The Passion of Christ

There was something extremely disturbing about the Passion. And I don’t mean the extended scenes of flayed flesh, of nailed hands, of parched wounds. I mean the way this moving, well directed film has been hijacked by one of the most ill-thought through, misdirected pieces of prejudice in modern cinema.

If you’re of a sensitive, politically correct disposition, stop reading.

Still here? Right.

On more than one occasion, I have mentioned the Passion to friends or colleagues and their instant reaction has been ‘Oh yes, it’s supposed to be really anti-Jew. That Mel Gibson’s Dad is a nutter - he’s a rabid anti-Semite who denies the holocaust.’
Now, Hutton Gibson may or not be a nutter, and a holocaust denier to boot. Most of the evidence does seem to suggest that he is. But is The Passion an Anti-Jew polemic? NO!

Firstly, the views of Mel Gibson’s father are neither here nor there. To my certain knowledge he had nothing to do with this motion picture. Let’s judge Mel on his own merits, as devout Catholic, but also as an actor and director of some note.

Secondly, it’s clear to anyone with even half an eye that the out and out villains of the piece are the ROMANS, people. The Roman soldiers are portrayed as demonic, bloodthirsty, almost Orc-like creatures. It is THEY that flay Christ almost to death, THEY that spit and taunt at him as he carries the cross, THEY that drive the nails through his hands and feet. The Pharisees may have petitioned for Christ’s death, but it is PILATE a ROMAN, who condemns him. Now, I’m an Italian by extraction, and proud of it. Did I write to national newspapers complaining of the portrayal of Romans in the film? Were I and my kind given acres of newsprint and hours of TV airtime to postulate about the evils of Mel Gibson? And most importantly, do I feel that, because Italians carried out the Crucifixion, I MYSELF am being accused of being the MURDERER OF CHRIST?
NO, NO, and NO. That would be insane. And yet, this is the position of certain members of certain Jewish bodies both here and in the states. Very vocal, powerful bodies.

It’s a real shame. Because many people won’t now see this film to appreciate that it is beautiful, and moving, and brutal and above all, THOUGHT PROVOKING. Whether or not you are a believer, this film could have provided an opportunity for some intelligent debate. It could have been a unifying force for world religions, not a divisive one.

After all, there are several sympathetic Jewish characters in the film. Simon of Cyrene, who helped Christ carry the cross, went from reluctant helper to true friend in the course of his task. Saint Veronica, who wiped Christ’s face and tried to give him water, was a Jewess. For as many of the crowds that bayed for Christ’s death there were an equal number keening and crying and begging for it all to stop. And lest we forget: JESUS HIMSELF AND ALL THE HOLY FAMILY WERE JEWS. Wake UP, people.

PLEASE, let’s get back to discussing film without these ill-informed prejudices. See, I’ve done it myself – I’ve spent my review entering this cock-eyed debate, rather than giving the film its due (no pun intended). There is scarcely time to talk about Jim Caviezal’s heartbreaking performance. Of the stunning cinematography. Of how the true villain of the piece, Satan, was portrayed in possibly the most terrifying incarnation ever committed to film.

A final thought. There are many, many powerful Jews in Hollywood. If you don’t agree with this film, make YOUR film. Tell us YOUR version. I will gladly pay to see it and discuss it. Film can be a great tool for democracy, and for debate. But let’s stop clouding the issues. Would such bitter criticism of Schindler’s List have been allowed in the press? No. Because no-one could countenance any sort of criticism in the face of those millions of needless deaths. Here, if we are to believe the gospels, one man died for others. Let’s give him the dignity He deserves.

- TJ is cross...
- Fletch praises it.
- Holy says Tyler