A few comments on The Passion of the Mel:

Are we justified in assuming that what people say when smashed always represents their real views? – Probably not, but it doesn’t matter. Mel’s utterances damaged his reputation, hurt his family, and endangered the livelihoods of those who depend upon him for work, and noxiously offended Jews and others. As some have noted, there are some drunks who love their wives and children even as they beat them to a pulp. Even apart from his anti-Semitic rant, he has gone from looking like a cool guy to looking like an out-of-control fool. Tom Cruise’s image and box office clout was damaged in a related way for his remarks about Brooke Shields and psychiatry (and here I am talking about public reaction, not comparing Scientology to bigotry).

Do his remarks provide definitive proof for those who accused "The Passion of the Christ" of anti-Semitism? More generally: How much are we entitled to read into the art what we think we know about the artist? -- As I read stuff like this, I kept wondering where these dopes who conclusion-jump from Mel’s (or Mel’s father’s) statements to the film were when “intentional fallacy” was discussed in literature classes. The conservative talk show host Dennis Prager noted that after an advance screening of the film, he became convinced that segments of the audience were watching two different movies. Jews were watching Jews kill Jesus, while Christians were watching Christ die for humanity’s sins. I concur with this observation.

I am not even remotely religious. I see religion at best as a benign mental illness. Still, I noted that many religious Christians were profoundly affected by the movie. But I never heard anyone who was moved by the film blame Jews, or even talk about Jews or even talk much about the scenes depicting the trial of Jesus. Not from anyone. They didn’t talk about the “excessive violence” in the film. They talked about understanding and empathizing with the suffering of Jesus, about seeing the Gospels in a fresh light. They talked about how seeing Jesus suffer became real and personal for them.

And yet I understand how some can honestly see the film as anti-Semitic. It would be stupid to fail to acknowledge this, or to deny the validity of these sentiments.

On the other hand, some film and cultural critics hysterically over-reacted to the film. For them, Jesus is kind of a general cultural icon, like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, without any particular theological significance. They have a strong attachment to the image of a sissified, or hippie Jesus (as in “Jesus Christ, Superstar”), who hung out with his dudes, said some cool stuff about the masses and then split, man. “The Passion” violated this image of Jesus, and they were hurt, outraged, and felt that they had to fight back. I saved a number of film reviews in which some of the film’s harshest critics felt a need to note that they were secular, which is OK (hell, largely irrelevant), but no excuse to ignore the theological aspects of the film, or to dismiss the positive reactions or statements of the film’s audience, or to dismiss these people as heartless or irrational yahoos. It was also odd that some of these people condemned the film’s violence as excessive or sado-masochistic, but had no problem with the numerous depictions of violence in the Lord of the Ring’s trilogy. I think that some of these people are eagerly jumping onto the anti-Mel bandwagon because their need to feel vindicated greatly exceeds their attachment to any kind of intellectual honesty.

So I went to see the film. Liked that the Romans spoke Latin. They no longer seemed like effete British aristocrats (think “I, Claudius”) spouting the King’s English, but seemed much more like imperialistic thugs. The Latin and Aramaic made the film seem more immediate. I don’t know whether the subtitles accurately quoted the New Testament where appropriate, but some of it was obviously close enough that some in the audience could be seen to be reciting along silently at some particularly moving moments and passages, again I think, drawing some more into the film.

One thing more. Some claimed that Jews were deliberately depicted negatively and stereotypically. Yet those who make this claim do something ahistorical. They ignore the fact that in the film the characters who are Jesus’ followers, and those who come to his assistance at various times, are also obviously Jewish, not people who have been magically hit with a Gentile stick. They in effect have to create a distinction between Christians and Jews that is not a part of the film’s narrative in order to sustain their claim.

Posted by: Alec on August 7, 2006 7:04 AM

"a reader" wrote:

"The ADL, as documented in David Limbaugh's book, it pretty anti-Christian and at the very least, given their rabid support of Israel, grossly hypocritical."

I'm no fan of the ADL regarding most of their stances in the US, but what is it that you find "rabid" about their support for Israel?

Posted by: Jake on August 7, 2006 4:33 PM

"I'm no fan of the ADL regarding most of their stances in the US, but what is it that you find "rabid" about their support for Israel?"

Let's just say it's grossly hypocritical to demand the removal of Christmas trees from public schools and in turn demand the US support "the Jewish state" though i would disagree with both, I could respect a view that took one stance or the other but not both.

Posted by: a reader on August 8, 2006 9:14 AM

Lucky me. If my real self is me when I'm drunk, my real self is asleep, snoring in front of the TV. Not very attractive, but pretty much harmless.

Posted by: Mitch on August 8, 2006 8:53 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?