LAST WEEK, I saw the Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." It made me think a lot about the sacrificies of Christ. What it didn't do was make me hate Jews.
Claims that the film is anti-Semitic and will inspire a global resurgence of anti-Semitism are unfounded and represent a discriminatory double standard in the way religion is treated in the media.
Although it can't be denied that historically, Christian-Judeo relations have been violent and oppressive, modern-day Christianity renounces the idea that the Jewish people are "Christ-killers." As Gibson himself has said on numerous occasions, "We all killed Jesus." In a series of decrees from 1962-1965, the Vatican Ecumenical Council rejected the charge that Jewish people are responsible for the death of Christ. While anti-Semitism certainly still exists in the world, as does any form of bigotry and prejudice, it is not a belief endorsed by Gibson's Catholic faith. Despite all the rumors flying around about Gibson's orthodox beliefs, anti-Semitism, as he told Diane Sawyer, "goes against the tenets of my faith."
That being said, critics seem to have forgotten that the film is, as they say in the movies, based on a true story. It is the story of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as portrayed in the Gospels. These Gospels are seen as the very foundation of Christianity. It's a Christian movie. Gibson can't just go and rewrite ancient scripture because it may not meet the standards of modern-day political correctness.
The film's main criticism comes from the idea that it portrays some Jewish people as responsible for the crucifixion.
Well, someone wanted him dead. He didn't crucify himself.
It is the Romans, however, that execute all of the torture and violence in the movie. It is the Romans who are the sadistic killers. Not one Jewish person lays a hand on Jesus throughout the film, except to help him. It's even Gibson's hand that drives the nails into the cross in his effort to show unifying responsibility.
Yes, there are Jewish high priests that push for Jesus' death in the movie. And in one scene, a mostly Jewish crowd, prompted by the priests, calls for crucifixion.
But there are just as many Jewish figures who resist these events. Mary, John, Mary Magdalene, Peter, Veronica, Simon and countless others appear in the movie, grief-stricken over the events that are unfolding around them.
Some Jewish people wanted Jesus dead, and some didn't. Some Romans wanted him dead, and some didn't. It's just like any other time and place. The movie isn't pushing an anti-Semitic agenda. It's simply a visual, serious portrayal of one of the oldest stories in history.
Which brings me to my next question: Why all the uproar over a simple story about Jesus?
Because in Hollywood, Christianity is so not cool.
Some critics, not wanting to admit this, point to the bloodshed in the film, calling it excessive, gory and unnecessary.
Yes, there is a lot of blood -- the man was nailed to a cross -- yet these critics act as if this is the first time they've ever seen blood on the big screen. I guess they missed "Fight Club" and "Saving Private Ryan" and that movie about the crazy killer dog and pretty much any film by Quentin Tarantino. It seems, then, that these critics are simply using the bloodshed as an excuse.
Christianity is constantly debased, belittled and mocked in all forms of media. Four years ago, some of the same Jewish groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, currently censuring "The Passion," refused, in the name of artistry, to condemn the deplorable exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum of Art that showed the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung. Telling a Gospel story, that's anti-Semitic; but splattering a Catholic holy figure with feces? That's art.
Movies like "Dogma" and "Stigmata" rip apart the Catholic Church, blasting everything from the papacy to contraception to celibacy, mocking the very doctrine on which the Church stands. There's little uproar over these movies. Yet the minute word gets out that Mel Gibson is making a serious movie about Christ, it's anti-Semitic and dangerous. And these charges were made before critics had even seen the movie.
Why, then, is there so much controversy over a film that actually doesn't insult any other religions, that doesn't make a mockery of the New Testament and, judging by current box office results, greatly appeals to the American public?
It seems that some people are so afraid of portraying Christianity in a -- gasp -- positive light that they have to invent reasons why the public shouldn't see such a movie.
"The Passion of the Christ" is hardly anti-Semitic. There's just nothing in the movie to support that notion. The only thing I felt after walking out of the theater was that I wanted to be a better Catholic. And I find no fault in that.
Kristin Brown's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at kbrown@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
