The Passion

A Review of the Movie

I really do not know what all the furor is about. I mean, it's just another tasteless blood flick by Mel Gibson. Some of the others, like "Mad Max" and "Beyond Thunderdome" were at least entertaining, if disgusting, but at least they gave the audience the thrill of a cohesive narrative, notwithstanding the rapes, murders and gore for which he has become associated. And for historical accuracy, there was "Braveheart," proving Mr. Gibson knows, or once knew, the difference between fiction and fact. One cannot accuse him of

being a non-romantic, because "Forever Young" shows him to have been well familiar with the gentle side of fantasy. So what are we to make of this current travesty? Why is this particular fantasy so loathed?

That it is a travesty, perpetrated against the unknowing public, is manifestly clear to me because the film dwells upon a specific event that did not take place according to the evidence. Not a scrap of hard data exists that Jesus, known as the Christ, ever existed,

not his disciples nor the Gospel writers. Worse, it exploits gullible viewers for money. Despicably, it demonstrates Mr. Gibson's desire to foster hatred between all people, beaten into him by his own father, a man who denies the holocaust and who taught his son

that the only Christianity acceptable is the one that fostered the bloody Crusades. I found none of the Christian insistence upon peace and love in this film and not one iota of any message beyond anti-semitism.

Not all are detractors, to be sure. David Sterrit from the Christian Science Monitor suggests that Gibson should be given kudos for his accurate portraying of the times as they were. How can he say that, not having been there? There are many depictions of crucifixions in the Roman record, but none as vicious as portrayed here. The film

concentrates mostly on pain and blood, but does nothing to explain why it was being done, as if anything could.

Christopher Hitheus, a journalist and author, suggests that Mr. Gibson has gone beyond extremes, that he deliberately used an unintelligible language with subtitles to forego any possible criticism of the screenplay text, allegedly in accurate Latin and Aramaic. I don't know yet about the Latin, but according to an Aramaic scholar, one Rabbi Ariel Bar Tzadok, the Aramaic used made him "squirm in his seat with absolutely horrible mistakes in dialogue, grammar, usage and translation." He asserts that the Jesuit priest hired by Mr. Gibson to write the script has "absolutely no living knowledge of the

language."

My own observation of fallacy would include the fact that peyos, or "side-locks,' as worn by modern Orthodox Hasidim and Talit, or "prayer shawls," as worn by modern religious Jews, did not exist in Israel at the time of the alleged incident. What then is Mr. Gibson's reason for including them in his film, beyond poor scholarship, except to incite malevolence against those exonerated by the Vatican as to any guilt in the matter? Clearly, his motive is to breed hatred of today's Jews, many of whom have suffered much worse than anything seen in the film.

There is also a movement afoot by journalists such as David Denby from the New Yorker, who seeks to boycott the film. I think he may be too late for that, because millions have already been duped. Mr. Denby is a Christian, and appalled that such tripe as this

can be used in the 21st century to foster the same kind of hate that kept Europe in the ignorant Middle Ages for so many centuries.

Normally, I do not review films, mostly because I do not make them and am much more familiar with literature. In this case, however, having read the New Testament and understood its intent, I felt inclined to take a stand against everything that Mr. Gibson now

represents, that is, monetary exploitation, lies, and hate-mongering.



	The Passion A Review of the Movie
		back


I really do not know what all the furor is about. I mean, it's just another tasteless blood flick by Mel Gibson. Some of the others, like "Mad Max" and "Beyond Thunderdome" were at least entertaining, if disgusting, but at least they gave the audience the thrill of a cohesive narrative, notwithstanding the rapes, murders and gore for which he has become associated. And for historical accuracy, there was "Braveheart," proving Mr. Gibson knows, or once knew, the difference between fiction and fact. One cannot accuse him of being a non-romantic, because "Forever Young" shows him to have been well familiar with the gentle side of fantasy. So what are we to make of this current travesty? Why is this particular fantasy so loathed? That it is a travesty, perpetrated against the unknowing public, is manifestly clear to me because the film dwells upon a specific event that did not take place according to the evidence. Not a scrap of hard data exists that Jesus, known as the Christ, ever existed, not his disciples nor the Gospel writers. Worse, it exploits gullible viewers for money. Despicably, it demonstrates Mr. Gibson's desire to foster hatred between all people, beaten into him by his own father, a man who denies the holocaust and who taught his son that the only Christianity acceptable is the one that fostered the bloody Crusades. I found none of the Christian insistence upon peace and love in this film and not one iota of any message beyond anti-semitism. Not all are detractors, to be sure. David Sterrit from the Christian Science Monitor suggests that Gibson should be given kudos for his accurate portraying of the times as they were. How can he say that, not having been there? There are many depictions of crucifixions in the Roman record, but none as vicious as portrayed here. The film concentrates mostly on pain and blood, but does nothing to explain why it was being done, as if anything could. Christopher Hitheus, a journalist and author, suggests that Mr. Gibson has gone beyond extremes, that he deliberately used an unintelligible language with subtitles to forego any possible criticism of the screenplay text, allegedly in accurate Latin and Aramaic. I don't know yet about the Latin, but according to an Aramaic scholar, one Rabbi Ariel Bar Tzadok, the Aramaic used made him "squirm in his seat with absolutely horrible mistakes in dialogue, grammar, usage and translation." He asserts that the Jesuit priest hired by Mr. Gibson to write the script has "absolutely no living knowledge of the language." My own observation of fallacy would include the fact that peyos, or "side-locks,' as worn by modern Orthodox Hasidim and Talit, or "prayer shawls," as worn by modern religious Jews, did not exist in Israel at the time of the alleged incident. What then is Mr. Gibson's reason for including them in his film, beyond poor scholarship, except to incite malevolence against those exonerated by the Vatican as to any guilt in the matter? Clearly, his motive is to breed hatred of today's Jews, many of whom have suffered much worse than anything seen in the film. There is also a movement afoot by journalists such as David Denby from the New Yorker, who seeks to boycott the film. I think he may be too late for that, because millions have already been duped. Mr. Denby is a Christian, and appalled that such tripe as this can be used in the 21st century to foster the same kind of hate that kept Europe in the ignorant Middle Ages for so many centuries. Normally, I do not review films, mostly because I do not make them and am much more familiar with literature. In this case, however, having read the New Testament and understood its intent, I felt inclined to take a stand against everything that Mr. Gibson now represents, that is, monetary exploitation, lies, and hate-mongering.