, who -from Caiphus on down- behave like villains in a Jewish minstrel show. Not to mention Gibson's decision to shoot the crowd scenes wide, in order to establish unmistakably that a Jewish mob is calling for Jesus' death. Yes, Gibson agreed to take out the "His blood be on us, and on our children" line- but only under extreme duress; it would've been more honest and true to his convictions for Gibson to have kept the line in. I'm not worried that this will lead to pogroms or anything like that, but what does bother me is that Gibson would allow such a shameful depiction, and that he will make tens of millions of dollars doing it.
A few other things that rubbed me the wrong way: The androgynous-Satan character was way too silly for words, but that was nothing compared to Luca De Dominicis' interpretation of King Herod as what appeared to be a cross-dressing Elvis impersonator, surrounded by Cirque du Soleil clowns. That was just laughable, and way out of place in a biblical movie.
As I mentioned before, I saw the film with eight other people (including Bill and Sheila, who should have comments of their own pretty soon) and after it was over we spent almost a half hour talking about, debating about, and asking each other about the film- the Jews asked the Catholics about the Gospels, while the Catholics asked the Jews if we understood any of the Aramaic (I made out "L'Chaim"). I don't regret that I saw the film- it's flawed and offensive in many ways- but I can't deny that the film and debate surrounding it have both been quite thought-provoking.
Meanwhile, wherever you come down on "Passion of the Christ," or Jesus himself, this Newsweek piece by Jon Meachem is a must-read.