Posted on 09/09/2004 4:59:41 PM PDT by gina girl
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/August2004/0804PiatakGibson.html
Just about everything the critics said about Gibsons film was wrong. Starting with Fredriksen, the critics assumed the pose of objective historian, lecturing us ad nauseam that all scholars believe that the Romans alone were responsible for the Crucifixion; that Pilate was such a brutal tyrant that what the Gospels wrote about him was certainly false; that no one in first-century Jerusalem spoke Latin. But Raymond Brown, the late doyen of liberal biblical scholars, wrote in his Death of the Messiah that, "When the Jewish, Christian, and pagan evidence is assembled, the involvement of Jews in the death of Jesus approaches certainty"; that Pilate "was not a ferociously cruel governor" and the Gospels "descriptions of Pilate with their variations are not inherently implausible"; and that Pilates cohorts included the Secunda Italica Civium Romanorumtroops who spoke Latin, not Greek.
We were also repeatedly warned that Passion plays regularly lead to antisemitic violence, even though these warnings were invariably devoid of evidence that any particular Passion play had, in fact, led to violence. The reaction to Gibsons film strongly suggests that these warnings were at least misplaced, if not baseless. A poll taken by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research showed, in fact, that Gibsons film was more likely to lessen belief in Jewish culpability for Jesus death than the reverse. Such a result is surprising only if one believes, as do Gibsons critics, that the Gospels themselves are antisemitic.
The critics also scorned Gibson for focusing on the Passion, not on Christs teachings or His Resurrection. Lawrence Frizzell, one of the first academics to attack Gibson, wrote that "Emphasis on the Passion . . . does not convey any insight into the means whereby the Gospels show that the work of forgiveness is accomplished." So much for J.S. Bachs Passions, Joseph Haydns Seven Last Words, Michelangelos Pietànot to mention the countless Crucifixions painted by nearly every master from Giotto up to the 18th century, including such diverse artists as Rubens and Rembrandt, Velazquez and El Greco, Tintoretto and Titian, Delacroix and Poussin, and even Gauguin and Dali. So much, too, for St. Francis of Assisi. As Jaroslav Pelikan notes in Jesus Through the Centuries, the great focus of Francis devotion was the Passion, and Bonaventure wrote in his biography of Francis that "Christ hung upon his Cross, poor and naked and in great pain, and Francis wanted to be like him in everything." It is a shame that such simpletons as Bach and Saint Francis did not have Lawrence Frizzell to show them the way.
Complaints about the violence of Gibsons film suggest that the critics were simply ignorant both of the Western artistic tradition and of centuries of piety focused on the Passion, both of which have emphasized the physical nature of Christs sacrifice. As Jonathan Chaves has written, Gibsons Christ was less battered than Matthias Grünewalds in his renowned Isenheim Altarpiece, and nothing in Gibsons film matched the bitter grief shown by Saint Mary and Saint John as they contemplate the crucified Jesus in Grüne-walds painting. Nothing in Gibsons film, either, compares to the malevolence expressed by the faces surrounding Christ in Hieronymus Boschs Christ Carrying the Cross and Christ Crowned With Thorns.
Unlike his critics, Gibson was aware of the Western artistic tradition. He has spoken of his debt to such artists as Caravaggio, Mantegna, Masaccio, and Piero della Francesca. The result of Gibsons study of other depictions of the Crucifixion was a film that was profoundly visual and evocative of Western art. As Chaves wrote,
"The stations of the cross proceeded across the screen like a series of engravings or woodcuts by Albrecht Dürer or Martin Schongauer; or paintings by Duccio di Buoninsegna, Fra Angelico, Francisco de Zurbaran or Guido Reni; or wall paintings or icons on the iconostasis of any of the monastery churches at Mt. Athos."
The New York Times Daniel Wakin, writing on April 18, described Gilbert Fuentes, a visitor to the Metropolitan Museum of Arts exhibit on Byzantine art who was inspired both to return to his faith and to visit the exhibit because of Gibsons film: "It really touched me, the way [H]e suffered. It makes me want to research more of it." Mr. Fuentes was particularly drawn to Venetian artists Michele Giambonos The Man of Sorrows, painted around 1420-30, which he found, in a way, more powerful than the Gibson film: "Youre able to be one on one. You can stand here and meditate on it."
The tradition uniting Giambono and Gibson remains a fruitful one because it ultimately leads back to the Gospels. By contrast, the best that can be said for the tradition embraced by Gibsons academic criticsthe historical-critical approach to the Bibleis that not everyone who is exposed to it automatically loses his faith. It is a sterile tradition, inspiring no one, creating no art, leading nowhere.
Gibsons film is also a vindication of orthodox Christianity. Though condemned by a handful of liberal churchmen, it was warmly embraced by believers of all denominations. Significantly, all of the criticism of Gibsons film came from countries where Christianity is either on the defensive or actually dying. In the Third World, where the Faith is growing, no one condemned it. Instead, it was embraced by the entire episcopate of the Philippines and the leading churchmen of Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and South Africa. Gibsons depiction of Christ was thoroughly orthodox. As Kenneth Woodward wrote in the New York Times, Gibsons Jesus
"doesnt promote social causes. . . . He certainly doesnt crusade against gender discrimination, as some feminists believe he did, nor does he teach that we all possess an inner divinity, as todays nouveau Gnostics believe. One cannot imagine this Jesus joining a New Age sunrise Easter service overlooking the Pacific."
Those who prefer a New Age Jesus (or no Jesus at all) were shocked by Gibsons film, which, for a moment, caused a welcome shift in our national discourse from endless chatter over such trivialities as Janet Jacksons "wardrobe malfunction" to matters of real importance. It is hard to imagine a film about any other historical figure having such an impact. Whether one believes in Him or not, Jesus remains the central figure in history. And Gibsons depiction of His last hours will continue to be watched long after all of Gibsons critics are forgotten and their efforts to deconstruct the Gospels have come to naught.
Tom Piatak writes from Cleveland, Ohio.
I kept in mind everything the critics said about the film before I went to see it. I was told that Jews were portrayed in a negative light. The fact is that virtually every character was Jewish and they were portrayed as human, both good and bad. Mel did a really good job in his interviews I thought. I didn't understand why they attacked his father and implied that Mel was anti-Jewish based on his dad's political views. What was he supposed to do, denounce his own dad? I commend him for not doing so, and standing for the truth. When asked if he was anti-semitic, he said "that is a sin in my religion." Amen Mel.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.