|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
'Anti-Semitic' Labels Used As Political Tools |
Current rating: 0 |
by Linda S
(No verified email address) |
26 Aug 2003
|
|
Star of "Braveheart", Mel Gibson is the latest in the line of actors, writers and celebrities to bedealt a blow to his career: a label planted on anyone who dares to reflect Jews or Israel in anything other than a favourable light. Yes, you've guessed it, the dreaded term "anti-Semite". His crime?Gibson directed, produced and financed The Passion - a movie based on the Christian Gospels, centring on the life and crucifixion of Jesus. |
In an attempt to deflect the accusations of various Jewish interest groups, Gibson organised a series of private screenings so as to gauge the views of journalists, film critics and religious leaders, including Jews, none of whom perceived the movie as being anti-Semitic.
"Neither I, nor my film are anti-Semitic," stressed Gibson. "Nor do I hate anyone, certainly not the Jews. They are my friends and associates, both in my work and social life." If Gibson seeks prolongation of his Hollywood career, he may have to go a lot further with his protestations than that in order to shake off the anti-Semitic slur.
While there is no doubt that anti-Semitism has existed throughout the ages and should be condemned, as should all form of racism and bigotry, it is also true that the label is currently often misused and deliberately so.
What is "anti-Semitism"? Its etymology is confusing as it does not mean "hatred of Semites", which would also include most Arabs. The term has come to mean solely "hatred of Jews" and implies an irrational hatred, hatred due to their religious, ethnic or cultural differences.
In other words, "anti-Semitism" is another way of saying " bigoted or racist attitudes towards Jews"… or it should be. It is true to say that the pogroms against Jews in Russia and the Nazi Holocaust were, indeed, horrific racist acts against a people, anti-Semitic mass murders, but it is also true that accusations of anti-Semitism are brandished by the Israeli government and Jewish groups as protective mantels deflecting not only anti-Jewish/Israel bigotry but also justified criticisms of Israel's crimes against the Palestinians.
Gretta Duisenberg, wife of the governor of the European Central Bank and Chairperson of Stop the Occupation, was blacklisted by Israel as an anti-Semite for flying a Palestinian flag from the balcony of her home.
The writer A.N. Wilson metamorphosed into an "anti-Semite" in Zionist eyes for daring to compare the damage inflicted upon the Church of the Nativity by Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) with the destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan.
Aggressive policies
A French ambassador was deemed an anti-Semite for describing Israel as "a small shitty country", a remark related to the aggressive policies of the Israeli government, rather than the Jews as a people.
Actor Marlon Brando blotted his copybook when he announced on Larry King Live "Hollywood is run by Jews.
It is owned by Jews and they should have a greater sensitivity about the issue of people who are suffering."Even though this may technically be a reality, it is also considered an anti-Semitic statement because it is perceived to bolster that old canard used by genuine anti-Semites - that of a Jewish conspiracy to run the world.
Vanessa Redgrave is an actress who has spent her life as an advocate for the less fortunate. Yet she has been badly maligned by those who point the finger of anti-Semitism. Redgrave opposed the Vietnam War and championed freedom for Soviet Jews, receiving the Sakharov Medal for her efforts.
Despite her good works, in 1980, effigies of the actress were burned outside CBS studios in both Hollywood and Philadelphia all because she had been selected to play the role of a concentration camp in-mate in "Playing for Time", a movie made for television.
Jewish Defence League leader Irv Rubin said of the casting: "It's a horrible insult. Six million Jews will roll over in their graves."
The Boston Symphony Orchestra went as far as to cancel a performance of Oedipus Rex narrated by Redgrave, concerned that her involvement would offend the Jewish community. The cause of the outrage? Redgrave had previously financed and narrated "The Palestinian", a documentary about the Palestinian struggle.
Nowadays, Zionist organisations and websites are targeting Arabs as so-called "anti-Semites" citing political cartoons in the Arab press as well as programmes on Arabic channels as "evidence" of this.
Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism they say in a grotesque distortion of the essence of anti-Semitism while conveniently forgetting the apartheid wall being constructed through Palestinian lands, the thousands of Palestinian youths languishing in Israeli prisons, the land grab of the illegal settlers and the extra-judicial assassinations regularly perpetrated by the IDF - In short, the evils of occupation.
The more "anti-Semitism" is used as a shield against political criticism, the more it is devalued and the less clout it will carry when attached to real haters of everything Jewish. There is even a label given to Jews who speak out against Israeli aggression - "self-hating".
Those who deplore the treatment meted out by the Israeli authorities to the Palestinians are either one or the other whereas activists against the policy of other governments are often perceived as humanitarian.
Truth be told
If the truth be told, the Semitic recipients of racism in today's world are not the Jews but the Arabs who in the U.S., and to a lesser extent in Europe, are having to unfairly defend themselves from slurs of religious extremism or even links to terrorism.
The Arabs are the ones who are today suffering from negative stereotyping as well as having to respond to insults piled on to their culture and religion.
Perhaps "anti-Semitism" should be expunged from our lexicon. Its blatant misuse has destroyed both lives and careers, often without foundation. Its interpretation is too broad and its definition shaded with historical connotation. Let's instead say it like it is.
People who hate Jews simply because they are Jews are either religious bigots or racists no different from those who hate Muslims, Arabs or any other religious group or ethnicity.
Turning once again to the issue of Mel Gibson, surely his film should be judged on its own merits. It's a portrayal of the Gospels as he sees them. If audiences adjudge it anti-Semitic, then this will reflect at the box office. If not, then Gibson will be vindicated.
The film's viewers should be the appraisers, not just the guardians of Zionist ideology waiting to cry foul on every occasion someone momentarily steps on their oh, so sensitive, and largely disingenuous toes.
The writer is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She can be contacted at lheard (at) gulfnews.com |
Comments
|
Libertarian View, There Is Some Substance To The Charge Of Anti-Semitism: Jesus Christ Beyond Thunderdome |
by Cathy Young
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
26 Aug 2003
|
Mel Gibson's upcoming movie The Passion is already stirring up passions more than half a year before its scheduled release—which is not surprising, since it deals with the emotionally charged subject of the crucifixion of Jesus. The intensity of the debate recalls the firestorm sparked by Martin Scorcese's 1988 movie The Last Temptation of Christ.
But in a way, The Passion is the anti-Last Temptation. Scorcese's film, which showed Jesus grappling with doubt about his mission and almost succumbing to the temptation of a normal life that included marriage to Mary Magdalene, drew the ire of religious conservatives and Catholics in particular. Gibson's film is being championed by religious conservatives who charge that criticism of The Passion is driven by an antireligious animus. The controversy centers on the film's portrayal of Jews and their role in Jesus' execution. For centuries, the charge that the Jews had Jesus' blood on their hands has been a driving force behind anti-Semitism. In Europe, "passion plays" depicting the suffering and death of Christ often provoked anti-Jewish violence.
In 1965, the Second Vatican Council formally repudiated the belief that Jews, past or present, are collectively responsible for "deicide." In recent years, Christians and Jews have worked together to rid passion plays of anti-Semitism. Some worry that after decades of progress, Gibson's movie could be a throwback to the old prejudices.
One reason for these apprehensions is that Gibson belongs to a "traditionalist" Catholic movement which rejects the 1965 reforms; his father, a prominent member of this movement, has been quoted as saying that Vatican II was the result of a Jewish-Masonic plot. Moreover, a favorable early report on the film, based on an interview with Gibson himself, said that the film script had drawn on the writings of Anne Catherine Emmerich, a 19th-century nun who described her purported visions about the last days of Jesus. Among other things, Emmerich claimed that the cross on which Jesus died was built in the Jewish temple on the orders of the high priest. (Only after the Simon Wiesenthal Center called attention to Emmerich's virulent anti-Semitism did a spokesman for Gibson's Icon Productions disavow her work as a source.)
Gibson's defenders argue that the movie is quite different from the script and is being condemned sight unseen. But Gibson hasn't helped his case by limiting the preview screenings almost entirely to friendly audiences of political, cultural, and religious conservatives while denying access to critics, including such respected groups as the Anti-Defamation League. When a representative of the league finally saw the film last week, he stated that in its present form it was likely to fuel hatred and bigotry. Of particular concern is the reaction in countries where such bigotry is already a major problem -- including the Arab world.
Few people worry about an outburst of violent anti-Semitism in the United States. But in its own way, the attitude of some champions of "The Passion" is troubling. A few seem positively gleeful about the distress caused by the movie -- and quite in-your-face about it. "I want to see any movie that drives the anti-Christian entertainment elite crazy," conservative commentator Laura Ingraham has been quoted as saying. Others, including conservative Jews such as film critic Michael Medved, have blamed the hostile reception of the film on "liberal activists who worry over the ever-increasing influence of religious traditionalism in American life." Medved, who has attended a screening of The Passion, clears the film of charges of anti-Semitism on the rather dubious grounds that it emphasizes Jesus' Jewish identity by giving the part to an actor with Semitic features and having Jesus and the apostles speak their lines in Aramaic, the authentic language of ancient Judea.
Meanwhile, some rhetoric on the right has implied that the controversy is a Jewish assault on a Christian film. The National Association of Evangelicals has warned that, given evangelical Christians' strong support for Israel, Jewish leaders should not "risk alienating two billion Christians over a movie." After criticizing the film, the Anti-Defamation League has received dozens of vile anti-Semitic phone calls and e-mails.
The biblical account of Jesus' life and death should not be sacrificed to political correctness. But the cry of "political correctness" can also become a cover for very real bigotry.
Cathy Young is a Reason contributing editor. This column appeared in the Boston Globe on August 18, 2003.
http://www.reason.com/cy/cy081903.shtml |
|
Mel Gibson Vs. "The Jews" |
by Christopher Orlet
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
26 Aug 2003
Modified: 10:25:05 PM |
The "Mad Max" and "Braveheart" star says his new Jesus biopic "The Passion" could never be anti-Semitic because it's historically correct -- a dumb, and dangerous, claim to make.
Think of it as "Mad Max Meets His Maker." Only this time the bad guys are Jews -- and lots of them -- donning the vestments of holy men. It's been a while since Hollywood's bad guys wore sidelocks and yarmulkes instead of funny little mustaches or bedsheets. In fact you'd have to time-travel back to 1947, when the U.S. Motion Picture Project was set up to prevent negative portrayals and stereotypes of Jewish characters in films.
The film that has so stirred so much feeling among Jewish and Christian scholars is Mel Gibson's "The Passion," a retelling of the execution of Jesus of Nazareth, with apparently all the usual Gibson gore. Following a recent screening of the film, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) voiced concerns that Gibson's film, which he co-wrote, produced and directed, "will fuel hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism," and could kick off another round of bloodshed by disconsolate Christians who had just about gotten over their savior's death.
Rabbi Eugene Korn, the ADL representative who was present at the private screening at the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston, accused the filmmakers of portraying Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob as "forcing the decision to torture and execute Jesus; of weaving a narrative that oversimplifies history; and of committing numerous factual and historical errors, including relying on the visionary writings of a 17th century anti-Semitic nun."
The fact that an ADL representative was allowed to see the film at all is somewhat surprising, and comes only after months of pressure by pro-Jewish groups and intense media scrutiny. Until this week, the film had been screened only by a handpicked traditional Catholic audience and a few Jewish Gibson supporters, many of whom report that the Jews do indeed come off looking rather guilty of deicide. (The film itself won't be released for another seven months, but trailers for "The Passion" are already popping up on various Web sites.)
But it is not only the sometimes touchy ADL that is troubled. The Guardian newspaper this week quoted a panel of three Jewish and six Catholic scholars who translated and studied a draft script, and concluded that the film is indeed anti-Semitic and theologically inaccurate, portraying "The Jews" as bloodthirsty and vengeful. "All the way through, the Jews are portrayed as bloodthirsty," said Sister Mary C. Boys, one of the panelists and a professor at New York's Union Theological Seminary. As for stirring up anti-Semitic passions, Sister Mary told the New Republic that she has already begun receiving "vicious letters filled with personal attacks and anti-Semitic drivel." Confronted with these accusations, Gibson, a fundamentalist Catholic who has bankrolled an obscure Los Angeles sect that refuses to accept the Second Vatican reforms, including the Vatican's apology for Jewish persecution, readily admits the film may ruffle a few Jewish feathers, though it is not meant to. "It's meant just to tell the truth." Besides, he says, the Holy Spirit was dictating what really went into the film.
Of course, anything an Academy-Award winning actor and director produces is going to have an air of legitimacy about it, whatever the facts may be. But is "The Passion" an innocent Hollywood entertainment or a medieval passion play of the sort that in the Middle Ages stirred up the passions of the Christian mob and led to the butchering of the local Jewry?
Gibson has bragged about the historical veracity of his script, going so far as to film the movie in the Aramaic and Latin languages without subtitles. Scholars, however, have been quick to point out the film's obvious historical inaccuracies, which, it turns out, are legion. Indeed, any theological or biblical scholar could have told Gibson that few Roman soldiers were in Jerusalem, and rather were local draftees who would have spoken one of the local dialects, Mishnaic Hebrew or, based on funerary evidence, Greek. Similarly Pilate and the chief priest Caiaphas would have communicated in Greek, not Latin.
But Gibson's biggest sin, critics charge, is his portrait of Jewish culpability in Jesus' execution.
It should be noted that to Jews of the first century, Jesus of Nazareth was simply another false messiah, one of hundreds -- a Galilean village preacher with a ragtag following of Jewish fishermen who, in various statements, claimed to be the Jewish messiah, God's son and the Jewish king all wrapped into one. The traditional Jewish messiah, however, would not be a deity, but a bellicose homo sapiens, with a hankering to lead an uprising against the Romans, perhaps someone with the stature and nobility of Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. To claim you were the messiah but that you were unconcerned with this world was absurd. Likewise, to preach that you were God's son was the supreme blasphemy, as well as the ultimate absurdity. God had no son, and whoever uttered such absurdities sealed his own doom.
So who was to blame for the execution of Jesus of Nazareth? The Jews? The Romans? Jesus himself? Christians who believe Jesus died for their individual sins are logically themselves responsible for his death, and have no cause to scapegoat "The Jews." But if we believe the Nazarene was simply a Jewish reformer executed by his own tribesmen for the crime of blasphemy, then he suffered the same fate as thousands of reformers from the Jewish Matthias to the Christian Savonarola. Or, we may believe that Jesus was crucified because of some perceived threat to Roman authority. Rome was, after all, interested in but one thing: order. If the Romans executed Jesus it was because he was seen as a considerable threat to the stability of the empire. The gospels hint only vaguely at this, in a scene showing Jesus causing some seemingly minor disturbance at the Jerusalem temple. No doubt there was more to the story. Writing in the New Republic this week, Paula Fredrikson, Aurelio professor of Scripture at Boston University and a member of a panel of scholars who studied Gibson's script, writes:
"The fact that Jesus was publicly executed by the method of crucifixion can only mean that Rome wanted him dead: Rome alone had the sovereign authority to crucify. Moreover, the point of a public execution ... was to communicate a message. Crucifixion itself implies that Pilate was concerned about sedition ... Jesus' death on the cross points to a primarily Roman agenda."
Sedition, then, seems the likely cause of Jesus' execution, and not some minor theological squabble among Jews.
Of the five discrepant biblical accounts of Jesus' trial, composed decades after his execution by men absent from his trial, none are very helpful, nor are the disciples very trustworthy sources. We know that early Christians put great emphasis on staying on the Romans' good side lest they lose potential converts or, worse, be massacred or driven out of Rome and Jerusalem like their Jewish brethren. It is not surprising then that early Christians would blame "The Jews" (who were even then the universal scapegoats) for Jesus' death, and that Matthew would make sure that 2,000 years hence "The Jews" would still be on the hook, by attributing to the Jewish multitude the fantastic quote: "His blood be on us and on our children." A peculiar thing for a Jewish mob to shout, it must be said. The Gospel writers are exceedingly clumsy in dealing with the trial of Jesus. Again and again the Roman prefect Pilate comes off not as the iron-fisted autocrat we know from history but as a lame, ineffectual pamby who is prevented from setting Jesus free by the bloodthirsty Jewish mob. The scene stretches credulity. Likewise, many scholars dispute the accuracy of the Jews' claim that Roman law forbids them to execute Jesus. In fact, the Jews of Jerusalem executed each other all the time. They stoned Jesus' brother James, and only a year or two after Jesus' death they stoned Stephen, the traditional first Christian martyr. A well-known sign (in Greek) in the Jerusalem temple promised death to any non-Jew who invaded the inner sanctum.
The most damning piece of evidence for Jewish culpability, however, comes down from the Roman-Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, who wrote in the early 90s C.E.: "About the same time there lived Jesus, a wise man for he was a performer of marvelous feats and a teacher of such men who received the truth with pleasure. He attracted many Jews and many Greeks. He was called the Christ. Pilate sentenced him to die on the cross, having been urged to do so by the noblest of our citizens."
"The noblest of our citizens" urging Jesus' execution would seem to vindicate the gospel writers. And yet historians readily admit that early Christian writers monkeyed with Josephus' text, adding references to Jesus' resurrection, and, likely, the sentence about the "noblest of our citizens."
The fact is that the truths surrounding Jesus' execution will never be known. And what has been handed down to posterity is legend, vision, conjecture, superstition and doubtlessly historically inaccurate. But does the Gibson film discuss the differing accounts, the historical inaccuracies, and the political nuances involved in the trial and execution of Jesus of Nazareth? Don't count on it. The audience would soon be snoozing in their seats. Instead "The Passion" will most likely offer up the familiar puerile, stereotypical view of the evil Jew calling for Jesus' blood and the clueless Pilate begging him to reconsider. It is a view guaranteed to stir anew the passions of the rabid Christian, and one that will send the Jews scurrying back to the dark corners of history.
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2003/08/14/gibson/index_np.html |
|
Charges Against Gibson Look Accurate: Mel's Film For Friendly Eyes Only |
by AP
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
26 Aug 2003
|
Those who have seen Mel Gibson's film about the final hours of Jesus Christ have called it beautiful, magical, a great and important work.
Those who think The Passion could fuel anti-Semitism, however, haven't been allowed to see the film. Seven months before its release, this extraordinary vanity project is stirring passions over Gibson's exclusionary screenings and the potential for a negative depiction of Jews.
Not just Jews are concerned - the film was first questioned by a nine-member panel that included Christians. Gibson is a member of an ultraconservative Catholic movement which rejects the Vatican's authority over the Catholic church.
Gibson has said the film is faithful to the account of the crucifixion in the four Gospels and is meant "to inspire, not offend."
The star of the blockbuster Lethal Weapon movies and Oscar-winning director of Braveheart has spent nearly $US30 million ($A46.1 million) of his own money to produce, co-write and direct The Passion, starring Jim Caviezel as Jesus and Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene. Filmed entirely in the dead languages of Aramaic and Latin, it has yet to secure a distributor.
In recent weeks, the actor-director has been building support with invitation-only screenings for film industry insiders, conservative commentators, evangelical Christians and sympathetic Jews.
Trailers of the two-hour movie have turned up on some Web sites. And a 4-1/2-minute preview aired for tens of thousands of people attending a Christian festival weekend at Anaheim, California.
Ted Haggard, president of the National Evangelical Association, saw a screening in late June with about 30 evangelical scholars. The scholars are very strict about adherence to scripture, so Gibson "had no assurances that we would be friendly toward that movie."
But Haggard loved it. "I thought it was the most authentic portrayal I've ever seen," he said.
Cal Thomas, a conservative syndicated columnist, called the film "the most beautiful, accurate, disturbing, realistic and bloody depiction of this well-known story that has ever been filmed."
Internet personality Matt Drudge told MSNBC: "It depicts a clash between Jesus and those who crucified him and speaking as a Jew, I thought it was a magical film that showed the perils of life on earth."
But critics of The Passion - who have not seen the film - worry that the popular Hollywood superstar will attract millions to see a violent, bloody recounting of the crucifixion that portrays Jews as a frenzied mob eager to watch Jesus die.
"For too many years, Christians have accused Jews of being Christ-killers and used that charge to rationalise violence," said Sister Mary Boys, a Catholic professor at the Union Theological Seminary who read an early draft of the script. "This is our fear."
Boys and others on the committee of nine Christian and Jewish scholars that reviewed the script said Gibson may be skewing public opinion by screening the film primarily for conservatives.
"Why doesn't he show it to us?" said Abraham Foxman, the director of the Anti-Defamation League. "If in fact the film is a loving film, a sensitive film, I'll be out there proclaiming and saying it's wonderful."
Paul Lauer, marketing director for Gibson's Icon Productions company, said a screening will be held within a month for Jewish leaders, whom he would not name. He said Gibson first wanted to vet it before Christian scholars for accuracy.
Foxman, and those scholars who read the early script, will not be invited to future screenings, he said.
"We'd rather start from scratch with new people that we haven't had any bad experiences with," Lauer said. "We feel like we've been prejudged."
Lauer said the committee of scholars obtained a stolen, outdated script that is completely different from the rough cut of the film being screened. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops issued an apology this spring after learning a staff member had obtained a draft, and the script was returned.
Boys said an Icon employee provided an intermediary with the script.
While Gibson said The Passion will be the most authentic account ever of the crucifixion, Boys said the script she read presented the Jews as more culpable for Christ's death than the Romans who executed him.
It only recounts the last 12 hours of Christ's life, she said, and therefore lacks the context to explain the Jews' portrayal. "It seems to me that the film looked on Jews as antagonists, Jesus as this perfect victim," she said.
Boys and others said they have received anti-Semitic hate mail after being quoted in news reports criticising The Passion. Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Los Angeles, said the centre has received several dozen letters related to his criticism of the film.
Gibson said in a June statement that he and his film are not anti-Semitic. "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 (or none) who have varying familiarity with this story."
But what is Gibson's version of the story? His traditionalist religion rejects the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which in 1965 rejected the notion that Jews were collectively responsible for killing Jesus. The actor is building a traditionalist church in Malibu, California, for about 70 members, and intends to hold Sunday services there in Latin.
His father, Hutton Gibson, was quoted in a New York Times Magazine article in March as denying the Holocaust occurred.
Meanwhile, film industry observers are wondering whether this film can find an audience.
Lauer said the film has not sought a distributor, but that at least three major studios are interested. Also, although the recent screenings have included English subtitles, Icon hasn't decided whether to include them in a major release.
"I don't know that he will be able to find a studio that will distribute this," said Kim Masters, a film columnist for Esquire Magazine.
Masters said industry people who have seen the film respect its quality, but said it is disturbingly graphic.
"It's not a family film, from what I understand," she said. "It's a really difficult film."
- AP |
|
Gibson And The Cross |
by Gary Younge
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
26 Aug 2003
|
On the face of it, Mel Gibson's new film, The Passion, appears to be little more than a work of celluloid self-indulgence by a Hollywood veteran.
Portraying the final 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ, it has no distributor, no big stars and the dialogue is in Latin and Aramaic . It's not even certain if the movie will have subtitles.
Yet the film, directed and co-produced by Gibson, who has outlaid $38 million on the project, has already attracted lavish praise from evangelicals and stern criticism from Jewish and Catholic scholars, with one warning it could provoke "one of the great crises in Christian-Jewish relations" in the US.
Gibson has claimed the "Holy Ghost was working through me on this film, and I was just directing traffic. I hope the film has the power to evangelise."
But a panel of three Jewish and six Catholic scholars, who have studied a draft script, say the film is anti-Semitic and theologically inaccurate, portraying Jews as bloodthirsty and vengeful and reviving the worst traditions of the passion plays which contributed to deadly attacks against Jews over the centuries.
"When we read the screenplay our sense was this wasn't really something you could fix," said Sister Mary C. Boys , a professor at New York's Union Theological Seminary . "All the way through, the Jews are portrayed as bloodthirsty. We're really concerned that this could be one of the great crises in Christian-Jewish relations."
The panel was convened by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops with the help of the Jewish advocacy group, the Anti-Defamation League .
Gibson responded by accusing the scholars of illegally obtaining stolen property the draft script and extortion while threatening court orders and lawsuits.
He is showing a rough cut of the film to selected evangelicals, religious leaders, pundits and politicians, including David Kuo , of the White House's Faith-Based and Community Initiatives . They signed confidentiality agreements before the screening.
The controversy has also put Gibson's religious beliefs under the spotlight. He funds a "traditionalist Catholic church" in Los Angeles, a spin-off from mainstream Catholicism that rejects the second Vatican Council, which, among other things, cleared Jews of being collectively responsible for Christ's murder.
But Gibson is adamant the film is not anti-Jewish. "Anti-Semitism is not only contrary to my personal beliefs, it is also contrary to the core message of my movie," he said. "The Passion is a film meant to inspire, not offend."
Earlier this year the star of the Lethal Weapon and Mad Max series of movies was asked by Fox News talk show host Bill O'Reilly if he thought the film would upset any Jewish people.
"It may," he said. "It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth . . . anybody who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability."
Deal Hudson , publisher of conservative Catholic magazine Crisis , told The New York Times that he thought the film was "going to be a classic".
"It's going to be the go-to film for Christians of all denominations who want to see the best movie made about the Passion of Christ," he said.
National Association of Evangelicals president Ted Haggard described it as "a beautiful, wonderful account of the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ. It is consistent with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."
But one problem, pointed out by Boston University scripture professor Paula Fredriksen one of the panel that criticised the script is that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not consistent.
"In Mark, Jesus's last meal is a Passover seder [ceremonial meal]; in John, Jesus is dead before the seder begins. The release of Barabbas is a 'Roman custom' in Mark, a 'Jewish custom' in John. Between the four evangelists, Jesus speaks three different last lines from the cross."
The Passion's detractors have asked to see the film so they can judge for themselves.
"If the movie is a statement of love, as he says it is, why not show it to you or me?" the Anti-Defamation League's US national director, Abraham Foxman , told The New York Times. Gibson's company, Icon Productions, has declined. "There is no way on God's green earth that any of those people will be invited to a screening," Icon marketing director Paul Lauer said. "They have shown themselves to be dishonourable."
The escalating row has exposed the fragility of the coalition of Jews and right-wing Christians which has formed over the Bush Administration's unwavering support for Israel.
"There is a great deal of pressure on Israel right now," Haggard said. "For Jewish leaders to risk alienating 2 billion Christians over a movie seems short-sighted."
Gibson's critics say the ramifications go way beyond the film.
Dean and founder of Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Centre Rabbi Marvin Hier told Newsday : "This is a story for which millions paid with their lives. They were burned at the stake, killed in pogroms . . . and it was those ideas that served as the foundations of the Holocaust. We have a right to be concerned."
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/18/1061059768010.html |
|
The Gospel According To Gibson |
by Frank Rich
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
26 Aug 2003
|
"The Jews didn’t kill Christ," my stepfather was fond of saying. "They just worried him to death." Nonetheless, there was palpable relief in my Jewish household when the Vatican officially absolved us of the crime in 1965. At the very least, that meant we could go back to fighting among ourselves.
These days American Jews don’t have to fret too much about the charge of deicide — or didn’t, until Mel Gibson started directing a privately financed movie called "The Passion," about Jesus’ final 12 hours. Why worry now? The star himself has invited us to. Asked by Bill O’Reilly in January if his movie might upset ‘‘any Jewish people,’’ Gibson responded: "It may. It’s not meant to. I think it’s meant to just tell the truth."
"Anybody who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability."
Fears about what this ‘‘truth’’ will be have been fanned by the knowledge that Gibson bankrolls a traditionalist Catholic church unaffiliated with the Los Angeles Roman Catholic Archdiocese. Traditionalist Catholicism is the name given to a small splinter movement that rejects the Second Vatican Council — which, among other reforms, cleared the Jews of deicide. The Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages, which have lavished praise on Gibson and his project, reported in March in an adulatory interview with the star that the film’s sources included the writings of two nuns: Mary of Agreda, a 17th-century Spaniard, and Anne Catherine Emmerich, an early-19th-century German.
Only after Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, among others, spoke up about the nuns’ history of anti-Semitic writings did a Gibson flack disown this provenance.
Emmerich’s revelations include learning that Jews had strangled Christian children to procure their blood. It’s hard to imagine a scenario that bald turning up in ‘‘The Passion.’’ Indeed, it’s hard to imagine the movie being anything other than a flop in America, given that it has no major Hollywood stars and that its dialogue is in Aramaic and Latin (possibly without benefit of subtitles). Its real tinderbox effect could be abroad, where anti-Semitism has metastasized since Sept. 11, and where Gibson is arguably more of an icon (as his production company is named) than he is at home.
In recent weeks, Gibson has started screening a rough cut of his film to invited audiences, from evangelicals in Colorado Springs to religious leaders in Pennsylvania to celebrities in Washington. But the attendees are not always ecumenical. At the Washington screening, they included Peggy Noonan, Kate O’Beirne, Linda Chavez and David Kuo, the deputy director of the White House’s faith-based initiative.
The screening guest list did include a token Jew: that renowned Talmudic scholar Matt Drudge. No other Jewish members of the media were present, said one journalist who was there.
That journalist must remain unnamed as a result of signing a confidentiality agreement — a practice little seen at movie screenings. Since then, some of those present, including Drudge, have publicly expressed their enthusiasm for ‘‘The Passion.’’
If ‘‘The Passion’’ is kosher, couldn’t Gibson give Jews the same access to a Washington media screening, so they could see for themselves? Such inhospitality is not terribly Christian of him. One Jewish leader whose requests to see the film have been turned away is Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League. ‘‘If you tell everyone they won’t see it until it’s ready, O.K.,’’ Foxman said in a phone interview from Jerusalem. ‘‘But what Gibson’s done is preselect those who’ll be his supporters. If the movie is a statement of love, as he says it is, why not show it to you or me?’’
When I addressed this question last week to the star’s press representative, Alan Nierob, he told me that the ADL was being kept out because it had gone public with its concerns — as indeed it had, once Foxman’s letter to Gibson about ‘‘The Passion’’ failed to net a meeting with the filmmaker or a screening three months after it had been sent. When I asked to see ‘‘The Passion,’’ Nierob said The New York Times was a ‘‘low priority’’ because The Times Magazine had run an ‘‘inaccurate’’ article in March in which Hutton Gibson, Mel Gibson’s father and a prominent traditionalist Catholic author, was quoted as saying that the Vatican Council was ‘‘a Masonic plot backed by the Jews’’ and that the Holocaust was a charade. But in fact, neither Hutton nor Mel Gibson — nor anyone else — has contacted the magazine to challenge the accuracy of a single sentence in the article in the four months since its publication.
Eventually, Gibson’s film will have to face audiences he doesn’t cherry-pick. We can only hope that the finished product will not resemble the screenplay that circulated this spring. That script — which the Gibson camp has said was stolen but which others say was leaked by a concerned member of the star’s own company — received thumbs down from a panel of nine Jewish and Roman Catholic scholars who read it. They found that Jews were presented as ‘‘bloodthirsty, vengeful and money-hungry,’’ reported The Jewish Week, which broke the story of the scholars’ report in June.
Perhaps ‘‘The Passion’’ bears little resemblance to that script. Either way, however, damage has been done: Jews have already been libeled by Gibson’s politicized rollout of his film. His game from the start has been to foment the old-as-Hollywood canard that the ‘‘entertainment elite’’ (which just happens to be Jewish) is gunning for his Christian movie. But based on what? According to databank searches, not a single person, Jewish or otherwise, had criticized ‘‘The Passion’’ when Gibson went on O’Reilly’s show on Jan. 14 in January to defend himself against ‘‘any Jewish people’’ who might attack the film. Nor had anyone yet publicly criticized ‘‘The Passion’’ or Gibson by March 7, when The Wall Street Journal ran the interview in which the star again defended himself against Jewish critics who didn’t yet exist. (Even now, no one has called for censorship of the film — only for the right to see it and, if necessary, debate its content.)
Whether the movie holds Jews of two millenniums ago accountable for killing Christ or not, the star’s pre-emptive strategy is to portray contemporary Jews as crucifying Gibson. A similar animus can be found in a new book by one of Gibson’s most passionate defenders, the latest best seller published by the same imprint (Crown Forum) that gave us Ann Coulter’s ‘‘Treason.’’ In ‘‘Tales From the Left Coast,’’ James Hirsen writes, ‘‘The worldview of certain folks is seriously threatened by the combination of Christ’s story and Gibson’s talent.’’
Now who might those ‘‘certain folks’’ be? Since no one was criticizing ‘‘The Passion’’ when Hirsen wrote that sentence, you must turn elsewhere in the book to decode it. In one strange passage, the author makes a fetish of repeating Bob Dylan’s original name, Robert Zimmerman — a gratuitous motif in a tirade that is itself gratuitous in a book whose subtitle says its subject is ‘‘Hollywood stars.’’
Another chapter is about how ‘‘faith is often the subject of ridicule and negative portrayal’’ in Hollywood. One of the more bizarre examples Hirsen cites is ‘‘Sophie’s Choice,’’ in which ‘‘passages from the New Testament are quoted by Nazi officials in support of atrocities that were committed.’’
Now sectarian swords are being drawn. The National Association of Evangelicals, after a private screening of ‘‘The Passion,’’ released a statement last week saying, ‘‘Christians seem to be a major source of support for Israel,’’ and implying that such support could vanish if Jewish leaders ‘‘risk alienating two billion Christians over a movie.’’
Foxman says he finds that statement ‘‘obnoxious and offensive.’’
‘‘Here’s the first time we’ve heard that linkage: We support Israel, so shut up about anti-Semitism,’’ he added. ‘‘If that’s what support of Israel means, no thanks.’’
But the real question here is why Gibson and his minions would go out of their way to bait Jews and sow religious conflict, especially at this fragile historical moment. It’s enough to make you pray for the second coming of Charlton Heston.
http://www.iht.com/articles/104828.html |
|
