Ten years after its theatrical debut, Steven Spielberg's Schindler's List is finally coming to DVD this month. Unanimously considered to be the director's magnum opus, the film collected seven Oscars, grossed more than $300MM world-wide, and enabled the birth of Spielberg's Shoah Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation of testimonies of Holocaust survivors.
List, filmed in gritty black-and-white, depicts the true story of Oskar Schindler's rescue of more than 1,000 Jews against the backdrop of the horrors of the Holocaust.
Coincidentally, the DVD release follows the phenomenally successful box office opening of Mel Gibson's religious epic, The Passion of the Christ, a visual interpretation of the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus. Months before it debuted in theaters, Gibson's film was simultaneously lauded and lambasted by both Jewish and Christian leaders; with record crowds turning out for the modern Passion Play, the debate has reached a fever pitch.
The primary complaint of The Passion's critics pertains to the film's depiction of Jews. Leaders from advocacy groups, Jewish and otherwise, maintain that Gibson depicts the biblical-era Jews as the primary actors in the death of Jesus. The "Christ-killer" label has long been used by extremist groups in Europe and the Middle East as an incitement to violence against Jews.
While such violence pre-dates WWII by a significant margin (pogroms inspired by Passion plays and the like date from medieval times through the early 20th century), the Nazis were the most efficient and effective purveyors of anti-Jewish propaganda in recorded history. Seizing on themes from the Passion Plays, the Russian forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and other such anti-Jewish screeds, Germany and its allies murdered more than 6 million European Jews in the span of just a few years.
Spielberg, perhaps wisely, has deigned not to comment on Gibson's film until he has seen it. And even then, he says, "the first person who will hear from me will be Mel Gibson and no one else."
The work Spielberg has done to advance the "Never Again" mantra is unparalleled. In light of all his good works, many may find his failure to comment on The Passion particularly concerning. Indisputably, Mel Gibson's father is an anti-Semite and Holocaust denier. While it is entirely unfair to place the sins of the father on the shoulders of the son, Gibson was unequivocal in his support for his father in his widely-publicized interview with Diane Sawyer last month. While certainly not endorsing his father's remarks, he nonetheless refused to condemn them.
Article comments
1 - Corinna Hasofferett
Are film directors the new Messiah come down to show us the code of modern morality? Not me, thanks.
2 - Chris Kent
I had just about given up on Spielberg making anything even remotely substantial when he finally awakened from his zombie-like commercial slumber to belt out Schindler's List. It's a brilliant, unforgettable film. We should applaud Gibson for at least taking on something as controversial as The Passion. It took a lot of bravery to make such an excessively depressing extravaganza, though granted Gibson's career had long ago been established. Both of these films provoke deep thought, which is more than you can say for most of their (Spielberg/Gibson) previous films......
3 - Scott Pepper
Are film directors the new Messiah come down to show us the code of modern morality?
I don't expect morality from anyone associated with Hollywood. I just find it curious that Spielberg, one of the most famous Jews in the industry, has refrained from commenting on The Passion, particuarly in light of his advocacy work against anti-Semitism.
While he is by no means obligated to comment, I would be interested to hear his thoughts.
4 - Scott Pepper
Both of these films provoke deep thought, which is more than you can say for most of their (Spielberg/Gibson) previous films......
True enough. I wonder: will the Academy have the guts to put Gibson's film up for an Oscar?
5 - Chris Kent
I was being a bit harsh on Mr. Spielberg. Obviously he has some great films on his resume, but Schindler's List was the film where he embraced his heritage in a very uncommercial, though inspirationally artistic way. It is a brilliant, heartfelt classic.
I don't think The Passion will receive major nominations because it is just not on the same artistic level of Schindler's List. It will likely receive many technical nominations. That's just my opinion and only time will tell....
6 - Al Barger
Perhaps Mr Spielberg has refrained from condemning Gibson's film for anti-Semitism because the charges are 100% without merit- no matter how loud what idiots with what agendas bleat on about it. Let me dumb it down for you.
7 - Scott Pepper
Al-
Your argument that Gibson is only presenting the story "as per the book" is a flawed one, simply because the same story can be presented in an nearly infinite number of ways with various connotations, denotations, and ultimately various meanings.
I'll defer to more learned minds than my own to this specific point.
From the New Yorker interview of Elaine Pagels, early Christian historian:
"Mel Gibson denies any anti-Semitism, and I can’t speak to his motives, but there are narrative devices that are clear. The more benign Pilate appears in the movie, the more malignant the Jews are. To deflect responsibility from the Romans for arresting and executing Christ, which Gibson takes from the Gospels and makes even more extreme, is contrary to everything we understand about history. It is implausible that the Jews could be responsible and Pilate a benign governor. There are many examples in the film of a preposterous dialectic: the bad Jews and the good Romans. When the Temple police arrest Jesus, Mary Magdalene turns to the Romans as if they were the policemen on the block, benign protectors of the public order. But the very idea of a Jewish woman turning to Roman soldiers for help is ridiculous."
As Pagels points, out Gibson's version takes particular liberties with the story that, while we cannot know Mel's mind, certainly seem to indicate a bias against the Jews. Additionally, Pagels gives several instances where other artists went out of their way to avoid even the appearance of anti-Semitism:
“In the ‘St. Matthew Passion,’” she said, “Bach was very aware of the problem of arousing anti-Semitic feelings and he wanted deliberately to avoid that. So at the moment when there is the cry to crucify Christ, the call comes not from an identifiable group of Jews but from all, from the entire chorus. Bach demonstrated what Gibson claims that he wanted to show, the inclination of human beings, universally, to do violence.” There were other artists, too"from Palestrina to Bill Viola--who depicted the Passion in a similar spirit.
The Christian Science Monitor's Jane Lampman makes another good point:
Mr. Gibson has touted his film as presenting Jesus' last hours before death as the Gospels depict them. Yet it goes well outside the Gospel presentations (drawing heavily on the visions of a 19th-century Catholic nun), including its depiction of the role of Jewish leaders. For instance, none of the Gospels says Jesus was harmed by the guards who brought him from Gethsemane to the Jewish high priests. Yet in the movie, he is so severely beaten that one eye is closed by the time they question him.
Again, given the choice, Gibson portrays the Jews in a distinctly negative light.
Grateful thanks to the inimitable Meryl Yourish for the links.
Cheers,
Scott
8 - Al Barger
Scott, you're just WRONG here: given the choice, Gibson portrays the Jews in a distinctly negative light. For starters, note the extra-Biblical emphasis on Simon Cyrene (mocked as "Jew"), and the brave defense of Jesus he put there.
It may be somewhat a matter of interpretation, but I did not find the depiction of Pilate sympathetic. The Jewish high priest Caiaphus had the possible justification that Jesus appeared to be a heretic, and that he may have thought that he was doing what he HAD to do by calling for his death. Pilate, on the other hand, absolutely KNEW better- and had Jesus killed anyway. Every bit of protestation of conscience only made Pilate's sin worse. See a longer examination of this idea HERE.
Have you actually even SEEN this film? There's nothing in this essay to indicate as much.
Perhaps you could argue that Gibson merely bent over backwards to not unnecessarily villify the Jews, but that he should have done backflips and handstands as well.
9 - Scott Pepper
Al-
I think you're correct in saying that it is a matter of interpretation. While I don't think the film itself is any more anti-Semitic than, say, Jesus Christ Superstar or The Last Temptation of Christ (both of which had similar criticisms leveled when first released), I question the wisdom of releasing a film such as this during a time when anti-Semitism in general and violence against Jews in particular is on the rise. Obviously, Islamic extremists in the Middle East and Europe will continue attacks on Jews regardless, but does that really absolve Gibson of creating what amounts to a recruiting tool for them?
10 - Al Barger
First of all, you cannot expect people to limit their expression based on the trying to figure the worst way that the biggest jackass in the land might decide to take it. Do you really expect Gibson to repress the expression of his religious faith, and not tell the story of the man who died for his sins because someone might take it the wrong way?
Having seen the actual film, I find it hard, nearing impossible to believe that Muslim extremists would get any mileage out of it. Indeed, I've seen no indication that they are even TRYING to do so.
Rather than inspiring acts of terrorism against Jews, seeing this film would be much more likely to cause someone to give up Allah altogether and give their life to Christ. It's a "recruiting tool" for Christianity, not Islamic terrorism.
Gibson figures that he is spreading the good news of Jesus Christ, who sacrificed himself, allowing himself to be abused in this horrible way in order to pay the price to redeem us of our sins. He has faith that this message of sacrifice and forgiveness will inspire good rather than bad things.
So far all indications are that he was right. I have not heard of ANYONE coming out of this film expressing any intent or even desire to do violence to anyone.