« Georgia refuses Vatican pact | Main | Hard-wired to connect? »
September 20, 2003
Frank Rich answers his...uh..critic
PETA members may be relieved to learn that I do not have a dog.As for the rest of Mel Gibson's threats, context is all: the guy is a movie star. Movie stars expect to get their own way. They are surrounded by sycophants, many of them on the payroll. Should a discouraging word somehow prick the bubble of fabulousness in which they travel, even big-screen he-men can turn into crybabies. Mr. Gibson's tirade sounded less like a fatwa from the Ayatollah Khomeini than a tantrum from Sinatra in his cups.
My capital crime was to write a column on this page last month reporting that Mr. Gibson was promoting his coming film about the crucifixion, "The Passion," by baiting Jews. As indeed he has. In January, the star had gone on "The O'Reilly Factor" to counter Jewish criticism of his cinematic account of Jesus's final hours — a provocative opening volley given that no critic of any faith had yet said anything about his movie (and wouldn't for another three months). Clearly he was looking for a brawl, and he hasn't let up since. In the New Yorker profile, Mr. Gibson says that "modern secular Judaism wants to blame the Holocaust on the Catholic Church," a charge that Abraham H. Foxman, of the Anti-Defamation League, labels "classic anti-Semitism." Mr. Gibson also says that he trimmed a scene from "The Passion" involving the Jewish high priest Caiaphas because if he didn't do so "they'd be coming after me at my house, they'd come to kill me."
Who is this bloodthirsty "they" threatening to martyr our fearless hero? Could it be the same mob that killed Jesus? Funny, but as far as I can determine, the only death threat that's been made in conjunction with "The Passion" is Mr. Gibson's against me. The New Yorker did, though, uncover one ominous threat against the star: "He's heard that someone from one of his hangouts, the Grand Havana Room, a Beverly Hills smoking club, said that he'd spit on him if he ever came in again." Heard from whom? What is the identity of that mysterious "someone"? What do they smoke at that "smoking club"? Has the Grand Havana Room been infiltrated by Madonna's Kabbalah study group? I join a worried nation in praying for Mr. Gibson's safety.
His over-the-top ramblings are, of course, conceived in part to sell his product. "Inadvertently, all the problems and the conflicts and stuff — this is some of the best marketing and publicity I have ever seen," Mr. Gibson told The New Yorker. That's true — with the possible exception of the word "inadvertently" — and I realize that I've been skillfully roped into his remarkably successful p.r. juggernaut. But I'm glad to play my cameo role — and unlike Bill O'Reilly, who sold the film rights to one of his books to Mr. Gibson's production company, I am not being paid by him to do so.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83455adb869e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Frank Rich answers his...uh..critic:
» In The Name of Faith... from Rodent Regatta
some of the worst wars have been fought. One recent war is currently limited to a war of words. The... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 21, 2003 8:45:50 PM
Comments
Frank Rich is a liar.
To read the complete O'Reilly interview for yourself, scroll down this page:
http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/passion.htm
Read here how Rich in his previous article selectively edited Gibson's words in the O'Reilly interview to change their meaning:
http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com
Posted by: LP at Sep 20, 2003 9:38:01 PM
Frank Rich is a class act responding properly to paranoid rantings.
Posted by: Z at Sep 21, 2003 12:27:05 AM
Riiight.
The trouble Gibson is having is all because he keeps being misquoted. Nothing he ever actually says is at all inappropriate -- 'intestines on a stick' really meant he wanted to invite the guy over for bratwurst. (Okay, so THAT was insensitive: bratwurst, Nathan's dogs -- a guy can get confused without a script.)
And speaking of the script...
All those folks who asked to see his movie are obviously misrepresenting the movie on purpose, because Gibson wouldn't let 'em see it. And they're relying on a script his studio circulated out of the goodness of their hearts. Gibson only objected to their using that script because, well, they misrepresented it again. They thought it was going to be like the movie, just because it was shot from it. All these big-shot movie critics never heard of editing?
And yeah, let's not forget the editing: if it wasn't for all these cheap shot critics, complaining about a movie they've asked to see and been turned away from (serves 'em right!), Gibson says he could have REALLY made the movie he wanted...
And had "THEM" come attack him in his home.
Nope, the guy is plainly motivated and inspired by the Holy Spirit, making a work of art as sacred as any Passion Play in Medieval Europe. I predict a big hit in Germany, Austria, France... and just WAIT for the premiere in Jerusalem. On the West Bank. Baghdad.
And in Riyadh.
Posted by: theAmericanist at Sep 21, 2003 7:26:42 AM
It must be nice to be Frank Rich and be paid a high salary to be a jerk in print.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Sep 21, 2003 7:46:35 AM
Americanist,
Frank Rich misquoted Mel Gibson to make it appear that he was saying the opposite of what he actually said.
He said that "all mankind" is culpable. That anyone who sins is culpable. Frank Rich misquoted him to make it appear that he was saying the Jews were culpable.
If that was done to me I'd "want" to kill the perpetrator's dog, too. Wouldn't you? If not, I hope it's because you are a saint and not because you lack normal human emotion.
The real question is, why does Frank Rich still have a job at the New York Times? This is scandalous.
Posted by: Steve Polson at Sep 21, 2003 9:50:16 AM
I talked about this with the PaleoJudaica guy when he posted that. FWIW, this is the gist of that exchange:
IMNSHO, we should all be spared from verbatim transcripts of what we say, because most of us sound like illiterates when EVERYTHING we say, er, ah. But. And at the end of the day, of course. You knew that as well as I do. Then. Whew. Are written, ya know, with notes? Emphasis. Everything depends on emphasis. As if we meant it that kinda thing, down, ya know.
So journalists (and transcribers) routinely use ellipses to get between quotation marks what folks actually meant. I remember watching Reagan's prose get cleaned up, so he didn't sound like such a knucklehead in print, while others (often folks on public assistance) were quoted exactly: nasty business, editing.
I know that some folks passionately (so to speak) object to the idea that Gibson meant, much less said, that Jews were responsible for the Crucifixion. Gibson's partisans insist that he said no such thing -- only that he meant that EVERYBODY is responsible.
'Course, in the context of the debate over his movie, it is relevant that he has Jews actually causing it to happen. Hell, he has Jews actually bullying the Romans into it -- like Vidkun Quisling bullying Himmler. So it's hard to see how Rich actually altered Gibson's meaning, quoting "anybody who transgresses."
So, personally, as a sometime practioner and omniverous consumer of news, I don't think Rich's ellipsis distorted Gibson at all. In fact, the reaction proves Rich's point: "the star's pre-emptive strategy is to portray contemporary Jews as crucifying Mel Gibson."
Why "pre-emptive"? Because he won't let folks who aren't pre-screened to support him see the flick.
The PJ guy responded to me that of course Rich had distorted the meaning: responding to a question about why his movie might upset Jews, Gibson had said "all mankind" was responsible, but all Rich quoted was "anybody who transgresses", with the antecedent being Jews -- a clear distortion of his meaning, right?
I don't think so. Rich's point throughout everything I've seen him write about the movie, is that Gibson is playing with the devil's own fire and pretending it's holy water.
I dunno about YOU, but if somebody asked me "do you blame Jews for the Crucifixion?", I don't think the Christian answer would be: "Yes, of course, but I blame everybody."
Isn't the Christian answer: "NO!.. but I do blame everybody."
Fer the love of all things godly, didn't the Holocaust teach us anything?
If you actually read what Rich wrote in both columns, Gibson's folks come off pretty badly -- and he comes off worse. Rich asked to see the movie -- Gibson's guys turned him down, because the NY Times (the second largest circulation newspaper in America) is a "low priority". Why? Because, the PR guy claims, it misrepresented Gibson's dad.
Did it?
Rich notes that Hutton Gibson's own newsletter puts "Holocaust" in quotes, that he promotes the ugliest sort of anti-Semitic Holocaust denial theories -- AND that nobody ever contacted the Times about any of what Gibson's flak claimed, with no proof nor even an honest charge, were misrepresentations.
That's a put up or shut up situation: and it ain't Rich who doesn't want the cards on the table.
Posted by: theAmericanist at Sep 21, 2003 11:16:24 AM
Okay, here's the Frank Rich quote, taken from Paleojudaica.
The question O'Reilly asked Gibson was whether the film would upset any Jewish people. "It may. It isn't meant to," he answers. Then the following (Ital indicates what Rich left out):
==============
I think it's meant to just tell the truth. I want to be as truthful as possible. But, when you look at the reasons behind why Christ came, why he was crucified, he died for all mankind and he suffered for all mankind, so that, really, anybody who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability.
===============
There's no question in my mind that the full quote makes clear that Gibson is not condemning the Jewish people. The edited quote has quite a different tone. I can't speak to Rich's motives or intention, but only to the clear result.
I've read elsewhere--perhaps in the New Yorker piece--that in one of the closeups, the hand pounding nails into Jesus is Gibson's. I'd wager that the film will be spritually successful to the extent the point of that image comes through. At the same time, it is the authors of the Gospels, not Mel Gibson, who first told the story of the particular Jews who "bullied the Romans" into the crucifixion.
As for the New York Times, I wouldn't trust them with accurately portraying a telphone directory, never mind a film like this.
Posted by: Christopher Rake at Sep 21, 2003 1:33:15 PM
Fascinating.
Kindly explain the distinction WITH a difference, between "all mankind" and "anybody who transgresses."
I've said before that I don't think Gibson needed to tell the story this way -- and he sure as hell didn't need to provoke this controversy in releasing the film. Why not let any legit critic in to see it? Frank Rich isn't exactly trying to beat him out the price of a ticket.
Kindly explain the source of Gibson's animosity toward the NY Times. Use quotes from Gibson's dad. Show how the NYT misrepresented this guy as a Holocaust denier. Quote how the Times had him saying one thing, but he REALLY said something else.
The fact is, there ain't much difference between what Gibson said, and the way Rich quoted him. But even if you take the worst possible interpretation of the ellipsis, all Rich did was conflate Gibson's 'so, what?' attitude toward Jews who are alarmed at his effort to antagonize them, with his 'Yeah, of course they did it: we all did."
I'll predict it again: people are going to die, when this movie is shown around the world. There will be serious anti-Semitic demonstrations, because of this film. It will divide people: Christians from Jews, and those who care little about bigotry from those who care a lot.
And everything Gibson says about it, and the way he's rolled it out, reinforces the concern that he did it on purpose -- un-necessarily.
Ya see, this is a distinction WITH a difference. It wasn't "the Jews" who executed Christ. It was the Roman Empire. It wasn't "the Jews" who turned him over. It was Roman collaborators. It wasn't Caiaphas who said "his blood be upon us, and on our children" -- as Gibson filmed it, and then -- oh, the poor guy -- was "forced" to cut.
He changed the Gospels, to make a point that he is trying damned hard to bring across, while disclaiming all responsibility for.
Posted by: theAmericanist at Sep 21, 2003 2:39:05 PM
+J.M.J+
Americanist writes:
>>>and just WAIT for the premiere in Jerusalem. On the West Bank. Baghdad.
>>>And in Riyadh.
I sincerely doubt it will ever be shown in Riyadh, or any Muslim country, since Islam teaches that Jesus never died on the Cross. Muslims are very offended by the notion that Allah would allow one of His faithful prophets to be killed by his enemies; they see that as a "defeat". So they think that Allah pulled a "switcheroo" in the Garden, making Judas look like Jesus so that the guards seized him instead, while Jesus escaped and was taken up into heaven.
Therefore, Muslims would consider The Passion a heretical film and would not show it in countries where they dominate.
In Jesu et Maria,
Posted by: Rosemarie at Sep 21, 2003 6:05:46 PM
Amy,
I like how you mentioned this:
"The New Yorker did, though, uncover one ominous threat against the star: "He's heard that someone from one of his hangouts, the Grand Havana Room, a Beverly Hills smoking club, said that he'd spit on him if he ever came in again." Heard from whom? What is the identity of that mysterious "someone"? What do they smoke at that "smoking club"? Has the Grand Havana Room been infiltrated by Madonna's Kabbalah study group? I join a worried nation in praying for Mr. Gibson's safety."
..... what in the world are they so so afraid of?
CONVERSION?
I think we need to pray for him. But I don't think this is going to be banishment for him in the Hollywood community. There are SOME moral people there. Maybe this will pull them out of hiding enough to circle the wagons for Christ!
Maybe we ought to send him a lighter "WWJD".. that will teach em.
Posted by: Jeanne at Sep 21, 2003 8:30:09 PM
Americanist:
First off, I trust the opinions of Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos, Deal Hudson, Barb Nicolosi, etc. waaaaay before I trust Frank Rich of the secular-as-Mao NYT.
Second, the Gospels DO in fact tell us that Jewish leaders nagged pilate to crucify Christ.
Third, Caiaphas shouts "Let his blood be on us and our children" for a reason: Gibson thought that, by confining this statement to a single person, that person would be vilified rather than the entire Jewish people (if you recall, in the Gospels, it's the Jewish crowd that shouts "Let his blood...").
Fourth, The Christian will say, "Everybody is responsible for Christ's death, just as he died for everyone." If you ask the Christian, "What about the Jews? Are they responsible, too?" The Christian will say "Yes, but no more than anyone else." Gibson seems not to have done anything more or less than this in any of the reports I have seen.
Posted by: Tom at Sep 21, 2003 9:42:41 PM
It's really very simple: A number of Pharisees hounded Jesus and worked to have him killed. They used the Sanhedrin, the high religious court, which in turn used the Roman authorities. Result: Christ crucified. Plenty of guilt to go around, but I suspect that the Americanist would be more comfortable if we just left out the particular Jews who sped Christ on his way.
We have to be aware of history and of the depraved uses of anti-Semitism. We don't have to lie about our faith, or accept the unsupported allegation of "bigotry" when retelling what the Church teaches clearly.
From The Catechism:
596 The religious authorities in Jerusalem were not unanimous about what stance to take towards Jesus. The Pharisees threatened to excommunicate his followers. To those who feared that "everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation", the high priest Caiaphas replied by prophesying: "It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish." The Sanhedrin, having declared Jesus deserving of death as a blasphemer but having lost the right to put anyone to death, hands him over to the Romans, accusing him of political revolt, a charge that puts him in the same category as Barabbas who had been accused of sedition. The chief priests also threatened Pilate politically so that he would condemn Jesus to death.
Jews are not collectively responsible for Jesus' death
597 The historical complexity of Jesus' trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles' calls to conversion after Pentecost....All sinners were the authors of Christ's Passion...
That is a slice of the story Mel Gibson is trying to tell. Since neither the Americanist nor myself have seen the movie, we are registering our reactions by proxy. The Americanist trusts Frank Rich and The New York Times. I trust others, not only Catholic figures who have seen it but also, as a reality check, David Horowitz and Michael Medved. To each his own.
Posted by: Christopher Rake at Sep 21, 2003 10:36:24 PM
LOL -- I know Horowitz, who used to write puerile left wing hooey before he decided there was more money writing puerile right wing nonsense. You trust him, 'nuff said.
Nor do I trust the NYT, exactly. (I once had 'em do a story on a subject for which I was professionally responsible, front page, above the fold, center column: with five errors in the first four grafs.)
But I do trust FACTS. And I commend the practice to you. One way to establish facts is to state 'em, and see if anybody objects -- and if so, on what grounds?
The star's father, Hutton Gibson is an anti-Semite and a Holocaust denier. Does anybody disputethis? On what grounds -- because a paper you don't like reported it accurately?
Both the father and the son belong to a sect which rejects Vatican II, including the encyclical quoted above. So quoting it doesn't exactly defend 'em, does it?
Anybody dispute that?
What folks keep dancing around, of course, is the question whether the Gospels themselves are anti-Semitic, which is a distinct but related issue to whether Gibson's film is. It would be possible to make a Biblically-accurate film free of anti-Semitism, only if the Gospels themselves are not anti-Semitic. If they are, you can't.
Right?
Oversimplified, that vast question boils down to two points:
First, do all the references to "Jews" and "the Jews" in the Gospels use terms (e.g., the Sanhedrin) that Gospel contemporaries would necessarily have understood differently than modern folks?
I think they do -- they HAVE to, if only because every Christian in the story is also a Jew living under Roman occupation. That's why I noted at the start that Gibson didn't actually have to mess with any of this, in order to make the movie he claims -- and has evidently conned most folks posting here -- he wanted to make. But he made a very different movie than he claims -- the proof being how he has rolled it out.
A proof of the distinctions lost on us modern folk, which would have literally gone without saying to Gospel contemporaries, is the power of Rome. As James Carroll observed, the Gospels read like Anne Frank without the Nazis -- for a very good reason: Rome would have stamped it out as it had pulled down the Temple it had allowed re-built, if the Text had attacked her authority in anyway. So it didn't.
This doesn't contradict the account at all -- nor even challenge its divine character. It actually explains it, pretty much the way the imagery and even the language is informed by knowledge, obscure now, but common to contemporaries. For example, "the eye of the needle" isn't just a metaphor, it was actually the name of a small gate in Jerusalem's wall. A rich guy riding on a camel couldn't get through unless he got off and led the camel -- that is, he and his wealth were separate. JC was saying something that we understand now -- but which folks understood at the time, more deeply. Something timeless was still said at a particular time, to folks who shared that time and its perspective.
It isn't blasphemy, it's using the brains God gave (some of) us, to read the Gospels intelligently. An intelligent reading of the Passion story, I keep hammering on, is that COLLABORATORS did their job -- they recognized in JC's preaching, and notably his attack in the Temple (the HQ of collaboration, only just completed by King Herod himself, the Roman puppet) as primarily an attack on THEIR legitimacy -- and thus, they tried to persuade Pilate, on Rome.
Pilate, for his part, takes some persuading -- he manifestly could scarcely care less about the plight of the collaborators, which hardly enhances THEIR importance ... as Jews. He doesn't act like an Imperial agent presented with much of a problem. He only agrees to use a feather of Rome's authority to execute JC after showing contempt for the collaborators, to the point of a political move worthy of a Stalin: the release of Barabbas, described in one account as a 'rebel'. Rebels who are released by the empire in order to execute a harmless preacher do not help the rebellion: get it? He rubs the collaborators' noses in their collaboration before he demonstrates how utterly they depend on Rome.
Anybody dispute that?
The second point about anti-Semitism in the Gospels is that Christianity, by definition, is anti-Judaic. Christ fulfills all the Old Testament promises about the Messiah, right? And Jews, by definition, reject that. QED.
Look -- Gibson is not a theologian, he's a filmmaker. Strictly speaking, he's not a Roman Catholic, either.
But he is VERY familiar with the related processes of telling a story in film and hyping a movie release.
Look at the facts: he has gone out of his way to make a movie and promote it that provoked charges of anti-Semitism from the likes of the ADL, and he has responded to those legitimate concerns by promoting piety in folks who are, shall we say, less than sensitive on the subj.
What they're DEFENDING is illustrated with Gibson's crap like "I want his intestines on a stick", about a film critic and columnist for one of the biggest newspapers in the world -- whom he refused to let see the film. Why? Because the paper reported ACCURATELY that his father is a Holocaust denier.
Any dispute?
Posted by: theAmericanist at Sep 22, 2003 7:59:06 AM
Frank Rich's white-hot hatred of Mel Gibon's movie is due, I think, to an understanding of what was discussed here concerning abortion pictures. In the game of rock-papers-scissors, rock trumps paper and likewise do pictures trump text. Mr. Rich understands this, and hence the hysteria over a movie - moving pictures, both literally and figuratively. If your goal is a completely secular society, a movie like Mel Gibon's is a terrible threat indeed.
Posted by: TSO at Sep 22, 2003 8:57:04 AM
LOL -- denial, anger, bargaining, acceptance.
What exactly is it about objecting to a pampered movie star's visibly anti-semtic campaign for a movie roll-out that even implies a goal of a "completely secular society"?
Posted by: theAmericanist at Sep 22, 2003 9:15:32 AM
Its pretty incredible that anyone would print a screed like Rich's, especially the paper that provoked the entire controvery by conducting an irrelevant "expose" on Gibson's father. The Times is frequently in the business of stoking the paranoia of secular Jews (the group Rich seems to be unaware of the existence of) for the most crassly commercial reasons. Of course this is what its original "expose" was intended to do (otherwise, what interest would the NYT have in Gibson's sympathies for the Tridentine Mass. . . ). And then Rich has the audacity (and the mendacity) to complain that Gibson's objecting to the Times's paranoia fueling, is itself crass paranoia fueling.
Posted by: al at Sep 22, 2003 9:44:40 AM
To borrow a slogan from the abortion industry:
Don't like the Passion? Don't see it.
Americanist says:
"It wasn't "the Jews" who turned him over. It was Roman collaborators."
Who were Jews (unless you think maybe alien abductors from the planet Zork popped down?) and who wanted JC dead because they perceived His preaching was incompatible with the Jewish faith. They were not turning Him over as a good deed for Rome, any more than Saul persecuted early Christians because he thought it was his Roman duty - he did it because of his (misunderstood) Jewish duty. This was not a "Roman Plot" as you are trying to imply. Rome could have given a rat's ass. Pilate took an opportunity to do what any politician would do - order over chaos at a cheap price. And those Jews that wanted Him dead did what any rabble rousing minority could do - threaten the peace or status quo unless you get your way. Just look at the way politicians today bend over backward to please certain interest groups. Do you think that is only a modern invention?
The problem is not that the Gospels are anti-semitic. The problem is that anti-semitic is now defined as anything that makes any Jew or group of Jews at any time ever look less than the perfect people we all know they are.
Posted by: c matt at Sep 22, 2003 10:33:03 AM
TA, to suggest Frank Rich has an agenda outside of anti-Semitism shouldn't be news, unless you've haven't read his columns.
Posted by: TSO at Sep 22, 2003 1:29:47 PM
Show me the evidence FROM THE GOSPELS that the collaborators saw JC's teaching as incompatible with Judaism AND THAT WAS THE REASON they turned him over.
What youll find, instead, are stories like Luke 20, in which JC tells the parable of the husbandman who shall be destroyed, and God will give the vineyard to others: "And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour .... feared the people: for they preceived that he had spoken this parable against THEM." (Ellipsis and emphasis added)
In Luke 23, the first thing they accuse him of in front of Roman authority is "forbidding to give tribute to Caesar..."
Likewise Matthew 26-7 "unto the palace of the high priest...", hardly denoting guys resisting Rome's rule or primarily concerned about Jewish theology.
Mark 14 has witnesses that contradict each other -- not exactly a sign that there was a coherent theological case to make against him, and a strong indication that the case was to be trumped up... why?
To persuade Pilate, of course. And why would collaborators need to persuade Pilate? To protect themselves. And how how would they do that? By making JC out to be, not a threat to the collaborators (still less to "the Jews", like Pilate could care), but ... to Rome.
And how does Pilate react? Does he act AFRAID of the Sanhedrin?
Mark is the gospel where Barabbas is tagged as 'one who had done murder in the insurrection', which is particularly telling, since he is released in order that JC be executed.
Why would a Roman do that -- if not to reinforce his power over both the public and the collaborators? It's a very slick move -- Barabbas wasn't about to have more street cred as a result, and Caiaphas, et al, were unmistakeably reminded just who was in charge.
Luke 22 is downright explicit about the collaborators' motives: 'for they feared the people."
John 11:48 is even more clear: "if we let him alone... the Romans will come and take away both OUR place and OUR nation." (emphasis and ellipsis added)
Being as how the Romans already occupied Palestine, it's clear that the collaborators -- the Jews who had the palaces, who had the Temples -- conflated themselves and the nation, which of course would hve gone without saying to folks at the tme, but which folks nowadays need to be a bit more explicit about. Nobody would have needed to know Vidkun Quisling was a bad guy in 1940, lots of folks now think he was a hobbit.
John 11:50 has Caiphas continuing to confuse the collaborators with the country, which of course is exdctly what collaborators DO: "... it is expedient that one man should die ... that the nation perish not."
Hard to square THAT with the idea that they turned him over to enforce Judaism, instead of to appease Rome.
And since Pilate's reaction was to pose a choice to the collaborators' hired mob, between a guy who had killed in an insurrection and JC, it's pretty clear that this was ALL about collaboration, and not even a little about Jewish theology.
That said, of course Christianity is anti-Judaic, like I said. But Gibson didn't need to broach anti-Semitism to tell the story right.
Posted by: theAmericanist at Sep 22, 2003 3:05:13 PM
I am not concerned with the size of a newspaper or, for the most part, what the relative of a filmmaker believes. That's guilt by association, which I find ironic in the context of our discussion (true irony--it's rare; enjoy the moment). Separately, some have raised legitimate and interesting points about Gibson's religious practice, which would be illuminating to discuss with less heat.
I am concerned with whether the film is anti-Semitic. Having not seen the film, I propose it is difficult to prove the case either way. I do trust the Catholic figures who have spoken well of it, and I similarly trust Jews, including Horowitz and observant Jews like Michael Medved, who think others have over-reacted. And frankly I think a lot of Holloywood and the political left is unnerved by someone like Gibson who actually profess to believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Big movie stars just don't do that.
As I said before, if Gibson faithfully portrays the Gospel accounts, I will say well done Mr. Gibson. That story includes the behavior of key Jews and the larger and more important point that we are all sinners and share in that crucifixion. I think that's the message he was trying to get across in the scene where a closeup of his own hand is shown pounding a stake (not nails, my mistake) into Christ on the Cross.
I'm frightened by this movie, but not by what I believe are unsupported allegations of anti-Semitism. I'm frightened that it will change me.
Posted by: Christopher Rake at Sep 22, 2003 4:00:37 PM
Catholic teaching is actually pretty clear (or so I thought) about the role of Pharisees and the Sanhedrin in the Crucifixion. It is linked above. Both the Gospels and the Catechism do not use the word "collaborators," to my knowledge, but rather "Pharisee," "Sanhedrin," etc. This cannot be erased without erasing Catholicism. That is what some people want, of course.
The Pharisees threatened to excommunicate his followers. To those who feared that "everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation", the high priest Caiaphas replied by prophesying: "It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish." The Sanhedrin, having declared Jesus deserving of death as a blasphemer but having lost the right to put anyone to death, hands him over to the Romans, accusing him of political revolt, a charge that puts him in the same category as Barabbas who had been accused of sedition. The chief priests also threatened Pilate politically so that he would condemn Jesus to death.
Posted by: Christopher Rake at Sep 22, 2003 4:11:42 PM
Film critic (and former synagogue president, USA Today helpfully adds) Michael Medved:
...In fact, the worries about anti-Semitic messages in the upcoming epic seem overblown based on known facts about the project. Of course, members of the religious establishment in ancient Judea come across badly in New Testament accounts, but beyond these villains, the new movie boasts a Jewish hero (or Hero) — not to mention many other sympathetic Judeans, including Christ's disciples and mother. Moreover, Gibson emphasizes the Hebraic identity of the Man from Nazareth. Production stills show actor Jim Caviezel as perhaps the most Semitic Jesus in cinema history — a welcome change from the Nordic Messiahs in many previous films. To make certain no one ignores the Jewish identity of Christ and the Apostles, Gibson insisted that his actors speak nearly all of their lines in Aramaic, the language of ancient Judea and a close cousin of Hebrew.
Of course, even the most responsible, well-intentioned movie treatment of the last hours of Jesus will provoke concern in the Jewish community, because so many millions of Jews have suffered and died over the centuries due to Gospel-based charges that they are "Christ killers." But the fact that persecutors and bigots have distorted teachings of the New Testament for their own cruel purposes doesn't mean that those Gospel texts, sacred to all Christians, must be scrapped, revised or ignored in a serious work of cinema.
In fact, the plea that Gibson's movie should place exclusive blame for the Crucifixion on Roman authorities contradicts not only mainstream Christian teaching, but also elements of Jewish tradition. In a courageous piece in the national Jewish weekly The Forward, Orthodox scholar David Klinghoffer points to Jewish sources more than 1,000 years old that "teach that Jesus died at least partly thanks to decisions taken by his fellow Jews."...
Posted by: Christopher Rake at Sep 22, 2003 4:22:46 PM
"none so blind as they who will not see"
Posted by: theAmericanist at Sep 22, 2003 5:05:15 PM
...it's pretty clear that this was ALL about collaboration, and not even a little about Jewish theology.
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63 And the high priest tore his garments, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? 64 You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death.
"I AM" didn't pose any problem at all for the theology of the Sanhedrin?
I don't have a problem with the idea of a collaborationist ruling class in Judea who guarded their perks carefully. Happens all the time in occupied countries. Similarly, it happens that the ruling class among subject people find ways to manipulate their contemptuous Masters (see "Shooting an Elephant" by Orwell). What I don't understand is why it's impossible for them to have seen Jesus as a political *and* a theological threat.
That not all Jews were opposed to the apostolic message is obvious: many became Christians. That a great number were (and other besides merely the ruling classes) is also obvious given the reception the apostles received beyond Judea. It was always a mixed affair, and some even of the ruling class were sympathetic the apostolic messages (see Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Jairus, and the synagogue elders at Corinth who were converted by Paul). But the fact remains that the New Testament is puzzled by the rejection of the gospel, not by "collaborators" but by Jews in general. It's a theological problem for the writers of Romans 9-11 and Hebrews. The fact that some of the rejectors of the gospel are collaborationists is of little interest to them. They note it when it's germane but they also note rejections by the hoi polloi (such as the one at Nazareth early in Luke) when the conflict is clearly theological: ie. shock at the claim that Scriptures have been fulfilled in their hearing, shock at the claim to forgive sins, shock at the eucharistic sermon at Capernaum which drove everybody away (John 6).
One can simply ignore these passages as interpolations and concentrate on the passages that support the thesis that "It's all about Power Politics". But that's simply to play games with the record. One can prove anything that way.
Posted by: Mark Shea at Sep 22, 2003 6:08:10 PM
What is ironic here is all this publicity generated by the charges of the film being anti semetic will only cause the number of people wanting to see the film increase.
As with what Tom said, I trust the opinions of people such as Cdl. Hoyos and Deal Hudson far more than I trust liberal journalists and "spirt of Vatican II" Catholics such as Sr. Mary Boys and as it seems a few others who are more concerned about political correctness spawned from secular humanism than the authentic faith.
Posted by: John B at Sep 22, 2003 7:26:00 PM
