The Passion in perspective

A friend of mine recently went to see "The Passion of the Christ." Because Brian Janko is both a moviemaker and a Messianic Jew, he brings a unique perspective, technically as well as, theologically, to the viewing experience.

*********************************************************

I finally did see "The Passion." I'd heard an interfaith dialogue about the movie's "antisemitism". The person from the Anti-Defamation League, said the problem was not that the movie was antisemitic. They did not feel it was antisemitic. They just felt that the movie left too much "open" for the misinterpretation of guilt on the Jews for Christ's death.

Anyhow, I saw the film and it took me about 20 minutes or so to adjust. There were a few cinematic devices at the beginning which I felt were rather clumsy. But I gradually became more engrossed and it had a powerful effect on me. I would say, overall, that the movie was well done, especially considering the challenge of the subject matter. I was emotionally moved.

Jesus is beaten almost continuously for two hours, bloody and horrid-looking... and just when you think they could not show more beating, they do, and it just gets bloodier... but this is all part of the impact. But it struck me that this is what humans really feel toward God—that in fact these people were beating the tar out of the very Person who made them!!!! This was the unspoken message behind the film.

I do not know if my reaction is what Gibson intended, but I can certainly see why the film made so much money. One of the Jews on the interfaith panel claimed that the big box-office was due to people going to see "what the big deal about this movie was." But I think she simply had an agenda to sell the movie short. A record-breaking box-office indicates that many people saw the movie more than once. It simply made a lot of money, because it was a well-made movie, and emotionally very powerful to watch.

Another Jew on the interfaith panel seemed to think that the personification of Satan was antisemitic because he was wandering around amidst the crowd of Jews. But to my recollection he was wandering around a number of places in the film. And at the point where the Jewish crowd is saying, "No, we want Barabbas," where else would Satan be?

Jews I heard complained that Gibson was asked not to make certain choices in the filming of the story, because it would leave Jew-haters a hook to hang their hatred on. They did admit that they were more concerned about the "antisemitic" elements for the overseas, international release rather than in America where people are more eclectic. I suppose there could be some reason for concern; I don't know. The bottom-line is that I did not see one thing that was antisemitic in this film!

If there is any "antisemitism," then blame God, because the New Testament can seem antisemitic at times. And the most "antisemitic" verse in the NT is where the Jews say, "Let his blood be on our heads and that of our children," which is what, I'm afraid, has actually happened in history. But that was, of all lines, the one line not in the movie! (Someone told me it was in the Aramaic, but the subtitle for it was omitted... to which, I respond to Mel Gibson, "Wimp!")

I think Gibson, or whoever, does have a responsibility in doing that story to be careful that it not foster hatred for Jews or anyone else. But that responsibility stops, I believe, where the accurate telling of the NT begins. In that case, the NT is to blame, not the filmmaker. And if a Klansman or neo-Nazi takes some action, I just don't see how the movie is at fault. But this is a long-worn debate that began way before this particular movie.

One clarification: I say it was a well-made movie because it told the story in an emotionally powerful and (for the most part) accurate way. As I said there were certain cinematic devices as well as simply some choices, like a moving camera and such, that I felt were a little sloppy or ill-conceived.

On the other-hand, there were other cinematic devices which worked wonderfully and added a lot of power to the experience, at least for me. Cinematically, then, I would still say it was very well made, but I would not say it was quite the masterpiece it could have been; it fell short here and there. But few movies do make it to perfection, so I would say it was a pretty good rendition of this story, which is probably one of the hardest stories to film, especially for a believer who probably does not want to detract from it.

Whether it is right to make a movie of the gospel at all, because of the 2nd commandment, is a question I leave for the theologians. I personally do not see the harm done. I do not think anyone walked out of the theatre worshiping the actor portraying Jesus; and I think it might have done a whole lot of good for people "on the fence" who needed an extra nudge to look more closely at who Christ really was.