ArchivedMisrepresenting Melhttp://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/comme ... 030943.cfm
February 25, 2004
Misrepresenting Mel
by Karla Dial, contributing editor
"The Passion of the Christ" opened in theaters today, to the reviews of some critics who just don't seem to get the point of the film — or, more importantly, the point of the story.
When word of Mel Gibson's film, "The Passion of the Christ," started circulating last fall, media pundits started taking aim, dismissing it as anti-Semitic before the first trailer had even been released. And when it opened in theaters across the country today, film critics were quick to open fire.
One of those was Roger Friedman, whose "Fox 411" column I read regularly on the Fox News Channel Web site. Ordinarily, I find Friedman a welcome breath of fresh air — he has little patience for fools and plagiarists, an obvious depth of knowledge on all genres of the entertainment industry, reliable inside sources and candor to spare. But today, I felt the need to respond to some of the things he wrote about Mel Gibson and "The Passion of the Christ."
Friedman said, rightly, that this movie will leave a lasting impression on non-Jews around the world. Unfortunately, he said that impression would be that when they "see the Jewish prayer shawl, the tallis, on the heads of praying Jews, they will think, 'Oh yeah, those were worn by the angry crowds in 'The Passion' who insisted that Jesus be killed and then patiently watched him be tortured to death.' "
I don't think that's the impression most non-Jews will take away from this movie. I think both Jews and non-Jews alike will be shocked, maybe awed, by the violence of this film. But how they interpret that violence may well depend on the condition of their hearts.
That's Friedman's biggest problem with the film — the violence. He writes that it's "graphic beyond belief . . . There is blood, blood, everywhere. The violence toward Jesus is sadistic and grotesque."
At the risk of sounding flippant, I have to say . . . well, yeah. Of course it is. That's because the biblical account of the Passion discusses graphic, sadistic and grotesque violence that's clearly palpable -- even though some of the Gospel authors had a real gift for understatement.
Think about this from the biblical perspective — Gibson's perspective - for a moment: The Son of God — one-third of the Holy Trinity — has come to Earth in human form to pay for all time the penalty for human sin. His eternal enemy, Satan, who hates mankind almost as much as he hates God Himself, is in a delusional frenzy at the moment (because he, like everyone else, doesn't understand what's really going on here. They all think Jesus has come to establish an earthly kingdom and overthrow the occupying Roman government). God has literally heaped all the sins of mankind — past, present and future — onto the person of Jesus, and turned His face away. This is Satan's opportunity! God has put Jesus in the palm of his hand, and given him permission to do his worst. He is, for this one moment in time, entirely vulnerable.
The Bible says that Jesus literally "became sin" for our sake — and that God forsook him for a time. So what you see on the screen, through this violence, is Gibson's depiction of all hell breaking loose. All the fury of hell -- and all the holy wrath of Heaven -- converged on Golgotha that day. It then stands to reason that it will be more graphic than any other violent movie ever made; this is violence, shall we say, of biblical proportions. It is no more — and no less — than a depiction of the actual price of sin.
Didn't God spell it all out very explicitly for Moses, way back in Exodus, about the blood that would constantly have to be spilled as a sin offering? Hebrews 9:22 sums it up: "Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness." Friedman may think there was too much blood, but Christians know better — there was just enough to do the job.
Friedman also has a problem with the depiction of Judas in the film. "Thanks to Gibson, we are reminded that Jesus' friend Judas — a Jew — was easily sold out for some gold that was thrown at him in exchange for his betrayal," he writes. "It's the return of the money-grubbing Jew, straight out of the old anti-Semite playbook."
That wouldn't seem to be Gibson's intent at all. The Bible says that Satan literally took possession of Judas during the Last Supper, and this was the state of things at the time of the betrayal, when the Pharisees and Sadducees gave him 30 pieces of silver. The Gospel accounts also tell us Judas didn't spend the money -- and in the film, he actually tries to give it back. Instead, he went out and hung himself. That doesn't say "money-grubbing Jew" to me. It says this is the ultimate bad joke, played by Satan on Judas: You get 30 pieces of silver, but I get your soul for eternity.
Friedman is right about one thing — people who aren't familiar with the story won't necessarily understand what's going on in this film. Why are the Jews so angry with Jesus? he asks. You won't get the answer to that question from this movie. But let me refer you to what Gibson told Diane Sawyer during a recent interview — the film is called "The Passion of the Christ," not "The Life and Times of Jesus." His focus is extremely narrow — but it's a focus on one of the oldest and most well-known stories of all time, so I think he can get away with that. The book, after all, is readily available for anyone who wants to get more background on the story. Better yet, they could hear it from the Christian nearest them.
What will the Hollywood cognoscenti say about this film? What will they do about it? As Sawyer asked Gibson, does this mean he might not ever get another acting job? Possibly not. And frankly, he doesn't seem to care. He's a man who had everything to lose by making this film, and he made it anyway. He counted the cost and was obedient to what he felt God was asking him to do — and for that, he has my deepest and most enduring respect.
We could all stand to be a little more like Mel.
You can receive family news stories by email. Sign up now for this complimentary service.
I wish I could track Karla down and give her a great, big hug. May God bless her!!
And may He also open Friedman's eyes and the eyes of every one of the Mel Gibson haters and make them realize that Gibson is not anti-Semitic, and that he - from what I'm told - made an accurate account of one of the most heart-breaking and beautiful stories ever told.
Anyway, like one Fox News commentator said, if you go to the theater expecting to see anti-Semitic scenes, then that's what you'll see. You cannot go to the theater with expectations. You must watch this movie with an open heart and mind.
| View dfilename Return Home |