[Vision2020] Mad Max Meets Jesus Christ
Nick Gier
ngier@uidaho.edu
Tue, 02 Mar 2004 22:05:14 -0800
--Boundary_(ID_FV1fg/DOWUZ+vaaw+asLLQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Greetings:
I saw Gibson's "Passion" Monday night and here is my movie review. If you
want to see the Bosch painting I mention and see the references, you should
read it at www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gibson.htm.
I will be signing my Gandhi book tomorrow night at the Borah Symposium from
6:30-7:00, just before Lech Walesa speaks. SUB Ballroom 7-9.
MAD MAX MEETS JESUS CHRIST:
Beat Jesus to a Pulp and Kill Bill Jew Too
by Nick Gier
Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" has caused a storm
of controversy, and after having seen it and read some of the commentary, I
would like to weigh in with my opinions. But first here is a sampling of
what the critics have said.
Leon Wieseltier condemns the movie as a "repulsive, masochistic
fantasy, a sacred snuff film." Maureen Dowd states that "you might . . .
call it a spaghetti crucifixion, 'A Fistful of Nails.'" Catholic Mary
Gordon states that "the dominant tone in the film is one of rage-inducing
voyeurism." William Safire charges that the movie "is the bloodiest, most
brutal example of sustained sadism ever presented on the screen."
These critics neglect to mention that the movie is well crafted and
the performances are superb. James Caviezel is a convincing Christ and the
two Marys are portrayed especially well. But still the dominant image in my
mind was Hieronymous Bosch's "Christ Carrying the Cross" directed by
Quentin Tarantino with the motto "Beat Jesus to a pulp and kill Bill Jew,
too." Some will recall that Tarantino subjected Monica Bellucci (Gibson's
Mary) to incredible abuse his "Irreversible."
As a cinematic artist, Gibson was free to choose his own vision of
the last twelve hours of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. But, unlike Martin
Scorsese, who did "The Last Temptation of Christ" following Nikos
Kazantzakis' vivid imagination, Gibson claims that he is being historically
accurate and scripturally faithful.
It's hard to be scripturally faithful when the texts themselves
are inconsistent. On the central issue of a Jewish trial, Mark and Matthew
have two night sessions before the high priest, Luke has a single morning
trial with no high priest, and John does not mention a Jewish trial at all.
Historians know most of the details a typical Roman crucifixion,
but for some odd reason Gibson chose to give us his own medieval version,
complete with turning the cross over and pounding over the nails. It gives
him a chance to give Jesus' front side one more good beating! Furthermore,
victims carried just the cross beams (as the two criminals did), not the
entire oversized cross that Caviezel stumbled under.
Having the people speak Aramaic was an authentic touch, but when
Jesus eruditely switches to Latin when Pilate speaks Aramaic to him, Gibson
has drawn us a theological cartoon. (This means that Jesus could have saved
the medieval Catholics the trouble of translating from Greek to Latin!) The
Roman troops were local recruits, so it is very doubtful if even they spoke
Caesar's language.
Pilate is portrayed in a very favorable light, quite contrary to
historical reports that he was a person known for his "cruelty . . . and
his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity." Much of
his cruelty was directed towards the Jews, many of whom he executed without
trial or slaughtered indiscriminately in military raids.
It is therefore inconceivable that Pilate would have been swayed by
Jewish opinion, or that he thought that his religious stool pigeons would
ever contemplate a revolt. Contrary to what the New Testament writers
imply, it is clear that Pilate saw Jesus as a dangerous revolutionary and
he would not have hesitated to order the standard Roman punishment for
sedition.
Following New Testament leads, Gibson portrays the Jews leaders as
the real villains. Gibson defends himself against the charge of
anti-Semitism claiming that this is what the Gospels report. But is his
version the correct interpretation? Is it true that all those Jews who
welcomed Jesus to Jerusalem on Palm Sunday had suddenly turned against him?
Were the alleged bribes really that effective? Wouldn't the people rather
have been lined up on the Via Dolorosa in silent respect or vocal lament
rather than raging against him?
Gibson did agree to delete the subtitles for this notorious passage,
found only in Matthew: "His blood [will] be on us and our children!"
(27:25). "All the people" said this when Pilate said "I am innocent of this
man's blood." Gibson was very reluctant on this concession: "I wanted it
in. My brother said I was wimping out if I didn't include it. It happened;
it was said."
Gibson partially had his way: the phrase is still spoken in Aramaic,
and who is to say that it won't appear in Arabic, Hindi, Urdu, Turkish,
Malay, Indonesian, or Farsi subtitles, where it will inflame already deep
seated anti-Semitic feelings world-wide? What could be a more clear
indictment than this criminal confession from the Jewish people themselves?
There are at least twenty scenes in the movie that do not appear in
the Bible. Among them are the demon children of an ever present Satan who
hound Judas; the high priests bribing people to come to Jesus' trial;
Pilate's wife offering clean linens to Mary, which she used to wipe up the
blood of the scourging; the divine tear from heaven; and the supremely
sadistic and superfluous raven pecking out the eye of the unrepentant
thief. (For more scenes and more general critique see
www.bc.edu/research/cjl.)
Scholars have traced most of these extra scenes to the visions of
Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824), who Gibson says "supplied me with
stuff I never would have thought of." Gibson considers her a saint and
wears one of her relics. In Emmerich's visions the high priest Caiaphas
appears as one who is in league with Satan and the defining feature of the
Jews are their long noses, and the more bent the nose the more evil the
Jew. When Gibson says that he doesn't consider Emmerich to be anti-Semitic,
he is clearly admitting that he doesn't have a clue about what hatred of
Jews is all about. I hope Gibson learns about the Colorado Pastor Maurice
Gorden whose placed "Jews Killed Lord Jesus" on his church's marquee.
Gibson had a chance to clean up his act. Last year a scholarly panel
of five Catholics and four Jews was allowed to review the screen play. The
panel was critical of key parts of it and suggested some changes. Gibson
turned on the panel and his attorneys, incredibly enough, charged the
scholars with stealing the script! Panel members are receiving regular hate
mail even to this day. For more details see "The New Republic" (July 28, 2003).
The Rev. Billy Graham has praised the movie as being completely
authentic and a "lifetime of sermons in one movie." Can we seriously
believe that Graham has focused on the scourging of Christ in all of these
long years of preaching and not his healings and message of universal love?
Catholic Mary Gordon describes Mad Mel's theology very well: "My
problem with the 'Passion of the Christ' is that I felt as if I were being
continually hit over the head with a two-by-four, but I never tasted the
sugar and I wasn't even given my portion of healthy feed. Once my
attention was grabbed, what was it I was supposed to hear? That Jesus
suffered greatly for my sins, more greatly perhaps than I should
imagine. But who is this Jesus and what is the meaning of his
suffering? Theologically, the meaning of Jesus' death comes with the
triumph of the Resurrection, arguable the weakest scene in the film, in
which Mr. Caviezel looks not victorious but stoned." And to Mary
Magdelene's implied astonishment (or a DaVinci Code conjugal embrace), he
walks out of the tomb naked!
Yes, we have had too many saccharine Christs from Hollywood, but
Gibson has irresponsibly taken us too far in the other direction. For
austere realism there is still nothing to compare to "The Gospel According
to St. Matthew," using only the gospel's words, by the Marxist director
Pier Paolo Pasolini.
Professors Paula Fredriksen of Boston University and Philip Cunningham at
Boston College were primary sources of information.
--Boundary_(ID_FV1fg/DOWUZ+vaaw+asLLQ)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
<html>
<font face="Courier New, Courier" size=1>Greetings:<br><br>
I saw Gibson's "Passion" Monday night and here is my movie
review. If you want to see the Bosch painting I mention and see the
references, you should read it at
<a href="http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gibson.htm" eudora="autourl">www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gibson.htm</a>.<br><br>
I will be signing my Gandhi book tomorrow night at the Borah Symposium
from 6:30-7:00, just before Lech Walesa speaks. SUB Ballroom
7-9.<br><br>
MAD MAX MEETS JESUS CHRIST:<br>
Beat Jesus to a Pulp and Kill Bill Jew Too<br>
by Nick Gier<br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Mel
Gibson’s movie “The Passion of the Christ” has caused a storm of
controversy, and after having seen it and read some of the commentary, I
would like to weigh in with my opinions. But first here is a sampling of
what the critics have said.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Leon
Wieseltier condemns the movie as a “repulsive, masochistic fantasy, a
sacred snuff film.” Maureen Dowd states that “you might . . . call
it a spaghetti crucifixion, ‘A Fistful of Nails.’” Catholic Mary
Gordon states that “the dominant tone in the film is one of rage-inducing
voyeurism.” William Safire charges that the movie “is the bloodiest, most
brutal example of sustained sadism ever presented on the screen.” <br>
These critics neglect to mention that the
movie is well crafted and the performances are superb. James
Caviezel is a convincing Christ and the two Marys are portrayed
especially well. But still the dominant image in my mind was Hieronymous
Bosch’s “Christ Carrying the Cross” directed by Quentin Tarantino with
the motto “Beat Jesus to a pulp and kill Bill Jew, too.” Some will recall
that Tarantino subjected Monica Bellucci (Gibson’s Mary) to incredible
abuse his “Irreversible.”<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>As a
cinematic artist, Gibson was free to choose his own vision of the last
twelve hours of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. But, unlike Martin
Scorsese, who did “The Last Temptation of Christ” following Nikos
Kazantzakis' vivid imagination, Gibson claims that he is being
historically accurate and scripturally faithful.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>It’s hard
to be scripturally faithful when the texts themselves are inconsistent.
On the central issue of a Jewish trial, Mark and Matthew have two night
sessions before the high priest, Luke has a single morning trial with no
high priest, and John does not mention a Jewish trial at all. <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Historians
know most of the details a typical Roman crucifixion, but for some odd
reason Gibson chose to give us his own medieval version, complete with
turning the cross over and pounding over the nails. It gives him a
chance to give Jesus’ front side one more good beating! Furthermore,
victims carried just the cross beams (as the two criminals did), not the
entire oversized cross that Caviezel stumbled under.<br>
Having the people speak Aramaic was an
authentic touch, but when Jesus eruditely switches to Latin when Pilate
speaks Aramaic to him, Gibson has drawn us a theological cartoon. (This
means that Jesus could have saved the medieval Catholics the trouble of
translating from Greek to Latin!) The Roman troops were local recruits,
so it is very doubtful if even they spoke Caesar’s language.<br>
Pilate is portrayed in a very favorable
light, quite contrary to historical reports that he was a person known
for his “cruelty . . . and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most
grievous inhumanity.” Much of his cruelty was directed towards the Jews,
many of whom he executed without trial or slaughtered indiscriminately in
military raids. <br>
It is therefore inconceivable that Pilate
would have been swayed by Jewish opinion, or that he thought that his
religious stool pigeons would ever contemplate a revolt. Contrary
to what the New Testament writers imply, it is clear that Pilate saw
Jesus as a dangerous revolutionary and he would not have hesitated to
order the standard Roman punishment for sedition.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Following
New Testament leads, Gibson portrays the Jews leaders as the real
villains. Gibson defends himself against the charge of
anti-Semitism claiming that this is what the Gospels report. But is
his version the correct interpretation? Is it true that all those
Jews who welcomed Jesus to Jerusalem on Palm Sunday had suddenly turned
against him? Were the alleged bribes really that effective? Wouldn’t the
people rather have been lined up on the Via Dolorosa in silent respect or
vocal lament rather than raging against him?<br>
Gibson did agree to delete the subtitles
for this notorious passage, found only in Matthew: “His blood [will] be
on us and our children!” (27:25). “All the people” said this when Pilate
said “I am innocent of this man’s blood.” Gibson was very reluctant
on this concession: “I wanted it in. My brother said I was wimping
out if I didn’t include it. It happened; it was said.” <br>
Gibson partially had his way: the phrase
is still spoken in Aramaic, and who is to say that it won’t appear in
Arabic, Hindi, Urdu, Turkish, Malay, Indonesian, or Farsi subtitles,
where it will inflame already deep seated anti-Semitic feelings
world-wide? What could be a more clear indictment than this criminal
confession from the Jewish people themselves?<br>
There are at least twenty scenes in the
movie that do not appear in the Bible. Among them are the demon children
of an ever present Satan who hound Judas; the high priests bribing people
to come to Jesus’ trial; Pilate’s wife offering clean linens to Mary,
which she used to wipe up the blood of the scourging; the divine tear
from heaven; and the supremely sadistic and superfluous raven pecking out
the eye of the unrepentant thief. (For more scenes and more general
critique see www.bc.edu/research/cjl.)<br>
Scholars have traced most of these extra
scenes to the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824), who Gibson
says “supplied me with stuff I never would have thought of.” Gibson
considers her a saint and wears one of her relics. In Emmerich’s visions
the high priest Caiaphas appears as one who is in league with Satan and
the defining feature of the Jews are their long noses, and the more bent
the nose the more evil the Jew. When Gibson says that he doesn’t consider
Emmerich to be anti-Semitic, he is clearly admitting that he doesn’t have
a clue about what hatred of Jews is all about. I hope Gibson learns about
the Colorado Pastor Maurice Gorden whose placed “Jews Killed Lord Jesus”
on his church’s marquee.<br>
Gibson had a chance to clean up his act.
Last year a scholarly panel of five Catholics and four Jews was allowed
to review the screen play. The panel was critical of key parts of
it and suggested some changes. Gibson turned on the panel and his
attorneys, incredibly enough, charged the scholars with stealing the
script! Panel members are receiving regular hate mail even to this day.
For more details see “The New Republic” (July 28, 2003).<br>
The Rev. Billy Graham has praised the
movie as being completely authentic and a “lifetime of sermons in one
movie.” Can we seriously believe that Graham has focused on the
scourging of Christ in all of these long years of preaching and not his
healings and message of universal love?<br>
Catholic Mary Gordon describes Mad Mel’s
theology very well: “My problem with the ‘Passion of the Christ’ is that
I felt as if I were being continually hit over the head with a
two-by-four, but I never tasted the sugar and I wasn’t even given my
portion of healthy feed. Once my attention was grabbed, what was it
I was supposed to hear? That Jesus suffered greatly for my sins, more
greatly perhaps than I should imagine. But who is this Jesus and
what is the meaning of his suffering? Theologically, the meaning of
Jesus’ death comes with the triumph of the Resurrection, arguable the
weakest scene in the film, in which Mr. Caviezel looks not victorious but
stoned.” And to Mary Magdelene’s implied astonishment (or a DaVinci
Code conjugal embrace), he walks out of the tomb naked! <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Yes, we
have had too many saccharine Christs from Hollywood, but Gibson has
irresponsibly taken us too far in the other direction. For austere
realism there is still nothing to compare to “The Gospel According to St.
Matthew,” using only the gospel’s words, by the Marxist director Pier
Paolo Pasolini.<br><br>
Professors Paula Fredriksen of Boston University and Philip Cunningham at
Boston College were primary sources of information.<br>
<br><br>
</font></html>
--Boundary_(ID_FV1fg/DOWUZ+vaaw+asLLQ)--