I have no particular preconceptions going into the frenzy over Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ film. I think he has been great in any number of movies and I do not minimize his talents as a director. I also have no problem with his depicting Jews as culpable in the death of Jesus, although I see Romans as no less so - for both camps it was a matter of power and politics. I'll let you know what I think about the movie after I see the movie.
Because of the controversy surrounding Gibson's depiction of Jews in the film, questions have arisen regarding his personal attitude towards Jews, and in particular, his view of the Holocaust.
The problem I have now is reconciling what Gibson told Peggy Noonan in an interview for Reader's Digest with what he told Diane Sawyer for ABC's Primetime.
Cathy Young relates what he told Noonan:
- Holocaust denial is relevant here because of Gibson's father, Hutton Gibson. A prominent member of the "traditionalist" Catholic movement which split off from the Catholic Church over the 1965 reforms of the Second Vatican Council (which, among other things, rejected the doctrine that the Jews were guilty of "deicide") is also known as a Holocaust denier. Of course Gibson shouldn't be blamed for the sins of his father; but in an interview with Peggy Noonan, forthcoming in the March issue of Reader's Digest, he says, "My dad taught me my faith, and I believe what he taught me. The man never lied to me in his life."
It was in the same interview that Noonan, who has defended Gibson in the controversy over "The Passion," offered him a chance to end any speculation about his views on the Holocaust: "You're going to have to go on record. The Holocaust happened, right?"
Gibson's reply: "I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."
....Holocaust "revisionists" typically do not deny that Jews were killed; they simply minimize the killing, portraying it as another part of the overall death toll of World War II rather than the systematic extermination campaign that it was. In Bernstein's opinion, "Gibson is skirting pretty close" to this kind of minimization.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dawn
All I can say to Mel or anyone else who is "unclear" as to whether the Holocaust was a systematic and clinical extermination of specific set of people, visit a concentration camp.
I recommend Dachau. Being the only Jewish person on our visit during my class trip to Germany, it was especially real to me and I felt very clear that had it been 40 or so years earlier, I could have been there as not a visitor seeking historical knowledge, but as a captive audience.
2 - Mac Diva
I think my overview of the situation, posted at Blogcritics BTW, puts two of the controversies around "The Passion" into perspective. It emphasizes the circle Gibson moves in is dominated by Opus Dei. Whether he openly expresses anti-Semitic views or not, the backward group, which opposes pretty much everything after the Reformation, has long been accused of anti-Semiticism. It is also very used to getting its way when it comes to the Church. OD is very important to getting the big picture.
If you are interested in something more informative about the "The Passion" controversies than the Right Wing puff piece being cited above, I've posted my primer here.
3 - Eric Olsen
MD, your work is very importnat and informative on the matter. But I was speaking about two specific instances of what Gilbson himself said re the Holocaust, and BB's post is where one of the quotes came from, hence the reference.
I actually came to different conclusion regarding Gibson than did he.
4 - Mac Diva
Glad to hear it. I had no thoughts about Mel Gibson beyond he was an okay actor until this situation arose. Some of us in the blogosphere who have been corresponding about the "The Passion" controversies have been trying to learn whether Gibson grew up with ties to Opus Dei, or was seduced by them later. So far, it isn't clear. OD people are known for being very secretive. The question to reconcile, in my opinion, is whether both can be true. Can Gibson disagree with OD and be in its favor with it simultaneously? Seems doubtful.
5 - BB
Eric, I don't understand what problem y'all seem to have with Mr. Gibson. Could you please be more specific when you say you came to a "different conclusion regarding Gibson than did he" (ie me). Because I really don't understand why all the speculation with respect to holocaust denial allegations, Opus Dei or whatever, and I would like to know what in fact it all this has to do with his new movie?
The Passion is not about the holocaust or who killed who, and Mel made that quite clear in his interview with Sawyer. You could ask me the same question and get two seemingly different answers. That may be because I wish to stress a different point in one question more so than another. Or maybe I just want to vary my answer because I'm bored stiff with hearing myself repeat the same thing over and over again, especially if I had to give a lot of interviews like Mr. Gibson has.
So would that make me a liar or being coy? I think not. That is an old trick trial lawyers use asking the same question over and over hoping to find contradictions in testimony. However, in Mel's case he clearly hasn't contradicted his message (or testimony so to speak) and unfortunately it seems to me that many people are trying to make a case out of a sow's ear.
So why is that? If this were just another Lethal Weapon movie nobody could care less. But because it is about the last hours of Christ, everybody is hanging on to every word that utters from his mouth hoping to find something that will hang him. I don't get the impression there is anything sinister about Mel. Do you?
6 - BB
To be direct, I suppose what I am saying is there seems to be a distinct anti-Mel Gibson agenda going on here (I'm not accusing you BTW) and I was wondering why is that? Obviously it has a lot to do with the subject - i.e. Jesus Christ. I have my own private theories but I was wondering what were your thoughts. As a matter of fact I may decide to make a separate post about this phenomina.
7 - Dawn
The entire controversy surrounding the last days of Jesus are what's at stake. And to make a polarizing movie about that event is to force oneself into the spotlight. The entire history of the death of Jesus is shrouded in anti-Semitism, that's hardly news. To make a very graphic and violent depiction of his death is to raise issues in all directions. It's a well known fact that for CENTURIES the Jews themselves were blamed for the death of Christ and thrown out every place they tried to live. You know, like Germany in the early part of this century.
So if the Jews are to be blamed for the death of Christ by many Christians to this day (what do you think created the hatred of the Jews anyway?) then one could speculate that a very religious Catholic man who chooses to make a movie about this subject in painfully graphic terms may also be foisting a hidden agenda on the world at large.
I don't think it's unreasonable for people to question Gibson's motives.
Do you think Jews want to be blamed for Christ's death until the end of time? I mean how many Jews do you think were alive 2000 years ago and directly responsible for Jesus' death?
Mel's hatred of the Jews is barely veiled. While he may not be a card carrying anti-Semite, how many people do you think are these days? But yet, Jew-hating is still alive and well.
8 - BB
"I don't want people to make it about the blame game," Gibson added. "It's about faith, hope, love and forgiveness. That's what this film is about. It's about Christ's sacrifice."
Dawn, those are Mel's own words and unless there is proof otherwise (which there isn't) then in a court of law he would be given the benefit of the doubt. I for one am willing to give him that benefit and it is grossly unfair to malign him for the sins of his father or the history of bigotry in this world.
His movie is depicting the brutal reality of the crucifixion of Christ so that the full extent of His sacrifice can be appreciated. That is it in a nutshell and to make any other claims is malicious and foolishness.
9 - Eric Olsen
I essentially agree with Dawn. Also, this specific post is about Holocaust denial, which somehow finds a way to add insult to the greatest injury in history. Anyone who misses the special monstrousness of the Holocaust is suspect at best as far as I'm concerned.
I am also deeply suspicious of the conservative/reactionary wing of the Catholic Church, which seems to embody some of the very worst traits of organized religion in general, as well as anti-Semitism, self-aggrandizement, organizational priorities over human priorities (the pedophile shuffle), greed, and any number of other sins of omission and comission.
And if the Vatican is too "liberal" for you (Opus Dei), you have some serious explaining to do.
10 - Dawn
I think a better movie (but far less sensationalistic and polarizing) would be a movie about the teachings of Jesus and how his words, if followed as instructed, would create a world of tolerance, peace and understanding of everyone, Jews included.
But to make a movie that focuses on the violent events of his death merely cheapens the lessons of Jesus and takes away from what the message of God was, "I have given you my only son to die for the sins of mankind." (paraphrased)
Jesus' job was to teach and set an example in a dramatic way, his destiny was martyrdom, can't we focus 2000 years later on his message, not his death?
Well I can, I guess Mel Gibson can't.
11 - BB
There have been numerous movies about the teachings of Christ - but none that focus on the reality of His sacrifice. That is what this movie is about. It forces us out of our comfort zone in a dynamic way and that is the reason for most of the fuss.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one guys.
12 - sydney smith
Just to clarify, Mel Gibson is associated with the Catholic Traditionalist Movement, which rejects the modern Catholic Church as defined by Vatican II. Traditionalists believe that the mass should still be said in Latin rather than the vernacular language of a church's parishioners. The movement has quite a few other problems with the Church as it is today. (And the Church has problems with them, too.)
Opus Dei is an evangelical arm of Catholicism. It does have official Church sanction. So much so, in fact, that its founder was recently made a saint. I don't think the founder of the Traditionalist movement will be getting that kind of honor any time soon.
Whether or not Mel Gibson believes everything his father believes is open to debate, and handled very nicely over at Snopes.com.
13 - Shark
Dawn, a better counter would be a film about the Spanish Inquisition.
Not exactly a proud period for official Churchdom--- and the Jews come out as the good guys... or at least sympathetic.
I'll be Spielberg is working on it as we speak.
If not, Steve, E-MAIL ME!
14 - Dawn
To continue to be anti-Semitic based on the premise that the Jewish Authority of 2000 years ago "allowed" Jesus to be killed, is a unfair as to blame your modern day average white American for the crimes of slavery in our nation's past.
My issue with Mel Gibson is his assertion that the Jews are responsible for the death of Christ - clearly Jesus' death was preordained by God himself, so the fault may lay with the Lord.
Good luck getting him to comment.
15 - BB
It is outrageous that anybody can have the audacity to make allegations of anti-semitism without having even seen the movie yet. If that isn't a definition of predisposed bias then please explain what is?
16 - Shark
Dawn: Jesus' death was preordained by God himself, so the fault may lay with the Lord. Good luck getting him to comment.
HE ALREADY DID.
"ROME, Italy -- Actor Jim Caviezel, who plays Jesus in Mel Gibson's controversial film "The Passion of Christ" was struck by lightning during shooting.
Caviezel was uninjured, but a producer described how he saw smoke coming from the actor's ear. An assistant director on the film, Jan Michelini, was also hit -- for the second time in a few months.
The first time, a lightning fork struck his umbrella during filming on top of a hill near Matera in Italy, causing light burns to the tips of his fingers, VLife, a supplement to Variety publications said in its October issue.
A few months later the second strike happened, a few hours from Rome. Michelini was again carrying an umbrella, and standing next to Caviezel on top of a hill, the magazine said. Both were hit, with the main bolt striking Caviezel while one of its forks hit Michelini's umbrella. Neither were hurt."
17 - Eric Olsen
This story isn't about the movie: it's about public statements made by Mel Gibson about the Holocaust. While perhaps the movie might shed further light on Gibson's worldview, at the moment I am much more interested in his direct statements on the matter.
18 - Dawn
It would seem pretty evident, based on Mel Gibson's carefully worded script quoted above, he has some "issues" coming to terms with the "Holocaust" being an example of ethnic cleansing and the continued persecution of the Jews.
BB, Do you believe the extermination of 6,000,000 Jews was a casualty of war, or an abomination of man representing the most hateful kind of prejudice?
Maybe it's a matter of terminology? If someone asked me that same question, I wouldn't need to qualify my answer with a "Yes, but....?
Would you?
19 - Mark Saleski
i enjoyed the bit in the movie where the house explodes and the toilet lands on the car.
20 - BB
Dawn, the Holocaust was an abomination. I hope also you concur?
Mel made his position very clear and your comments about his alleged "issues" are so farfetched and foreign to me that I'm left scratching my head. Here is the content of his interview again:
"Do I believe that there were concentration camps where defenseless and innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime? Of course I do; absolutely," he says. "It was an atrocity of monumental proportion." Asked if the Holocaust represented a "particular kind of evil," he tells Sawyer it did, and adds, "Why do you need me to tell you? It's like, it's obvious. They're killed because of who and what they are. Is that not evil enough?"
As you can see there was no "Yes, but....?" Mel stated in no uncertain terms that it happened and was an "atrocity of monumental proportion." He did not "qualify" his answer except to express his righteous indignation for even being asked such a stupid question.
Dawn you are unfairly reading more in to this and maligning his good character. Did you listen to his interview with Dobson today? He again put to rest alleged anti-semitism or hollocaust "issues".
Isn't it amazing how two people can hear the same thing and walk away with completely different impressions? I suppose it all comes down to not WHAT we heard but what we WANT to hear.
But it's Ok, I still love ya anyway (Eric - in a platonic, brotherly way of course :-)
21 - Dawn
I am just a little sensitive about my peeps - I will reserve judgement until I see the movie, although Mel's dad sure is a tool!
22 - Alexis
FOR THE PERSON WHO WROTE THE TOPIC. I may come off as nieve or ignorint but oh well. Didn't God forgive the jews for doing what they did to jesus christ? For they didn't know any better & sins are forgivable. So why would Mel Gibson have a problem with jews? I'm am pretty much sure that with the movie it has probably nothing to do with his personal views against jews in the Holocaust. Like I said in the begining I may come off as that yet I also could care less to read a 5 page summary of a formal shit talking on a actor which no one knows. Yet just seeing "They're killed because of who and what they are. Is that not evil enough?" should sum it up for you, so why are you still looking for a validation. you only want to hear what you already assume.
23 - Chris Kent
Alexis,
After reading your comment, I feel a pain between my ears.....
24 - Eric Olsen
Perhaps I am hearing something not there - I hope that is the case because even the slightest mitigation of the Holocaust is reprehensible and unacceptable.
25 - Dawn
I am with Chris on this one. My ears are actually bleeding.