Posted on 02/25/2004 10:58:29 AM PST by Fury
A few weeks ago, my wife took our seven-year-old son John Paul to the movie theater. When he saw a marquee announcing the movie The Gospel of John, he noticed that it was rated PG-13. "That can't be," he said with incredulity. "The Bible is not PG-13." Michelle had to explain to him that the Bible was not only G, but that it was PG-13, as well as R. I would add that there are a few spots that are even NC-17.
The Good Book is filled with betrayal, greed, lust, murder, sex, and excruciating violence. As parents, we edit, censor, and sanitize to wisely respect age-appropriateness. Nevertheless, this interaction was a great opportunity to remember that our faith was born out of blood, sweat and tears — far more gritty than a Thomas Kinkade painting or a Precious Moments nativity scene. In our contemporary culture, however, our crosses are studded with diamonds instead of splinters.
Perhaps that is why my son may not be the only one who is surprised by the PG-13 rating. The Gospel of John is a $20 million movie that was produced by the American Bible Society as a verse-by-verse dramatic portrayal of the New Testament book. The film premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival and even garnered positive reviews from unlikely media outlets. "Though I approached The Gospel of John with some trepidation, I've now seen the film twice and consider it to be an extraordinary achievement," wrote Scott Foundas in the avant-garde LA Weekly. "Extraordinary for the way it casts its oft-told events in such a fresh light that they do not seem so familiar at all."
The film has successfully been able to avoid controversy, let alone being labeled as anti-Semitic, for two very good reasons. First of all, the executive producer, producer, and director are all Jewish. The second, and perhaps more important reason, is that the movie is never going to produce the kind of cultural fireworks that will have tongues wagging with Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ — perhaps the most-debated (before being seen) film in the history of cinema.
It is impossible to be unaware of the media attention devoted to The Passion. Is the film anti-Semitic? Will it incite violence against Jews? Did Pope John Paul II say, "It is as it was"? Who speaks Aramaic anymore? Why in heaven's name would Gibson pour $25 million of his own money to focus in on the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ? Why does it have to be so gruesomely violent?
Gibson and his movie have been under a flurry of ferocious attacks from the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and The New Yorker. These broadsides have been fueled by the Anti-Defamation League and a handful of liberal Catholic and Protestant theologians.
"When violence breaks out," Paula Fredriksen breathlessly declared in a hyperventilated article for The New Republic, "Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to." In the article "Mad Mel," Fredriksen, a professor at Boston University, went on to dismiss the movie she had not seen as an "anti-historical, anti-intellectual, anti-Semitic film about the crucifixion." This judgment was based on the fact that she simply does not believe that the New Testament is reliable. End of story.
In their coverage of The Passion, the predictably contrarian website Salon.com turned to the Rev. Mark Stanger, one of the pastors at the trendy Grace Cathedral, an Episcopal church in San Francisco. "100 percent Hollywood trash," is how he described it. What was his advice to moviegoers? "I'd say don't bother. I think it's a big bore. I think a 5-year-old who has to get cancer surgery and radiation and chemotherapy suffers more than Jesus suffered; I think that a kid in the Gaza Strip who steps on a land mine and loses two limbs suffers more; I think a battered wife with no resources suffers more; I think people without medical care dying of AIDS in Africa suffer more than Jesus did that day. I mean, I don't want to take away from that, but this preoccupation with the intensity of the suffering, I think, has no theological or spiritual value."
Good grief, say whatever you want about The Passion, but calling it a bore is nothing more than fever-swamp ruminations.
Church folks should be warned, this is not your typical family-friendly "Christian" movie such as Chariots of Fire or The Ten Commandments. The Passion is the most brutal movie you will probably ever see. People will be sobbing in the theaters or running out to get sick in the lobby.
This is the Sunday-school flannel-board lesson for a generation that grew up on violent video games, skipped church, and stood in line to watch Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill, Volume 1 — a gratuitously bloody movie with no redemptive purpose. The Passion has an unmistakable gothic and art house feel, with touches of the ghoulish and grotesque. There is one unforgettable scene of Mary, the mother of Jesus, kissing her son's bloody feet as he dangles from the cross. She then turns around and looks into the camera with his blood on her lips.
Is there too much gore and violence in The Passion? Probably. It made me turn my head. I just kept whispering, "Dear Jesus," to myself throughout many of the scenes. It is the most sadistic and simultaneously holy thing I have seen.
This is not the kind of movie that you merely watch, it is one you experience. Think back to when you first saw the movie Roots on TV — seeing a white man whip a black man's back. It wreaks havoc on your gut. All of the high-school history lessons about the Civil War changed in a dimension of your comprehension — moving from your head to your heart.
It is painful to watch as Jesus stumbles through the Via Dolorosa — the path of pain — on his way to Golgotha, as his beloved mother watches helplessly from the sidelines, flashing back in her memory to a time when she could still cradle her son in her arms. As Jesus is nailed to the cross, you know you will never view communion the same way again. The same could be said for the way you conceive of Mary (Maia Morgenstern) or Satan (Rosalinda Celentano — say goodbye to the red cape and pitchfork caricature).
As to the movie, you could not help but watch it through the prism of the accusations. You looked at every character to see if he were unfairly called upon to portray an anti-Semitic stereotype or if a disproportionate amount of blame was laid upon one person or group. Ironically, Maia Morgenstern, who plays Mary, is the Jewish daughter of a Holocaust survivor. Furthermore, the only appearance that Gibson makes in the movie is when his hands are seen driving the nails into Jesus on the cross — simultaneously driving home the point of his own culpability in the death of Christ.
"There is absolutely nothing anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish about Mel Gibson's film," said Augustine Di Noia, a theologian at the Vatican. "What happens in the film is that each of the main characters contributes in some way to Jesus' fate: Judas betrays him; the Sanhedrin accuses him; the disciples abandon him; the crowd mocks him; the Roman soldiers scourge, brutalize, and finally crucify him; and the devil, somehow, is behind the whole action."
From my perspective, the film makes it clear that there were righteous and unrighteous Jewish and Roman leaders who played a part in the drama unfolded around the crucifixion of Jesus. It is fair to say that anyone leaving the movie theater with anti-Semitic fervor would have to be deranged and morally warped — or they didn't watch it.
According to Jim Caviezel, who plays Jesus, Gibson would say, "Maia, tell me about your [Jewish] traditions. Is this O.K. to do?" Part of the frustration surrounding the accusations against the movie is that it was meant to be "very Semitic," according to Caviezel. "Instead of having an Aryan, blue-eyed Jesus, [Gibson] wanted to have a very Semitic Jesus," Caviezel told Newsweek. "Our faith is grounded in our Jewish tradition. We believe we're from the House of David. We believe we're from the House of Abraham, so we cannot hate our own. That crowd standing before Pontius Pilate screaming for the head of Christ in no way convicts an entire race for the death of Jesus Christ any more than the actions of Mussolini condemn all Italians, or the heinous actions of Stalin condemn all Russians. We're all culpable in the death of Christ. My sins put him up there. Yours did. That's what this story is about."
Christian leaders might find it wise to defend The Passion as well as use this controversy in order to speak out clearly against the heinous and lingering sin of anti-Semitism. "Of course, even the most responsible, well-intentioned movie treatment of the last hours of Jesus will provoke concern in the Jewish community, because so many millions of Jews have suffered and died over the centuries due to Gospel-based charges that they are 'Christ killers,'" writes Michael Medved, the popular movie reviewer and Orthodox Jew, in USA Today. "But the fact that persecutors and bigots have distorted teachings of the New Testament for their own cruel purposes doesn't mean that those Gospel texts, sacred to all Christians, must be scrapped, revised or ignored in a serious work of cinema."
The accusation of anti-Semitism has been an unjust albatross around Gibson's neck. "To be certain, neither I nor my film are anti-Semitic," he said in a statement published in Variety. "Anti-Semitism is not only contrary to my personal beliefs; it is also contrary to the core message of my movie...[which is] meant to inspire, not offend. My intention in bringing it to the screen is to create a lasting work of art and engender serious thought among audiences of diverse faith backgrounds. "If the intense scrutiny during my 25 years in public life revealed I had ever persecuted or discriminated against anyone based on race or creed, I would be all too willing to make amends. But there is no such record."
"I have always believed in God," Gibson told us. "From age 15 to 35, I was a hell raiser. In many ways, I still am," he said jokingly. He then went on to tell us that he had "come to a difficult point in my life and meditating on Christ's sufferings, on his passion, got me through it." Christ's passion became his obsession — and ultimately a healing balm.
"I'm not a preacher and I'm not a pastor. But I really feel my career was leading me to make this," Gibson has said. "The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film, and I was just directing traffic. I hope the film has the power to evangelize."
That should not be a problem. I have been a Christian for 20 years and after seeing The Passion I wanted to sign up all over again.
— Steve Beard is the creator of Thunderstruck.Org and a contributing author to Spiritual Journeys: How Faith Has Influenced Twelve Music Icons.
"In their coverage of The Passion, the predictably contrarian website Salon.com turned to the Rev. Mark Stanger, one of the pastors at the trendy Grace Cathedral, an Episcopal church in San Francisco. "100 percent Hollywood trash," is how he described it. What was his advice to moviegoers? "I'd say don't bother. I think it's a big bore. I think a 5-year-old who has to get cancer surgery and radiation and chemotherapy suffers more than Jesus suffered; I think that a kid in the Gaza Strip who steps on a land mine and loses two limbs suffers more; I think a battered wife with no resources suffers more; I think people without medical care dying of AIDS in Africa suffer more than Jesus did that day. I mean, I don't want to take away from that, but this preoccupation with the intensity of the suffering, I think, has no theological or spiritual value."
God help Rev. Stranger. I fear for the flock that this man tends to. Absoluteley breathtaking his comments.
Mea culpa
I just got back from the movie and feel this way exactly. The last thing I was thinking even know (an hour later) is about the Jews or Romans but of Jesus Christs sacrafice for all of us. Wont be taking my kids ages 8 and 11. Most adults should be able to handle the gore of the sacrifice but its difficult. Gibson does break up the Gore with poignant scenes. Just incredible.....this is the picture of the year and I have no idea how the academy is going to deny Mel and James Carviezal their awards. Just awesome acting and directing. What a story, retold in a time when most needed. THANKS MEL : )
God help us all.
Had Jerusalem been peopled by the likes of the good reverend, NCS types and NYT movie reviewers the crowd calling for the Crucifixion of Jesus would have been half again as large.
I think my wife summed up my feelings at the moment when she said, "I don't want to see this, but I will."
You haven't met the office liberal where I work. When asked if he would see the movie, he said he would "when Mel makes a movie on the Inquisition"
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Romans 1:17
Sounds like the flock needs to look for a new shepherd...
The question people should be asking is "Why are people making accusations of anti-Semitism when they know there is no anti-Semitsm?"
For some, they make the charge because they are simply ignorant.
For some, they repeat the charge simply because they have heard someone in their desired social group make the charge.
For most of the others, they make the charge due to their hatred of Christianity. Instead of labeling all of the haters as liberals, Christians should take a closer look at who actually is making the charges and understand where the hatred arises.
In their coverage of The Passion, the predictably contrarian website Salon.com turned to the Rev. Mark Stanger, one of the pastors at the trendy Grace Cathedral, an Episcopal church in San Francisco. "100 percent Hollywood trash," is how he described it. What was his advice to moviegoers? "I'd say don't bother. I think it's a big bore. I think a 5-year-old who has to get cancer surgery and radiation and chemotherapy suffers more than Jesus suffered; I think that a kid in the Gaza Strip who steps on a land mine and loses two limbs suffers more; I think a battered wife with no resources suffers more; I think people without medical care dying of AIDS in Africa suffer more than Jesus did that day. I mean, I don't want to take away from that, but this preoccupation with the intensity of the suffering, I think, has no theological or spiritual value."
http://www.carm.org/misc/crucifixion.htm
http://www.holytrinity.ok.goarch.org/Interesting%20Stuff/Special%20Communication%20Plus%20Picture.html
http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/scourging.htm
http://www.intermirifica.org/lent/passion4.htm
Scourging of Jesus
At the Praetorium, Jesus was severely whipped. (Although the severity of the scourging is not discussed in the four gospel accounts, it is implied in one of the epistles (1 Peter 2:24). A detailed word study of the ancient Greek text for this verse indicates that the scourging of Jesus was particularly harsh. (33) ) It is not known whether the number of lashes was limited to 39, in accordance with Jewish law. (5) The Roman soldiers, amused that this weakened man had claimed to be a king, began to mock him by placing a robe on his shoulders, a crown of thorns on his head, and a wooden staff as a scepter in his right hand.
(1) Next, they spat on Jesus and struck him on the head with the wooden staff. (1) Moreover, when the soldiers tore the robe from Jesus' back, they probably reopened the scourging wounds. (7)
The severe scourging, with its intense pain and appreciable blood loss, most probably left Jesus in a preshock state. Moreover, hematidrosis had rendered his skin particularly tender. The physical and mental abuse meted out by the Jews and the Romans, as well as the lack of food, water, and sleep, also contributed to his generally weakened state. Therefore, even before the actual crucifixion, Jesus' physical condition was at least serious and possibly critical.
The Passion of Christ
by The Rev. Cn. Mark Stanger
Last week, I attended a special pre-screening of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, set for commercial release on February 25th.
Charges of anti-Jewish content, gratuitous gore (giving it an R rating), and general fuzziness of concept have not been good omens for Mr. Gibson's self-financed, idiosyncratic portrayal of the final hours of Jesus of Nazareth.
I would not recommend the film to a devout Christian, skeptical Jew, or avid Hollywood buff. My fairly traditional Catholic 76-year-old mother, who accompanied me, found it "plodding" and the protracted violence of the torturing of the captured Jesus turned her stomach; she lasted till the end in order to see Gibson onstage, interviewed by the local pastor. (Telling about it at bridge later that week would be quite a trump card, worth any temporary discomfort.)
As a life-long Christian and lover of Jesus and the implications of his life and death for humanity, I found the film dull, trashy, and historically and biblically unsound. It's potentially as harmful to Christians as it may be for Jews.
The determined effort to give a patina of historical authenticity (which could be challenged on many essential points) is expressed most obviously by the use of Aramaic and Latin. Mr. Gibson, in the interview, said it was to add an air of "mysterious reality". Maybe so, but putting another language into a film doesn't necessarily add to its historical accuracy or truthful storytelling.
More disturbing was his second reason for the language barrier. He compared it to a film depicting ferocious Vikings descending with all their barbarous intent and weaponry on a peaceful village. "To have them step off the ship, ready to attack, but speaking English, would diminish the sense of such a frightening confrontation. The same goes for those who put Jesus to death." Apart from the logical inconsistency (the speech of Jesus and his followers was also subtitled, after all), the idea that more brutal terror would be evoked by non-English speakers strikes me as chillingly xenophobic.
The film's anti-Jewish bias magnifies what the Christian scriptures do indeed contain: a growing discomfort between this wild new group of Jews for Jesus and faithful mainline Jewish groups of that time and place. But having the temple high priest Caiaphas as the prominent cheerleader demanding crucifixion unduly villainizes him and the faith tradition he represents. The focus on Pilate's hand-washing (only in Matthew's account) reinforces the perception that the "blame" is laid squarely on the Jews. This is, of course, preposterous and offensive to Jew and Christian alike: Christian theology -- and even a bit of this fragmented film -- affirms that the death of Jesus was freely accepted and necessary. Complicity in his death is shared by the Roman occupying power (the charge and the sentence were theirs), religious traditionalists (who happened to be Jewish), an out of control mob, and, most significantly, by the weak and spineless disciples of Jesus.
Mr. Gibson's larger bias, regrettably shared by thousands, is that the Gospels have been diluted of their power by "revisionists" -- his disdainful word for the past two generations of faith-filled, critical scholars of the texts, including the startlingly enlightened and coherent official principles for biblical interpretation promulgated by the assembled bishops of the Roman Catholic Second Vatican council of the 1960's. Gibson further dismissed the idea that the gospel writers had "agendas", a concept that puts him firmly outside official Catholic teaching and all of mainstream Christian biblical interpretation. That wholesome tradition recognizes the very definite theological, pastoral, and spiritual agendas of the written gospels, not as eyewitness accounts, but as theological works (faith-filled screenplays, if you will) to answer questions and express divine truths in a particular time and place. The late Fr. Raymond Brown, in his masterful two-volume The Death of the Messiah or his profound little booklet A Crucified Christ in Holy Week, far outshines this $30 million piece of bizarre and lurid propaganda.
The violence-induced "R" rating is compared by the film's promoters to the same rating given to "such fine films as Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan." The biblical accounts are supremely less wanton and morbid. The Gospel writers straightforwardly and soberly state that after arriving at Golgotha, "There they crucified him." Only Hollywood, or an overactive and distorted religious imagination, would add such details, literally ad nauseam.
When the pastor-interviewer tried to commit him to doing more biblical films, Gibson squirmed and wisely said, "there are a lot of good stories out there." Indeed, the greatest literature and films often illuminate the mysteries of human suffering, redemption, salvation, forgiveness, brutality and betrayal, renewal and resurrection. For "religious" inspiration, it's often best to skip Hollywood altogether and find a generous group of praying believers. Or go for Hollywood's best and noblest offerings. The Passion of the Christ is not among them.
-- The Rev. Cn. Mark Stanger
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.