'The Passion' of the Americans

[WilliamPitt]

'The Passion' of the Americans
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Friday 27 February 2004

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/022704A.shtml

The television airwaves have been filled for the last several days with a lot of back-and-forth about Mel Gibson's new film, 'The Passion of The Christ.' A great deal of debate centers around whether Gibson has fashioned a broadside against Jewish people in the manner of the Medieval anti-Semitic passion plays of old. There are plenty of rabbis arguing with Christian ministers on just about any channel you might choose to watch, so I'm going to leave that question to them for the time being.

My question is much simpler: Why would Mel Gibson make a movie about people in the ancient Middle East and cast it with so many white people? To look at the central actors in this film, you'd think Jesus did his work near Manchester, New Hampshire instead of the Holy Land. The answer to that question lies within the United States, the prime market for this film. There are millions of Christians in America, some 25% of whom would characterize themselves as evangelical. It stands to reason that this film would do very well here, especially given the controversy that has surrounded the content.

The whiteness of the cast, however, speaks to a decidedly un-Christian truth that lies near the heart of this republic. Simply put, nailing a white Jesus Christ to the cross on film will generate a far more emotional response from the American viewing public than the crucifixion of a savior who actually looks like he is from the Middle East.

...more...

[Maddy McCall]

1. Hey, Will, do you care if I read this to my college history class?

We do current events, and I KNOW they will want to discuss the movie. I would like to read a pro-Passion article, and then counter it with your piece.

I have a multi-ethnic class, and I think your article would be great to open a discussion on race and ethnicity.

Great piece, by the way.

[WilliamPitt]

13. Have at it

with thanks. :)

[loudnclear]

29. My sentiments, exactly.

I could say a lot more but won't at this time. A much more pressing issue is looming.

[MrPrax]

2. Bigger questions?

"Why would Mel Gibson make a movie about people in the ancient Middle East and cast it with so many white people?"

Why would Christians experience their faith in a multiplex as opposed to a faith community?

Since 'white people' are central to the Jesus Myth, why ask whether a top-grossing movie actor would depict his central characters as anything other than 'white'?

Since consumer culture monopolizes community, why is it wrong to sell community back to people in the form of 'faith' products?

[darkstar]

3. Emotional response

<<<<<<<Simply put, nailing a white Jesus Christ to the cross on film will generate a far more emotional response from the American viewing public than the crucifixion of a savior who actually looks like he is from the Middle East.>>>>>

"Emotional response"

It is my (simple) understanding that catharsis *releases* emotions in the audience. They come away with a deeper understanding of their own imperfections and watching the projection, so to speak, of the hero figure meet their downfall relieves psycological distress in the viewer.

In short, can a movie such as the one in question free psychic distress in a truly cathartic--and what I always took to be healthy--way? If not, what in it's dramatic structure prevents it from doing so? Is it that the character is not someone we can identify w/ fully (God/man)? Is it that we don't get a 3-d portrait--flaws, foibles and all--we do w/ other traditional "tragic" figures b/c of the reverence and compressed time frame?

Having not seen it, this sems to be the underlying question for me: Did this film miss out on playing up a cathartic transference with the audience that would have led to introspection or will the response be largely outer directed?

[Tom Kitten]

4. so what is the point of seeing this movie anyways?

Watching a loop de loop's extreme slo-mo close-up version of the torture inflicted upon Christ , ala Mad Max, and nothing else, is supposed to do...what? has ANYBODY who has seen it become more Jesus-like and become a changed person? Just what the fuck is the deal with this movie? It inspires hatred, pure and simple...

[HornBuckler]

6. Disagree

Having Seen The Film Today, I Can Tell You It's Really Well Done And Powerful. As For The Ethnic Thing, I'm With Mr. Prax Above.

[_Jumper_]

5. Excellent article!

:yourock:

[Karenina]

7. WOOOOHOOOO!!!!!

:wow:

[Mari333]

8. hehe Alternative rock band out of Minnesota

good one..spot on , Mr Pitt, the whole thing. Sent it out to everyone I know.
The other night, Nightline featured the responses to the movie , using Evangelicals who had seen it . One woman sat, teary eyed, and stated how "I just kept thinking, because I have 2 sons, how I would feel if that were MY son on that cross"..sniff sniff..
I almost kicked in the TV and screamed "Hey lady! A lot of our sons are standing in Iraq right now being crucified for CEO oil companies!! Why arent you crying about that??"
My friend , when I told her about the response of the woman on Nightline , said very succinctly
"No mother would ALLOW her son to be strung up on a cross and crucified..only a mean old patriarchal father would do that..Mary would have fought tooth and nail".
I agree.
Good writing again, Mr Pitt.

[tom_paine]

9. kick

[Solomon]

10. Finally, somebody who saw what I saw when seeing the movie.

It's the biggest piece of propaganda for white supremacy there is. God is a white man, and the world despises him and beats him to a bloody pulp.

Fits in nicely with Bush's "america is a victim" crusade. "Bush is being attacked by everyone" just like Jesus.

What a load of horsedukey.

[seabeyond]

11. kids go to a baptist school

a couple months ago, once again talking the presentation of jesus as white yet the time and where he lives could not be. yesterday kindergartener says teacher says probably jesus was black. my third grader teacher says jesus was white. how can that be i ask son, he clearly sees the condition and bigotry in it.

a smart lady, insiteful lady in many ways, yet of late talking bush and robertson and passion with her, i see the glaze over eyes, cult like sheep behavior to any contradiction to her belief, a total refuse to allow any word that contradicts what she is taught.

tis an interesting phenomomen to me

[Solomon]

12. seabeyond. I could write a book on this subject.

Gibson for once and for all settles the controversy. Jesus is a white man. After all the political correctness that has been going on for years, etc., damn the torpeadoes, we're still gonna make him white. And that's because he is. Always has been and always will be.

Christianity was practiced thousands of years before Jesus came along. The difference is that Jesus turned the religion into a tool for white supremacy. The brain implant is in everyone's head. Your intellect can tell you that he couldn't have been white, but no matter how hard you try to imagine him as something else, the symbol in your brain wins out. He is white. And since God himself fathered Jesus, then obviously God is white.

It's a beautiful religion hijacked just as we claim Islam has been hijacked.

[BigDaddyLove]

16. You said..............

"Christianity was practiced thousands of years before Jesus came along".

How is that even possible?

Also, how did Jesus turn Christianity into a tool for white supremacy?

[LeahMira]

27. I wonder also...

"Christianity was practiced thousands of years before Jesus came along".
How is that even possible?

Jesus lived and died a practicing Jew. What he taught is Judaism. It wasn't until much later that Christianity sloughed off some Jewish beliefs and traditions. Maybe that's what he means?

Also, how did Jesus turn Christianity into a tool for white supremacy?

I wonder about that also. Seems to me that whites turned Jesus into a tool for white supremacy. But what do I know? Hope the original poster comes back and clarifies.

[SpaceCatMeetsMars]

21. There was an article in

Harper's Magazine some months back where the author made an interesting argument that the extreme right-wingers have been using September 11th as an excuse to war-monger beyond doing what is necessary to prevent terrorism. He compared the whole thing to one of those movies where the guy's wife or child gets killed by violent thugs and then because he has been victimized, the audience gets the satisfaction of seeing the star go on a violent vigilante rampage against the thugs.

It does have that feel when you listen to certain people talk indiscriminately about "nuking all the Arabs" or whatever. I think you are right, this movie has the same sort of feel when you hear some of the comments that some people have made. The right-wing Christians that like to pretend that they are so victimized and persecuted will surely see it that way - the world against them as the only "true believers."

[starroute]

24. Like Braveheart?

I've really been struck by the extent to which even historical movies seem to feel the need to have the hero's family viciously destroyed as an excuse for him going after them what done it. Not only does this justify extreme vindictiveness, but it also seems to cancel out the possibility of anyone fighting oppression simply out of a love of freedom or justice. Everything is reduced to primitive emotional appeals.

Among other things, "The Passion" seems to amount to a dumbing-down of Christianity.

[SpaceCatMeetsMars]

25. Exactly, I hadn't made the connection with Gibson's

other movies because I haven't seen most of his movies, but this thread has an excellent essay from Orcinus that makes the connection really well.

Edit: whoops, forgot the link, duh!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1170563

[Bridget Burke]

14. "Ancient Evidence" has been running on the Discovery Channel

Hosted by Avery Brooks (the captain from Star Trek: DS9), it looks at various New Testament stories. It treats them respectfully but NOT as literally true to the last detal. Features historical & archeological experts explaining the context & possible alternate explanations. Pretty interesting.

Actors enact some scenes, silently, while the narration continues. I don't know where they were shot, but the actors actually look like Middle Easterners. Black hair, brown skin--it's quite striking.

[TahitiNut]

15. Anglo-centric anthropocentrism

A central theme of Abrahamic religion (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) is the notion that mankind is the primary beneficiary of all of Creation, like an only child at his birthday party. "God made man in His image" we're told. Thus, that very "image" is a meme, conferring unto those resembling it a preferred place in the pecking order of God's chicken coop.

Evolution? Heresy. After all, to countenance some future "image" as distinct from today's "man," as man is from the ape would erode the secular political power of this literalistic interpretation. The athropocentric need never attend to a core spiritual interpretation of the Creation metaphor; it's too useful for fomenting self-righteousness.

[Mari333]

17. Ive always cringed at the human race and their arrogance as

a very recent species of 3rd generation apedom. Their domination theories and mythology are tirelessly endangering every species of non human animal and plant on earth in their quest for proving themselves to be in charge of it. A control issue of maximum proportions, to be sure. Fear of death, fear of not being in control . Its quite tiresome and is going to kill us all with its ruminations if it keeps up. I avoid humans mostly, in non cyber life..they get on my nerves . I prefer ants dogs cats crows deer worms beetles butterflies mosquitos birds squirrels coyote and everything else in the woods here to human animals..
cept for my sons, who I adore, and who also embrace the innocence of the non human animals as divine.
Oh well, the pendulum might swing back at some point.

[TahitiNut]

20. That attitude is notably absent in most aboriginal peoples.

So much for the definition of "savage", huh? :eyes:

[marie123]

18. Willl you write so well

but.....you are not really all that accurate in your writings

[WilliamPitt]

19. Correct me

[Karenina]

22. Maybe she needs time....

sooo... :kick:

[Paragon]

23. Not the most interesting part of this story, IMHO

The key question to ask is why Gibson chose to portray only the last 12 hours of Jesus' life, and what that says about Gibson, his upbringing, and his interpretation of Jesus' teachings.

In his Lethal Weapon world, you've got be a MAN to be The Saviour (i.e. tough your way through beatings and get real bloody).

[LeahMira]

26. Question...

... of those who have seen the film. Are there Middle Eastern people in the cast of extras? Y'know, the crowds, the people lining the streets, etc. Or am I the only person who sits and watches as all the credits roll at the end?

The reason I ask is that I see a bit of a parallel between the lack of authenticity in this film and the way American Indians were portrayed in films in times past.

In a paper I wrote for a film class a while ago on the film "Broken Arrow", I found that:
During the time when real Indians were frozen out of the movies, studios cranked out over two thousand films dealing with “Indian themes.” It is probably fair to say that three generations of Americans were conditioned to see Indians in certain ways, and for clearly defined purposes. Being honed was what Cherokee artist Jimmie Durham calls “America’s Master Narrative,” or the message that nothing really wrong had happened in the course of American history, and that if Indians had been hurt it was only because they stubbornly refused to accept the blessings of civilization brought to them by well-meaning white Americans (Churchill Smoke Signals).

I also said:
Still pleading that there simply were not any Indians capable of playing themselves on screen, Hollywood hired a then-unknown actor, Jeff Chandler, to play the role of Cochise. Oneida comic Charlie Hill has commented that "this all made about as much sense as casting Wilt Chamberlain to play J. Edgar Hoover” (Churchill 174), and certainly Daves seemed to have no problem finding Native people to fill the Apache village, to attack the mail wagons, and to dance for Sonseeahray’s womanhood ceremony.

Will Pitt is on to something, I think, and I'm thinking there might be a lot more to this film than meets the eye. Comments?

[RBHam]

28. Jesus looked more like bin Laden than Bush

How to freak out a fundamentalist, or a Mormon.

[Beetwasher]

30. "If Jesus Were Alive Today He'd Never Stop Throwing Up"

w/ Apologies to Woody Allen...

[Intelsucks]

31. Was Russell Crowe a REAL "Roman" Gladiator?

n/t

[INTELBYTES]

32. I say that Will should drum up 25 million dollars...

and do his own version if he thinks he can do it better.

I think Mel has done a wonderful movie. I'll overlook the blemishes for the message.

I don't believe I seen any real "Jedi" in Star Wars, but I was able to enjoy the movie all the same.

Will, you may be a good writer, but I'd don't think movie reviews are your forte.

[Lars39]

34. And critiquing essays is best left to the experts?

[KoKo]

33. But Will, how do we know that the people were brown? That was a

long time ago. We don't really know what color Jesus was, or the apostles. We just know what people look like now. And there's been a lot of intermarriage and invasion that's gone on since.

Can we really say for sure what these folks looked like? :shrug:

[Karenina]

36. Have you ever

been out of the U.S.? Just curious. :shrug:

[lucky777]

35. JUST SAW THIS -- IT SUCKS AND IS ANTI-SEMETIC

This is not a 'well-done' movie. I would give it one star at best.
We just saw the movie this afternoon. As a Jew I am disgusted by it -- there is not a single positive Jewish character. Pilate comes off as a man with a conscience who reluctantly gives up Jesus after trying to save him several times. His wife is sympathetic to the Jews. The actual Jews come off terribly, just terribly -- giving money to Judas, then denying association with Jesus, begging for him to be crucified. The Jews are violent, dumb, vicious, uneducated. Not a single multi-dimensional or sympathetic Jew. It is pure anti-Semitism.

There is maybe 10 lines of real dialogue in the movie. It is surreal, just violence and blood and s&m. No plot, no background, no teachings. Just a relentless focus on tiny useless details (the types of whips used on Jesus, the specifics of how he was nailed to the cross, 40 slow motion shots of blood like syrup coming out of his mouth as he falls down. It is not really a movie, more like a porno film (really) in obsessive attention to detail w/o any plot.

This movie is medieval nonsense. This movie just shows how stupid and retrograde religion is. This is the 21st Century -- can't we get beyond these myths and fairy-tales that whip people into hatred?????

Shame on Mel Gibson for such a stupid movie.

P.S. My girlfriend is from Taiwan and she knows very little about Christianity and Judaism (except for one passover sedar). She said that the movie made no sense whatsoever, there was no context, no explanation of why the Jews hated Jesus, and the violence made her sick. She turned to me halfway through the movie and said, "TI know that you don't believe in God and , but you still consider yourself Jewish and this movie is going to be really bad for Jews."

[Centre_Left]

40. My thoughts

With regard to the accusation of anti-Semitism, the Jewish priests in the film are presented in a negative light, but the implication is that they are acting selfishly as politicians serving to protect their own interests. The crowd of Jews, who initially call for Jesus' crucifixion, ultimately weep for his suffering as he carries the cross, a testament to their humanity. In general, there is almost nothing in the film related to the Jews that is not found either in the Bible or the Catholic Easter Tritium. As a result, if you find the film anti-Semitic, then you must accept that the gospels themselves are anti-Semitic, a much larger issue I am not going to debate here.

I agree with you, however, that the treatment of Pilate was too even-handed, although I don't think that that treatment in itself constitutes anti-Semitism.

As for the lack of dialog, the focus on the film is on the "passion" or suffering of Christ (hence the title) so its not surprising that the film focuses almost exclusively on that element as opposed to wordplay. The title also explains the extreme attention to detail and the high level of gore. Like the Catholic 14 Stations of the Cross from which it is inspired, this film is designed to be about the suffering of Christ and little else. In fact, like the Good Friday mass, its sole purpose is to fully immerse Christians in the reality of the crucifixion to help them appreciate the extent of the sacrifice. You may find that focus distasteful or "stupid" but that is what the film, and to a large extent Christianity, was always meant to be about. The "useless" details you mention have, in fact, great significant for many Christians. Again, if you have a problem with all this, then you probably have a problem with Christianity, especially of the Catholic flavor, and not one directly with the film itself.

This is not meant as a criticism, but it seems clear you did not have much of an understanding of Christianity before entering the theater, and what you did understand you were not particularly fond of. As a result, your revulsion at the film is not surprising. I doubt that you would enjoyed any film about the "passion" no matter who directed it simply because of the nature of the subject matter.

This does not negate your right to criticize the film, of course, but criticism has much less meaning when its clear that the reviewer has such a negative preexisting opinions.

On a second note, I will add that so far the film has not been "bad for Jews." Apart from one sign a nutjob minister put up, I have heard of absolutely no instances anti-Semitism occurring directly as a result of this film. The notion that one film is going to whip up Christians into some kind of anti-Semitic frenzy is not just false, its absurd.

[JasonDeter]

37. Such a minor point to pick to criticize the Gibson movie!

Another issue brought up against the movie is it being supposedly anti Jewish! Christians I have talked to have seen it said far from it. Some have criticized the movie because of the brutal nature of the Christ Crucified. Christians I have talked to have seen it are appreciative to Gibson for finally portraying what Christ actually went through. Most in the Christian community only have an intellectual understanding of what Christ suffered to redeem mankind from evil. Christians I have talked to love the movie. I have seen the movie and I can say with conviction, "Jesus Christ is alive and well."

[emad]

38. "Christ's Story or The Life of Brian?": London Evening Standard

From A N Wilson's review, Friday 27 Feb 2004
(sorry can't find online link, server down)

<snip>:
"...there are so many absurdities about Mel Gibson's script. As soon as he improvises and moves away from the medieval tableau he steps directly into Monty Python's Life of Brian.

There is a flashback in the carpenter's shop in which the Holman Hunt-ish Jesus invents a high table. His Middle Eastern mother asks how people sitting on the floor could be expected to reach it, and the Omniscient Second Person of the Trinity forses the introduction of western-style chairs. 'It will never catch on', says Mary."
<snip>

When Monty Python's Life of Brian was first released, UK Catholic Bishops banned tenage parishoners from viewing the film on pain of ex-communication. This fanned the flames of hypocrisy and humbug so much that the film was an overnight sell-out.

The historical, social and theological points that the satirisation of the story of Jesus raised are still the main debating points today: A scion of the bloodline of David challenged the official monarch of Judea - Herod - who ruled as a puppet of an occupying force, the Romans, and the prevalent corruption of the system that governed at the time. He ended up suffering an extreme form of personal annihilation, a lesser form of which has befallen other Pretenders to Royal Thrones throughout the last 2000 years.

[Centre_Left]

39. Christ and his followers have been depicted...

...as white in Western religious paintings for the last few centuries. As a result, people in the West have regrettably grown accustomed to viewing them in this manner. Gibson obviously intended for his movie to appeal to a Western audience, especially Catholics and evangelicals whose iconography, for better or worse, also always portrays Christ as white. So it makes sense that he would rely on actors of the same race that his core audience associates with the characters.

You can argue about the ethnocentrism of Christians and conservatives, but to connect that phenonemon back to this particular film because of its casting seems like quite a stretch.