The Passion of Christ
Teaser poster art
On October 17, 2003, Gibson's film production company announced the name of the film had been changed from The Passion to The Passion of Christ, because the title The Passion had already been trademarked by a different motion picture. This was then further amended to The Passion of the Christ. The following week Gibson announced a distribution arrangement had been reached with the independent Newmarket Films.
Gibson's film was produced in Italy, on scenic locations that were selected to evoke Caravaggio's paintings. In a bold departure from previous films of the life of Christ, the dialogue is spoken entirely in Aramaic, Latin and Hebrew, with the inclusion of subtitles still being debated. (This has already led to criticisms of the film's historical accuracy, with many scholars pointing out that the Roman soldiers in Judea would not have spoken Latin, but Greek.) Jim Caviezel portrays perhaps the most Semitic-looking Jesus ever on film, and during production great attention was paid to historical detail such as Jewish clothing and dietary customs. The crucifixion sequence is exceptionally violent and graphic.
Gibson's religious beliefs, which inspire the film, can be described as traditional Catholicism, which rejects most of the doctrinal reforms set by the Second Vatican Council, commonly referred to as Vatican II. There are about 600 traditionalist chapels in operation today; none are recognized by the Holy See.
Early statements by Mel Gibson and his staff stated that this movie was based entirely on the New Testament. Once the script became public, it was pointed out by a number of religious scholars that it departs from the New Testament in a number of areas. The script seems to use the New Testament as a starting point, and builds on it by adding material from The Mystical City of God by Venerable Mary of Agreda (a 17th century nun), and the writings of Anne Catherine Emmerich (a 19th century alleged stigmatic). The latter is a highly controversial work, as it contains material that some members of Jewish communities consider anti-Semitic.
| Table of contents |
|
2 Further criticisms 3 References 4 External links |
When Gibson was asked if his movie would be offensive to Jews today, he responded, "It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth. I want to be as truthful as possible. But when you look at the reasons Christ came, he was crucified - he died for all mankind and he suffered for all mankind. So that, really, anyone who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability."
In an interview in the New Yorker, Gibson charges that he trimmed a scene from The Passion of the Christ involving the Jewish high priest Caiaphas. He claimed that if he did not edit this scene out "they'd be coming after me at my house, they'd come to kill me." In response, Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a Jewish civil rights group, publicly charged Gibson with anti-Semitism.
American film reviewer, Michael Medved -- a Jewish author, columnist and one of America's best known film reviewers -- praised the movie's Biblical accuracy. However, the ADL has voiced concerns about Gibson's movie, as noted above. One statement read:
Jewish reaction
The ADL recently made a web page illustrating anti-Semitic attacks that are linked to their criticism of this project. [1] The Catholic League has responded by accusing the ADL of "seeking to poison relations between Catholics and Jews," contending that the "attacks on Mel Gibson have little to do with some off-the-cuff quips and everything to do with waging a frontal assault against all those people - Catholics, Protestants, Jews et al. - who have seen 'The Passion' and love it." [1] Other commentators who have seen the film - such as Cal Thomas - have also categorically denied that the film contains anti-Semitic material. [1]
Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, a senior Vatican official who has seen the film, addressed the question at length:
- "Anti-Semitism, like all forms of racism, distorts the truth in order to put a whole race of people in a bad light. This film does nothing of the sort. It draws out from the historical objectivity of the Gospel narratives sentiments of forgiveness, mercy, and reconciliation. It captures the subtleties and the horror of sin, as well as the gentle power of love and forgiveness, without making or insinuating blanket condemnations against one group. This film expressed the exact opposite, that learning from the example of Christ, there should never be any more violence against any other human being." [1]
In November 2003, The New York Post somehow got its hands on a copy of the film and screened it for a handful of reviewers including Robert Levine, vice president of the New York Board of Rabbis; Mark Hallinan, a Catholic priest with the St. Ignatius Loyola Catholic Church; Elizabeth Castelli, a professor of religion at Barnard College; and others. This marked the first time the film had been screened for viewers not hand-picked by Gibson himself. For the most part their reactions to the film were extremely harsh.
Rabbi Levine wrote that "It hurt me as a Jew to watch it. It was the most appalling depiction of Jews in a film in my recollection. It was painful and inaccurate." [1] He stated the film "undermines the 1965 Vatican II declaration that Jews are not responsible for the death of Christ." Father Hallinan opined, "Unsophisticated people viewing the film will see Jews as cold, heartless people." [1] And Professor Castelli added that "[Gibson] had an opportunity to reflect on the long history of the theology of suffering, and he missed that opportunity by producing just a picture of brutality." [1]
The Post’s report drew cries of outrage from Gibson's representatives, and the FBI announced it would begin an inquiry into how the newspaper obtained a copy of the film to begin with, hinting that its doing so could constitute an act of piracy. Gibson's lawyer George Hedges said, "Our biggest concern here is that a major media organization would become involved with pirates to concoct a news story to sell newspapers."
Further criticisms
References
External links
