Submitted as a Paper
The story of the life and death of Jesus is central to Western culture, as Christianity was the glue that held together the fabric of both the later Roman Empire and medieval society. Its impact, for both good and ill, has left an indelible mark upon the world; even to this day it continues to exert influence. As a testament to this enduring power, Mel Gibson has recently encapsulated the evocative image of the “suffering savior” on the big screen--turning his apparently genuine (if somewhat frighteningly fanatical) religious fervor into a major box office success.
For a solid year before the release of this film, controversy over its content raged, spurring debates over the possibility of “The Passion of the Christ” sparking anti-Semitic violence--as many “passion plays” have done over the course of history. This controversy, naturally, only served to provide Gibson with free advertising and promotion. After all, what could attract more viewers than cultivating the feeling that this movie is “the forbidden film no one wants you to see”?
The controversy ultimately stems from the belief that this movie (just like historic passion plays) places the blame for the Crucifixion squarely on the Jews. Not the Jews of 33 CE, mind you-no, the blame falls on the shoulders of today’s Jews in one of those bizarre, twisted-logic curses-upon-all-generations-henceforth that seem such a prominent theme in the Judeo-Christian Bible. Particularly offensive to Jewish anti-defamation groups was the line, “His blood shall be upon our hands and the hands of all our children”--referring, obviously, to the people of Israel. Though that phrase does appear in the Bible, pressure finally compelled Gibson to remove this line, a gesture that quelled much of the anxiety over the movie.
Of course, only the subtitle of the offensive line in question was removed. The words themselves, spoken in Aramaic, are still present and “clear as a bell” according to a friend of mine capable of understanding the language.
Now that the movie has been released, audiences can appreciate the fact that there is no anti-Semitic subtext. Not only does the main focus of the movie rest on the bloody trial of endurance undergone by its hero, the only vague traces of anti-Semitism one might throw at the movie are its vile portrayal of Caiphas, the Jewish high priest, considered alongside the relatively benign but weak Pontius Pilate. However, it will easily be observed that these characterizations are in line with most of the four Gospels--and that Caiphas is not singled out for his ethnicity, but rather for his desire to execute a man who threatens to undermine his political position.
The focus of criticisms has suddenly turned towards the immense violence of the movie. Clearly, no expense was spared in the creation of the realistic gore depicted on screen. Audience members have thrown up, had seizures, and even suffered heart attacks while watching the gruesome scenes: the endless scourging, the nails through the palms, birds pecking out the eyes of helpless, crucified victims, etc. Whether or not this particular event occurred in history or not, crucifixions like this certainly did occur, and this movie seeks to duplicate this terrible method of execution accurately.
When all is said and done, the violence does make the film extremely difficult to watch. This is certainly not a movie one goes to for enjoyment (unless for sadomasochistic reasons, which opens a whole new realm of psychological insights into religion that this critique will *not* discuss). In fact, there are only two reasons one would see this movie: either one feels intrigued about the “anti-Semitic” or violence hype or one is drawn by sincere religious devotion.
In its opening weekend, “The Passion of the Christ” earned more than a hundred million dollars. Are there really so many sincere Christians in America? A quote from German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche seems most appropriate: “In truth, there was only one Christian--and he died on the cross"; that is to say, the only thing that is truly Christian is an imitation of the life of Jesus, something excedingly rare in history. Far from encouraging people to live Christlike lives of compassion and peace, this film simply paints the legend of the death of Christ with an extremely bloody brush, encouraging--if anything at all--blind faith in God, much like Gibson’s own delusional madness. The draw of this movie is pure sensationalism; had there been no controversy, this film would have done meagerly. As it was, with free advertising every night on television, spurred on by the very people who claimed to oppose the movie, “The Passion of the Christ” quickly became the number one movie in America. Who knows? Maybe it was a miracle….
For a solid year before the release of this film, controversy over its content raged, spurring debates over the possibility of “The Passion of the Christ” sparking anti-Semitic violence--as many “passion plays” have done over the course of history. This controversy, naturally, only served to provide Gibson with free advertising and promotion. After all, what could attract more viewers than cultivating the feeling that this movie is “the forbidden film no one wants you to see”?
The controversy ultimately stems from the belief that this movie (just like historic passion plays) places the blame for the Crucifixion squarely on the Jews. Not the Jews of 33 CE, mind you-no, the blame falls on the shoulders of today’s Jews in one of those bizarre, twisted-logic curses-upon-all-generations-henceforth that seem such a prominent theme in the Judeo-Christian Bible. Particularly offensive to Jewish anti-defamation groups was the line, “His blood shall be upon our hands and the hands of all our children”--referring, obviously, to the people of Israel. Though that phrase does appear in the Bible, pressure finally compelled Gibson to remove this line, a gesture that quelled much of the anxiety over the movie.
Of course, only the subtitle of the offensive line in question was removed. The words themselves, spoken in Aramaic, are still present and “clear as a bell” according to a friend of mine capable of understanding the language.
Now that the movie has been released, audiences can appreciate the fact that there is no anti-Semitic subtext. Not only does the main focus of the movie rest on the bloody trial of endurance undergone by its hero, the only vague traces of anti-Semitism one might throw at the movie are its vile portrayal of Caiphas, the Jewish high priest, considered alongside the relatively benign but weak Pontius Pilate. However, it will easily be observed that these characterizations are in line with most of the four Gospels--and that Caiphas is not singled out for his ethnicity, but rather for his desire to execute a man who threatens to undermine his political position.
The focus of criticisms has suddenly turned towards the immense violence of the movie. Clearly, no expense was spared in the creation of the realistic gore depicted on screen. Audience members have thrown up, had seizures, and even suffered heart attacks while watching the gruesome scenes: the endless scourging, the nails through the palms, birds pecking out the eyes of helpless, crucified victims, etc. Whether or not this particular event occurred in history or not, crucifixions like this certainly did occur, and this movie seeks to duplicate this terrible method of execution accurately.
When all is said and done, the violence does make the film extremely difficult to watch. This is certainly not a movie one goes to for enjoyment (unless for sadomasochistic reasons, which opens a whole new realm of psychological insights into religion that this critique will *not* discuss). In fact, there are only two reasons one would see this movie: either one feels intrigued about the “anti-Semitic” or violence hype or one is drawn by sincere religious devotion.
In its opening weekend, “The Passion of the Christ” earned more than a hundred million dollars. Are there really so many sincere Christians in America? A quote from German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche seems most appropriate: “In truth, there was only one Christian--and he died on the cross"; that is to say, the only thing that is truly Christian is an imitation of the life of Jesus, something excedingly rare in history. Far from encouraging people to live Christlike lives of compassion and peace, this film simply paints the legend of the death of Christ with an extremely bloody brush, encouraging--if anything at all--blind faith in God, much like Gibson’s own delusional madness. The draw of this movie is pure sensationalism; had there been no controversy, this film would have done meagerly. As it was, with free advertising every night on television, spurred on by the very people who claimed to oppose the movie, “The Passion of the Christ” quickly became the number one movie in America. Who knows? Maybe it was a miracle….