It has been difficult to come to terms with the logic behind
criticism of Mel Gibson’s newest production, Passion, which
is not due out until next spring. The film is Gibson’s account of
Christ’s final 12 hours, said to be portrayed in brutally graphic
detail, all spoken in the Latin and Aramaic languages and
self-proclaimed as the most biblically honest account of Christ’s
suffering on film to date.
Naturally, Hollywood is scared. Why would anyone want to make a
movie about Christ that is truthful?
Unfortunately, in these politically correct times, Tinseltown
leftists fear straight Christian doctrine more than anything. The
only religions that movie star elites can seem to tolerate anymore
are unorthodox agnosticism or faiths that support the destruction
of America.
The denigration of Gibson’s flick began back when a group of
five Jewish rabbis and several Catholic scholars–a group not
sanctioned to represent the opinion of the Catholic
Church–illegally obtained copies of Passion’s script. Their
unfair claim, based only on the script’s portrayal of Christ’s
death, is that the film promotes anti-Semitic sentiment and
contains other “inaccuracies”.
The Anti-Defamation League bases their criticism on purported
historical flaws, citing lack of evidence that the Jews had
anything to do with the crucifixion and arguing instead that His
death was initiated by the Roman government.
The ADL, to be sure, is not trying to ignore Christian beliefs;
they simply fear a violent backlash in the wake of Gibson’s
depiction of Jewish culpability.
This claim is still highly suspect. Any individual or group who
would instigate Semitic hatred because of a movie ultimately
presenting a forgiving Lord is likely using the film to exacerbate
an already existent, irrational Jewish hatred.
But the criticism goes on. In an attempt, as usual, to crucify
any interest America may have of partaking in a religious
experience, The New York Times has chimed in. In an article
in March documenting Gibson’s 80-something-year-old father, Hutton,
the Times detailed his ultra-orthodox Catholic beliefs.
Since Vatican II, Hutton has been an outspoken critic of the
papacy and some in the media even claim he is a Holocaust denier.
The Times would love readers to believe, by convention, that Gibson
must mirror his father and share his horribly intolerant beliefs.
They furthermore fear that those views will be exposed in his film
about Christ, therefore invalidating any redeeming message the film
contains.
It is true that Gibson retains some of his father’s steadfast
beliefs in traditionalist Catholicism; he has constructed his own
chapel in the Los Angeles area where the Latin mass is frequently
practiced. But this seems hardly a worthy smear on Gibson’s concept
of Christ. The only thing it might suggest is that Gibson is a man
who puts a strong emphasis on traditional faith, which in
Hollywood’s eyes may turn out to be the greatest sin of all.
Thankfully, the talk is not all negative. Various Catholic and
Protestant groups have given a great deal of support. Most notably,
the Bishop of Denver said that he finds it “puzzling and disturbing
that anyone would feel licensed to attack a film of sincere faith
before it has even been released . . .” Reminded of Martin
Scorsese’s controversial film The Last Temptation of Christ,
Chaput said that back then liberal “movie critics piously lectured
Catholics to be open-minded and tolerant. Surely that advice should
apply equally for everyone.” In light of this and other testimony
from people who have actually seen the film, any serious religious
opposition will probably fall flat when presented with the finished
product.
However, entertainers will likely persist in their shunning of
Passion. As of now, the film has yet to be picked up by a
major distributor. Years ago, it would not have been like
this,.
There was a time when many of the most popular movies released
were religious. In the 1950s and 1960s, biblical-themed films like
The Ten Commandments, The Robe, King of Kings,
Ben Hur and Quo Vadis?, to name a few, were some of
the biggest hits of the day.
Nowadays, Indiana Jones movies seem too touchy-feely when it
comes to matters of faith. The Hollywood landscape has definitely
changed into some rough beast that continues to slouch leftward,
along with the California coastline. Christianity just isn’t
popular there anymore. This fact may have as much to do with the
media flack Gibson is receiving as the supposed anti-Semitism.
Either way, it took a great deal of courage for Gibson to make
this film. No one really likes to dwell on the graphic suffering of
God when He became human. Increasing amounts of people don’t like
to dwell on Christ at all; He had too many objective opinions to be
politically correct. His followers, after all, have spawned things
like the pro-life movement and dissidents of the sexual revolution.
How un-Hollywood of Jesus.
Cecil B. DeMille twice made epics of Christ, touting one of them
as The Greatest Story Ever Told. Now, such a bold statement would
blaspheme Hollywood. Their gods and champions are Michael Moore,
Jane Fonda and judges who want to ban the Pledge of Allegiance for
mere mention of the almighty.
These days, in southern California, God is a hard sell.
Robert Seefeldt is a junior studying accounting and
English.
