Glad to hear it’s of help.

Matt

Matt

Matt

I finally wrote you a long reply and then it died, so here’s a summary. Inevitably I focus on the parts of your post I disagree with rather than the parts I agree with.

Firstly, I think there are several neutral characters in the gospels. So for example, whilst the Pharisees argue with Jesus they also warn him that Herod wants to kill him (Luke 13:31). They disagree, but they don’t want him dead. There are also people like the 9 lepers who are healed but don’t follow him, the questioners of Mark12. Simon the Leper and co from Mark 14, and characters like Gamaliel (Acts 5:33-40) who disagree with Jesus’s followers, but argue for letting them do their thing.

Secondly, I disagree with you summary of the Jewish attitudes to the Messiah:

“…either he’s the Messiah or he’s not. If a Jew believes he’s not the Messiah, then he has committed blasphemy and is worthy of death. If he’s not worthy of death, he isn’t a blasphemer and so must be the Messiah.”

Claiming to be the messiah was not the same as claiming to be God, or any form of blasphemy in itself. It was just claiming to be someone sent by God. In fact there were numerous people before and after Jesus who claimed to be the messiah, who certainly weren’t attempting to assert their divinity (and they were largely killed by the Romans).

Thierdly, you argue that it’s just the classic story structure. The problem I have with this I that whilst I accept that many films have goodies and baddies, few have such a troubled history. Star Wars never led to Darth Vader’s descendants getting persecuted for centuries culminating in a Holocaust. It’s because this story has such a troubled history that Gibson should have been so careful, particularly as people went to some lengths way in advance of making his film to try to draw his attention to the issue.

Finally, you ask me to find a “Jesus film that sticks as closely to Scripture as this one does but also includes neutral Jewish characters”. The problem is that sticking “closely to scripture” is so fluid and difficult to assess. For example, Gibson does follow the passion stories a good deal, but he excludes 80% of the gospel narrative, and he also leans heavily on Emmerich. There are also questions about how the film visually interprets that narrative and it’s here that I think Gibson could have been a lot more sensitive to the concerns regarding anti-semitism.

But I also think that the sticking closely to scripture requirement isn’t entirely fair. After all there have been several Jesus film that have been less inflammatory in their portrayal of the Jewish people. If Gibson wanted his film to be closer to the gospels I don’t see why he had to become more anti-Semitic in order to do so.

Furthermore, I can certainly see how it’s theoretically possible to be less anti-Semitic and stick even closely to the scriptures. I don’t think the question of whether anyone has actually done this should influence how Gibson’s film measures up.

Having said all that, I think the BBC’s The Passion and the Miracle Maker both do both.

Sorry that’s a little hastily written. I’m not meaning to be rude and shouty so apologies if that’s how this comes off.

Scott thanks for your message, I’ve made a post about it at my blog.

There again, though, after that parable, Jesus returns to the goat disciples and gestures for them to follow. “Come on,” he winks. It’s as if he’s saying, “Aw, never mind. I like you kids. You’re not damned after all!” This could reinforce an inclusivist reading of the film.

I agree also that the film has the problem of removing Jesus from his original context and not really replacing it with another. However, the mechanized, junkyard nature of the robot figure does reflect the mundane, cluttered urban existence the disciples had before following Jesus. So, it could be seen to at least reflect the “powers that be” as one would find them in modern day New York - represented by the idea of machinery and therefore industry. It’s also interesting that the disciples make and operate the robot, as the line continues to be blurred between real events taking place in some quasi-spiritual dimension and a group of actors putting on a show both for themselves and the audience. Is it, then, the characters of the disciples who seem so affected at the end of the film or the characters of the actors putting on this show?

This is not the only film, though, in which Jesus dies for no clear reason. Many Jesus films, I feel, arrive at the crucifixion because, well, that’s what comes next. They fail to create a clear cultural conflict or to explain the religious and political dynamics involved. If they do, they are often invented subplots or restructured versions of the Biblical narrative. Few films, to my mind, really clearly illustrate the impact of Jesus and the motivations behind his death on either the political or religious fronts. That this film also fails in that regard is nothing new, but that it does so in such a cryptic, nebulous fashion is indeed unique.

Thanks for another great podcast! I really enjoy this film on many levels, but it’s nice to talk about some of its limitations as well as the questions it raises.

With regards to the bit about the only ‘good’ Jews being in Jesus’ corner, I understand the perspective of that argument and I see how it could make sense. But, ultimately I think it’s unfair. Here’s why.

This film is based on the Gospels, in which the “neutral Jewish characters” you describe essentially do not exist – especially within the Passion narratives. The film goes out of its way to portray positive Jewish characters, but it does so within the confines of the characters presented in the Biblical text instead of inventing new ones. Therefore, the fact that the Jewish characters tend to fall on one side of the line or the other in terms of their response to Jesus results – not from the film – but from the Biblical narrative.

Secondly, who are the ‘good’ Romans? If any, they would have to be Claudia and Longinus. Longinus seems practically converted in the end and is sympathetic to Mary throughout. Claudia tries to keep Pilate from executing Jesus and is also sympathetic to the two Marys. Pilate comes out as probably the most ambivalent character of the film as he is torn between his wife’s warnings and the political necessity of executing Jesus. How he responds is to try and have it both ways. This leaves us half for and half against him. So, the Jews are not singled out. Even the Romans are sympathetic or unsympathetic (‘good’ or ‘bad’) based on how they respond to Jesus. Why? Simple. It’s a traditional story structure.

We’re all familiar with the concept of the protagonist and antagonist in a story. We tend to see them as the ‘good guy’ and ‘bad guy’ respectively. But the terms ‘protagonist’ and ‘antagonist’ are amoral. The protagonist is simply the character from whose perspective the story is told, with whose struggle we are meant to identify. The antagonist is just the character who works against the protagonist. Because we tend to like stories about the noble hero struggling against the evil villain, we tend to view these roles as ‘good’ and ‘bad.’

Additionally, we tend to use essentially simple moral structures to tell stories. So, there are a group of characters who support the protagonist and a group who support the antagonist. There tend not to be a lot of neutral or ‘in-between’ characters because a less ambiguous structure reinforces the conflict between the protagonist and the antagonist – the engine that drives the story. The fact that ‘The Passion of the Christ’ puts virtually all of its characters into these two (protagonist/antagonist) categories, then, is not a function of a moral judgment. It is a function of traditional story structure – which structure, I might add, the Gospels tend to follow.

So, to criticize the film for having ‘good’ characters that are for Jesus (the protagonist) and ‘bad’ characters that are against him is to criticize it for (1) being based on the Gospels and (2) utilizing a traditional story structure.

Additionally, one may ask, “Who is the antagonist in the film?” Looking around for various Jews and Romans or forces political and spiritual, it may be hard to pinpoint. But Gibson has taken artistic license and included Satan (an implicit force in the Gospels) as an on-screen character. Why? It would seem this move is intended to make Satan the clear and ultimate antagonist. In short, the humans are only part of a struggle that is based outside them between Satan and (as some have said, the true protagonist of the film) God.

Interestingly enough, since the crucifixion is the salvation of the world, Jesus films offer an underlying twist on the narrative structure. The crucifixion is God’s will and purpose, so everyone who plays a part in getting Christ crucified also plays a part in fulfilling God’s design for salvation. As we see, when Jesus dies in ‘The Passion of the Christ,’ Satan (our ultimate antagonist) is defeated. Also defeated are the oppression of religion and the curse of the law, signified in the temple earthquake – again showing an anti-clerical (rather than an anti-Semitic) perspective.

Also, it is interesting to note the character of Herod. While he is given authority by Rome, he is portrayed in such a way that he seems outside both Roman and Jewish cultures. Still, we see him negatively because of the way he treats Jesus. In fact, it is an intentional aspect of the film that every character is given a choice as to how they will respond to Jesus and that every character is defined by that choice. This is intended to communicate to the audience that they, too, face the same choice and will be similarly defined. Check the DVD commentaries for statements regarding this intention on Gibson’s part.

Saying we want neutral Jewish characters is fine if we’re looking for a politically correct film that satisfies our contemporary sensitivity about anti-Semitism. But the fact is that there simply isn’t any justifiable room in the narrative for such characters and that they are not presented in the Gospels. I’m not even sure such Jews existed at the time. Either he’s the Messiah or he’s not. If a Jew believes he’s not the Messiah, then he has committed blasphemy and is worthy of death. If he’s not worthy of death, he isn’t a blasphemer and so must be the Messiah. There really isn’t a middle ground as far as I can see. And as I’ve said, such neutral Jewish characters don’t serve to reinforce this particular film’s intended themes.

In fact, I would challenge you to show me a Jesus film that sticks as closely to Scripture as this one does but also includes neutral Jewish characters – a film in which all characters don’t fall primarily in the ‘for Jesus’ or ‘against Jesus’ categories. I would also challenge you to find examples of these characters within the Passion portion of a film, as this is the narrative structure for the whole of ‘The Passion of the Christ.’ I think if we set ourselves to this task, we’d be hard-pressed to find a film that does this without relying upon an invented sub-plot or a fictional character introduced outside the Passion section of the film.

We forget, I think, that this film limits itself to a small segment of the Gospels and that, while it is able to pull out a wealth of dramatic detail, it is confined only to the Passion and must be compared for fair judgment and criticism (in terms of its narrative structure and content) only with other Passion narratives.

In short, asking for more balance than is offered in this film is, I think, asking for more than most any Jesus film gives (particularly within its Passion section) and more than even the Passion narratives of the Gospels provide.

Thanks for your comments on the Passion Kevin.

I think the counter argument to what you’ve said is that nearly all of the positively played Jewish characters are (proto-) Christians. The apostles, obviously; the two Marys likewise; Veronica ultimately becomes a saint; Simon of Cyrene and his sons is known (personally?) to the author of Mark and his audience; the two (only) in the Sanhedrin are presumably meant to be Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. Joseph loves Jesus so much he lets him be buried in his tomb. Nicodemus is perhaps the only sympathetically played Jewish character where it’s unclear where his allegiances lie. Admittedly the Simon sequence does what you say, but, in my opinion, the film could have used some neutral Jewish characters, who didn’t follow Jesus but didn’t want to see their countryman executed by the Romans.

Whilst the above characters do counter balance things somewhat, it does line up a bit as Good Jews = Christians, Bad Jews = everyone else. Numerically those who are positive towards Jesus are in a small minority compared to the crowds that oppose Jesus in the trial scenes before the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

But like I said it depends very much on how the viewer approaches it.

Matt

I really appreciated your comments on Gibson’s own views regarding anti-Semitism in light of his (most recent) arrest and his upbringing. It’s likely the most thoughtful and sensible treatment of this subject I’ve heard. Excellent.

I am, however, going to take some issue with you (and many who called the film anti-Semitic) on one point. The idea that the film portrays Jews in a bad light because of Ciaphas and the Sanhedrin or because of the mob calling for Jesus’ death misses the fact that of the Jews portrayed in the film, these are only a few.

Of course, as is often pointed out, Jesus and his followers are all Jews, as is his mother - incidentally played by Maia Morgenstern, a Jewish actress. But also, there are several in the Sanhedrin who are portrayed as sympathetic to Jesus, calling his late night trial scandalous and illegal. The film also gives a featured, positive role to Veronica who, while she represents a Catholic tradition, is also a Jew. Additionally, not everyone in the crowd surrounding the crucifixion is against Jesus. Several of them appear saddened by his death or at least not hostile.

Most notable, though, is the character of Simon of Cyrene. Great lengths are gone to with this character to emphasize his Jewishness. The Roman soldiers mock him and derisively refer to him as “Jew.” Additionally, he wears a Jewish prayer shawl and yarmulka (or kippah) skullcap. He does not see Jesus as anyone but a criminal when they meet, yet he is one of the most strongly sympathetic and movingly portrayed characters in the film.

The shot of his and Jesus’ arms interlocking over the back of the cross as they struggle together to carry it is, to me, particularly moving. If anything, this could be seen as a symbolic reconciliation between Judaism and Christianity, represented by the coming together of Jesus and a strongly Jewish character. Even further, it could be extrapolated into a symbol of the two of them journeying to the salvation of the world. Jesus cannot make it to the crucifixion without Simon. Similarly, Christianity would exist without Judaism. In this way, the two are joined in one purpose in God’s plan of salvation.

In addition, the seat of anti-Semitism in the traditional Passion Play was not the Sanhedrin, but Judas, an easy target since he is so universally hated for betraying Christ. Since his name echoes the word “Jew” (and more particularly the German word “Juden”), he was very frequently portrayed with exaggerated Semitic features, a garish crooked nose, a skullcap, a pointed beard and a sinister grin. He is the most vilified person in history and was an excellent scapegoat for ant-Semitic sentiments. He is the one man held most universally responsible for the death of Christ. In fact, in an annual Mexican tradition, he is gleefully burned in effigy. So, the most hated man became symbolic of the most hated race.

But in ‘The Passion of the Christ,’ Judas is not an evil character. He is haunted, tortured, regretful and self-loathing. While these are not at all charming traits, it does portray Judas as a character who made a great mistake that he sincerely regrets. We can have sympathy for him as he is haunted by the demons of his betrayal. His is a tragic tale, not one of villainy. For all the critics’ claims of this film’s carrying on the legacy of the anti-Semitic Passion Play, its portrayal of Judas represents perhaps its strongest deviation from that tradition.

All in all, to criticize the film’s portrayal of “Jews” disregards a wide swath of Jewish characters who are protagonists and sympathetic characters. It has been said and bears repeating that, rather than being anti-Semitic, the film’s portrayal of Ciaphas and the majority of the Sanhedrin is, more accurately, anti-clerical. This is a sentiment which Jesus Himself seems to have held.

Watching the movie and looking only for Jewish figureheads, expecting that the filmmaker wants to convey a message about Jews through them, this film comes off as strongly anti-Semitic. Putting the press and noise aside and seeing the film in its true geopolitical context, however, most of what we see is a battle of Jews against Jews and those in power against those who are oppressed.

Matt

Do you know what the motivation was for doing the re-release? Also, what happened in 2004 to bring the original version back to light?

I think you’re spot on about Sisto’s performance. He seems to be walking through the set with no purpose, no driving vision or passion. He’s just there to embody a warm, fuzzy picture of Jesus. Much of his playfulness is very likely owed to the success (particularly in the Christian market) of Bruce Marchiano’s performance in the Visual Bible’s “Matthew” a few years prior. But, while Marchiano brought great dimension and passion to the role and showed us a man who truly had great compassion on humanity, Sisto’s Jesus seems ultimately to do little more that play in the dirt. In more dramatic scenes, his performance is forced and wooden.

As the film tries desperately to be relevant, mixing in a grab bag of popular ideas about Jesus, it ends up being a survey course in pop theology with no real investigation of ideas. Add in the positively hokey CGI show and terribly pretentious segment on modern warfare during the temptation sequence, and we have a film that tries so hard to modernize Jesus that it fails to tell a story or present us with a person (let alone a message) to really care about.

As you say, there was much potential here, but the end result is an unfocused surface treatment that fails to find real substance.

Thanks for the feedback - that’s something I’ll have to look into. Very much on a learning curve at the moment, so I expect the quality to significantly improve next time around. Please let me know if the problems occur again.

Kind regards

Matt Page