Feeling passionately about 'The Passion'

Breeze Reader's View

In a hundred years, when people look back at recent movies, they will think America was made up of more comedic homosexuals and attractive millionaires than Christians. In other words, they will think we all lived in California.

For a movement to which 82 percent of Americans claim to subscribe, Christianity's impact on Hollywood has been minute.

All these changes come Wednesday; This week marks the release of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ." From a purely cinematic perspective, hallelujah.

Gibson directed and financed the film himself, spending $25 million to document the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ's life before the crucifixion.

In true Gibson fashion, the movie received an "R" rating for excessive violence. "The Passion of The Christ" is more along the lines of of "Braveheart" than "What Women Want." "Jesus Christ Superstar" had better be running for cover.

This movie inarguably is a departure from the typical Hollywood fare. And, by taking the path less traveled by, Gibson broke through some guardrails.

His biggest counterculture move was that he made a film about Christ that wasn't demeaning, blasphemous or comical — for in Hollywood, Christianity is the one unbreakable taboo.

Entertainment publicist Michael Levine said it well when he stated in The Washington Times, "it's easier to declare yourself a gay, drug-addicted kleptomaniac than a born-again Christian. Saying you are a born-again Christian at an elite Hollywood party is like wearing a swastika to a B'nai B'rith fund raiser. There is a visceral, palpable contempt."

The fight between Gibson and Abe Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, has been juicier than watching Howard Dean attempt to appear electable.

According to the ADL, at every single opportunity, Gibson's film reinforces the notion that the Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob are the ones ultimately responsible for the crucifixion.

The New York Times was quick to jump in the fray, calling on columnist Frank Rich to prove Gibson's ulterior motives. Out of all the mudslinging, Rich's was by far the most creative.

"[Gibson] shot 'The Passion' in Italy, where a recent cartoon in the newspaper La Stampa showed Israeli tanks about to roll over the baby Jesus' manger. 'Do you want to kill me once more?' read the caption."

In other words, Gibson is an anti-Semite because he filmed his movie in Italy, and someone in Italy was anti-Semitic. By the same logic, I'm a nymphomaniac because I live in New York, and Bill Clinton lives in New York. Rich's argument is pretty weak — even for the Times.

Fortunately, things began to cool down after the "Primetime" interview last Monday. Gibson publicly stated that he does not consider Jews responsible for the death of Christ because he believes Christ came to die for his, and the entire world's, sins.

"The big answer is, we all did," Gibson answered, when asked who killed Jesus. "I'll be the first in the culpability stakes here."

Foxman came clean during the show, stating definitively that he doesn't believe Gibson is anti-Semitic, or that "The Passion of The Christ" is an anti-Semitic movie. His concern, he stated, was that it had the potential to spark anti-Semitism.

Jewish columnist Dennis Prager had similar concerns after watching an advance screening of the movie.

However, he understood that such fears were mostly unjustified, at least within America.

"What Jews need to understand," Prager wrote in his syndicated column, "is that most American Christians watching the film do not see the Jews as the villains of the passion story historically, let alone today. First, most American Christians believe that a sinning humanity killed Jesus, not the Jews. Second, they know that Christ's entire purpose was to come to this . world and to be killed for humanity's sins. To the Christian, God made it happen, not the Jews or the Romans."

Hopefully, we've reached the point where we can return to the movie, which was never intended for box office success. If it were, then Aramic and Latin would not have been the languages for the movie. And, he probably would have used well known actors.

Gibson made this movie, and made it so provocative and graphic because he wants to impact the viewers.

"I wanted to push the viewer over the edge," he said in the "Primetime" interview, "so that they see the enormity — the enormity of that sacrifice."

Christian or not, the greatest movies are those that cause you to see beyond the film and look at yourself. "American History X," "Requiem for a Dream," "Schindler's List," and "Fight Club" reach a pinnacle in movie history because they have the power to change you. That was Gibson's goal.
As he said, "I hope it inspires introspection, and I think it does. I want to inspire people and make people feel."

I don't know if "The Passion of The Christ" will be the next deeply provocative blockbuster hit. I don't even know if it will be good. The excessive hype sets a high bar for it to live up to.

But, this is the old "if you see one movie this year, then make sure it's this one" scenario. Whatever happens, it cannot be missed. Much has been said preemptively about this film, but you the viewer can make the final verdict. Go see it, and decide for yourself.

Brian Goodman is an undeclared freshman.