|
Commission
On Interreligious Affairs
of Reform Judaism
Update
on Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ"
by
Michael J. Cook, Ph.D
Sol & Arlene Bronstein Professor of Judaeo-Christian
Studies, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of
Religion, Cincinnat
Respecting
Gibson's removal of Matthew 27:25 ("His blood
be on us," etc.), we should not forget that Gibson
removed this very passage months ago -- and none too
graciously. (At that time, he cited his fear that,
if he did not remove it, Jews would actually come
after him to attack him physically.) Given the ways
in which Icon Productions has behaved from the start,
with clever strategy mapped out weeks in advance,
I would not be surprised if Icon calculatingly reinserted
Mt. 27:25 a few weeks ago with the express intent
of Gibson's offering to remove it now -- as a (supposedly)
goodwill gesture.
I
take no pleasure in such cynicism. Rather, this type
of reaction is a function of what we have observed
from Icon's behavior over these last eleven months.
They have not bargained in good faith. Instead, every
move they have made has, in retrospect, appeared calculating
and cleverly effective. So it is only with sadness
that I venture anything like the above surmise.
As
for the possible closing addendum to the film, such
as informing the viewers that 250,000 Jews were victims
of crucifixion at the hands of Rome, David Sandmel
has aptly observed that this can be read in many different
ways. Moreover, I agree with him that, somehow, it
does not go to the heart of the film at all. It's
not simply that it's an awfully tiny band-aid for
so grievous and festering a wound. It's more that
the PLACEMENT of the band-aid seems so distant from
the wound that one wonders why it was applied at all
-- precisely because it does NOT apply at all ....
Indeed,
my immediate inference was the following. This sounds
unfair, I know -- but it's a "set-up":
==
If, on the one hand, the other 249,999 victims were
crucified by Rome in the same manner and process by
which Jesus (allegedly) was crucified, then a natural
supposition could be that the Jewish mob likewise
cursed and kicked and spat upon all those other victims
as well! (If so, then this only intensifies our "guilt".)
Oh,
but do we find this inference unwarranted? Yes, so
do I. But if that inference is unwarranted, then all
right let's consider the alternative:
==
If it were SOLELY Jesus whom our ancestors allegedly
so abused (and NOT at all any of the other 249,999
victims of Roman brutality), then what will the movie
viewers be left to infer? That the Jews did not bother
persecuting any one BUT Jesus (and in the forms that
this film graphically exhibits); So what's wrong with
the Jews, anyway, that they would do this to Jesus,
and to Jesus? Why didn't they treat him as well as
they treated the other 249,999?
The
problem is that the brutality of the Jews in this
movie renders irrelevant the disclaimer. They don't
"fit" with each other. The disclaimer doesn't
"disclaim" Gibson's content.
This
means that not only would such a closing disclaimer
remedy nothing at all and not really address anything
at all, but the Jews lose on either alternative interpretation
(and I'm not sure there's any remaining alternative
in between the extremes).
I'm
concerned, then, when I see some of us reacting as
if we are now to thank Gibson for dropping of the
"Blood Curse," for adding a disclaimer,
for having one of his actresses declare the film is
not antisemitic, etc. (when it is not clear that anyone
connected with the film even remotely understands
what antisemitism actually is). For from the start,
the concern of Icon Productions has been solely to
advance their own interests, not to conciliate the
concerns of others. Staging timed newsworthy events
is their modus operandi -- and these three recent
examples (the "Blood Curse"; the disclaimer;
the actress's denials; etc.) -- seem strikingly true
to form. (Don't be surprised by others already on
the calendar and still to come .... Diane Sawyer's
special is part of the choreography.)
Members
of the Ad Hoc Scholar Group, and the Catholic Secretariat
which convened us, went into this venture with the
best of positive intentions, only to learn that strategic
counter-moves by Icon were planned out weeks in advance.
==
Legal papers to sue the Bishops and the ADL were ALREADY
dated and completed even while seemingly amicable
phone conversations were underway and ongoing between
the Secretariat/ADL and Icon.
==
A controversy between Mel Gibson and the Catholic
Church was skillfully metamorphosed into one between
Mel Gibson and the Jews (with the Bishops forced to
the sidelines).
==
"Spontaneous" celebrity endorsements of
the film now appear (in retrospect) to have been carefully
choreographed, with releases precisely timed.
==
With regularity, pro-Gibson sermons were "spontaneously"
preached throughout the country, starting in Colorado,
and then with startling rapidity quoted and flung
around the Internet (in a matter of three days I got
twenty-seven copies of one and the same sermon --
what a coincidence!).
==
Potential critics of the film were prevented from
ever seeing it.
==
Oaths of confidentiality were required of viewers
of private screenings, but released in the case of
those whose complimentary effusiveness simply could
not be contained, or restrained.
==
It now appears that not all endorsements were truly
authored by those whose names they bear (at least
according to snopes.com).
==
Only those Vatican officials likely to approve the
film were shown it.
==
And, of course, a Pope whose authority Gibson does
not even recognize (and whose opinion should therefore
be of no import) is now prominently featured on Icon
publicity.
Surely,
it would be nice if Icon were indeed interested in
conciliation. Then we might be closer to forgiving
Gibson for he knows not what he has done. Except that,
judging from its spin machine, Icon Productions ALWAYS
knows what it's done. Now, too, I venture to say,
still -- it is as it was ....
|
