Undying passion
By Lubna Abdel-Aziz
Amidst excessive moaning and groaning, intense rumbling and grumbling, actor/director/producer Mel Gibson has finally and at long last succeeded in bringing his Passion, and third directorial effort to the public. On 25 February, Ash Wednesday The Passion of the Christ starring James Caviezel as Jesus, and Monica Belluci as Mary Magdalene was independently released in 2,000 theatres across the US. It will be followed by a March release in the UK and Australia, and worldwide distribution by Easter. Gibson succeeded in acquiring a lucrative distribution deal with Newmarket Films, not a minor triumph, indeed it is itself a small miracle. Only a few months ago no production company, top studio, or distributor would come near this highly controversial account of the last hours of the life of Jesus Christ.
Since 1898 over 100 films have treated various aspects of the life of Jesus, handled by several master craftsmen like Cecil B de Mille and Luis Buñuel, Franco Zeffirelli and Martin Scorsese. Even when portrayed as a "Singing Superstar", or "kung fu Vampire", never has a film about Jesus generated as much controversy as Mel Gibson's Passion. Denounced when it was only an idea, the film was criticised for being "dogmatic and prejudiced", and Gibson was ridiculed as "narrow minded and fundamentalist". Fearless, feisty Mel ("this has been germinating inside me for 10 years"), dismissed all the protests, ignored all the attacks, rolled up his sleeves and went to work. He invested $25 million of his own money, defied all the odds, and proceeded to fulfill his "great need to tell this story". And what a story he told!
The firestorm that broke out long before anyone had ever seen the film was unprecedented. Condemnation has been unrelenting on every level in the media, by religious and political groups, institutions, professors, authors, rabbis and even priests. He has been thrashed and persecuted mercilessly for making a graphic film about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. This is happening in America, cradle of modern democracy, land of freedom of worship; it is happening in Hollywood, heart of liberal thought, defender of artistic expression. Does not Mel Gibson, an American citizen (born in Peekskill New York, 1956, even though he grew up in Australia) enjoy the same rights and freedoms! Apparentaly, the battle for freedom continues; but why the outrage, the hate mail, the boycotts? What is all the furore about! The enigmatic answer lies in the ambiguous subject matter!
Passion was shot in Italy in two dead tongues, Latin used by the Romans and Aramaic by the ancient inhabitants of Palestine, for a more authentic interpretation. Gibson grudgingly agreed to add subtitles -- "let them focus on the visuals" -- and the visuals are excruciatingly painful. "When the Romans scourged you, it wasn't a nice thing", says Mel, who is perplexed by the remonstrance of the graphic violence, in a town that has exceeded every limit in its presentation of blood and gore on the screen.
In the Roman province of Palestine 30AD, an obscure Jewish carpenter, Jesus of Nazareth preached of a Kingdom of God that will deliver men from their mortal sins. Crowds were drawn to him and, 12 disciples followed him and praised his teachings, claiming he was their promised Messiah. This angered the governing senate composed of leading Jewish rabbis and Pharisees, the Sanhedrin. They conspired to get rid of him and recommended to the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate to put him to death. He preached of another kingdom and therefore he was a traitor to Rome. Pontius Pilate, fearing a political crisis and the outbreak of civil riots, ordered that Jesus be crucified as a common criminal. Where is the controversy? Is this not recounted in the four Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John? Why therefore is Gibson's film being attacked? The answer is because it would fuel anti-Semitism and reinforce "the mediaeval notion that the Jews killed Jesus". But did the Jews not kill Jesus?
Four decades ago the Second Vatican Council (1965) denounced the idea that Jews are to be blamed for the death of Jesus, absolving all Jews of deicide. Mel Gibson however remains a traditionalist. He is outspoken against these reforms, still attends Latin mass, and believes that Vatican II "corrupted the institution" of the Catholic Church. His belief is his right, his prerogative. What is arguably the most endearing story of all time, Passion became his labour of love. He ignored a warning against the dramatisation of the last hours of Christ by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops of 1988, "...because that would misleadingly suggest that the Jews as a race wanted Jesus dead." Does that mean that the Biblical account of Jesus's trial and death is a display of anti- Semitism? Some say yes,others, "it is no more a condemnation of all Jews, as is the act of Pontuis Pilate a condemnation of all Romans!".
Gibson, a conservative in an extremely liberal Hollywood, a devout Catholic in an industry whose products often mock religion, would not be discouraged or deterred. He saw his Passion right through to the end. If it has offended Jewish communities: "it was not meant to", explains Mel, "it's just meant to tell the truth. That is what the Gospel tells us." If Christians cannot trust the New Testament as some have claimed, because it is only an account "written by men decades later", "the product of human hands", does that not also apply to the Old Testament? Should one then pursue history instead? Apart from births and deaths, battles of victory and defeat, is not history also another account written by men subject to analysis and personal interpretations of historians- who also are human?
Does Mel Gibson blame the Jews for killing Christ? "This film casts blame on no one, rather on everyone." To prove his point Gibson uses his own hands in the film to hammer the nails into the body of Jesus.
Gibson has as many defenders as he has detractors among the Jewish community. Whilst Dr Robert Shlamowitz of B'nai Brit, amongst others condemns the actor -- "I will no longer watch Mel Gibson in any movies he is in," film producer Dean Devlin sings his praises: "I thought it was an amazingly powerful piece of work. I didn't find it in the least anti-Semitic, and I'm Jewish."- and filmmaker Alan Sereboff left the movie feeling "a greater sense of kinship and closeness to my Christian brothers and sisters than I ever thought imaginable".
On seeing the film, evangelist Billy Graham "was moved to tears", and renowned radio personality Paul Harvey experienced "a rare kind of art that makes heaven touch earth". After watching the film in December Pope John Paul II turned to his long time Polish friend and secretary Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwicz and lamented, "it is, as it was."
Whether you are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Buddhist, the life of Jesus Christ carries so much power and emotion, it is considered "the greatest story ever told", and depiction of his last 12 hours certainly makes for a very moving film. This Braveheart aims to offend no man, no community, no religion -- "they've come out with this mantra 'anti-Semite', 'anti-Semite' -- I am not. This film collectively blames humanity for the death of Jesus, there are no exemptions." It is your individual right to choose to see or not to see the film, as it is Gibson's right to make or not to make it.
Emerging as one of cinema's great historians in trying to fathom the deep mysteries of the human heart, Mel Gibson, co-wrote, co-produced, directed, and paid $25 million for his Passion. If and when it is seen, it should be judged on its own merit only as a work of cinematic art, which ultimately, is what it is. Gibson has told his tale as a true scholar, a devout Christian, and a genuine artist, nobly, splendidly and movingly. Who can help but admire him for his steadfast dedication, unwavering faith, and undying Passion!
The true meaning of religion is thus not simply morality but morality touched by emotion.
Mathew Arnold (1822-1888)
