In March, The New York Times Magazine launched the
controversy with a hostile story mentioning the movie and featuring
an interview with Gibson's 84-year-old father, Hutton Gibson.
According to the magazine, the old man questioned the commonly
accepted figure of 6 million Jewish victims of the Holocaust and
entertained conspiracy theories about 9/11. While employing guilt by
association and attempting (without evidence) to connect the views
of an obscure father to his world-famous son, the Times piece
raised alarms about a possibly slanderous portrayal of Jews in the
film's graphic depiction of the crucifixion.
Meanwhile, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and other groups
devoted to combating anti-Semitism issued critical statements about
The Passion based on an early draft of the screenplay that
the Gibson camp called a ''stolen'' script. Gibson insists he has
altered the screenplay substantially since that early draft, but
this didn't stop the ADL from issuing an angry statement on June 24,
asking: ''Will the final version of The Passion continue to
portray Jews as blood-thirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of
Jesus? . . . Will it portray Jews and the temple as the locus
of evil? . . . ADL stands ready to advise (Gibson's) Icon
Productions constructively regarding The Passion to ensure
that the final production is devoid of anti-Semitic slander.''
Of course, the ADL might have advised the producers more
''constructively'' with a private phone call, memo or meeting rather
than with a thermonuclear press release. As it is, assaults on his
unseen film leave Gibson in a painful predicament. If he ignores the
ADL and other critics, he faces accusations of ''insensitivity,''
but if he responds to their condemnations by allowing activists to
shape his picture's content, then he undermines his announced
intention of sparing no expense (including $25 million from his own
production firm) to create a film of fearless, uncompromising Gospel
authenticity.
In fact, the worries about anti-Semitic messages in the upcoming
epic seem overblown based on known facts about the project. Of
course, members of the religious establishment in ancient Judea come
across badly in New Testament accounts, but beyond these villains,
the new movie boasts a Jewish hero (or Hero) -- not to mention many
other sympathetic Judeans, including Christ's disciples and mother.
Moreover, Gibson emphasizes the Hebraic identity of the Man from
Nazareth. Production stills show actor Jim Caviezel as perhaps the
most Semitic Jesus in cinema history -- a welcome change from the
Nordic Messiahs in many previous films. To make certain no one
ignores the Jewish identity of Christ and the Apostles, Gibson
insisted that his actors speak nearly all of their lines in Aramaic,
the language of ancient Judea and a close cousin of Hebrew.
Of course, even the most responsible, well-intentioned movie
treatment of the last hours of Jesus will provoke concern in the
Jewish community, because so many millions of Jews have suffered and
died over the centuries due to Gospel-based charges that they are
''Christ killers.'' But the fact that persecutors and bigots have
distorted teachings of the New Testament for their own cruel
purposes doesn't mean that those Gospel texts, sacred to all
Christians, must be scrapped, revised or ignored in a serious work
of cinema.
In fact, the plea that Gibson's movie should place exclusive
blame for the Crucifixion on Roman authorities contradicts not only
mainstream Christian teaching, but also elements of Jewish
tradition. In a courageous piece in the national Jewish weekly
The Forward, Orthodox scholar David Klinghoffer points to
Jewish sources more than 1,000 years old that ''teach that Jesus
died at least partly thanks to decisions taken by his fellow
Jews.''
Ironically, the new debate over these issues comes at a time of
unprecedented cooperation between Jews and Christians. Since 9/11
and the chilling wave of homicide bombings in Israel, Jewish
Americans have increasingly abandoned their instinctive fear of
Christian evangelicals to make common cause with them in defense of
the Middle East's only democracy. This troubles liberal activists,
who worry over the ever-increasing influence of religious
traditionalism in American life. The ADL, for instance, has been
outspokenly critical of the so-called Christian right for more than
20 years, despite unstinting support for Israel by these
conservatives. In this context, the dispute over The Passion
draws attention from the virulent and dangerous anti-Semitism
emerging from the Islamic world and instead refocuses concern on the
long, tortured history of hatred of Jews by Christians. The
controversy also raises pointed questions about Christian
conservatives, who have conspicuously embraced many of Gibson's
recent projects, including The Patriot and We Were
Soldiers.
The beleaguered director hopes to discredit his critics with his
movie's artistic quality. In almost plaintive tones, Gibson insists
it always has been his intention that The Passion would
''unify people rather than divide them.''
Perhaps his efforts may yet achieve an uplifting ending to the
story of his production, allowing the ADL to go back to doing what
it does so effectively: concentrate on real dangers to Jews from
real enemies who wish us real harm. Certainly, the Islamic
terrorists and their sympathizers who loathe both ''Zionists''
(Jews) and ''Crusaders'' (Christians) can only smile at the utterly
gratuitous divisions between the two faiths over an unfinished
movie.
Film critic and former synagogue president Michael Medved
hosts a daily, nationally syndicated radio show on politics and pop
culture. He is a member of USA TODAY's board of
contributors.