I haven't seen it and don't plan to until it comes out on video/dvd--it's apparently not a very good film--but I have a comment to make about this "snuff" charge that's been repeatedly leveled at the scenes of violence in the film.

I've yet to read a review that acknowledges the provenance of Gibson's obsessive attention to the mutilation of Christ. It comes from a very old, very worthy Catholic tradition--which is probably very unfamiliar to Protestant America--that regards meditation on His wounding and mutilation, every cut of the whip, every nail driven into Him, as a form of prayer. The stigmata appears at the height of this meditation on The Passion. In fact, the Passionist Order was/is devoted to the canonization of saints of this type. Go pick up the latest edition of The Lives of The Saints. It's fascinating reading, almost Sadean in its extensive descriptions of total depravity and mutilation. For example:

--Saint Catherine of Siena...who drank pus from cancerous sores.
--Veronica Giuliani... who had herself repeatedly kicked in the mouth, and cleaned her cell with her tongue.
--Eustachia of Messian..who liked to stretch herself out on a torture rack she'd specially constructed.
--St. Angela of Foligno...who drank water contaminated with the putrefied flesh of lepers.

There are also countless holy anorexics and self-mutilators. Cleaning the walls and floors with one's tongue seemed to be especially popular with Passionists. As Jesus said to one: "See this cross, these thorns, this blood? They are all works of love. Do you want to truly love me? Then first learn to suffer."

Of course, you don't see much of this kind of thing anymore. All of these women were pre-feminist in their awareness. But they regarded their mutilated bodies as holy, localized sites of Christ's Passion. I'm willing to give Gibson the benefit of the doubt and speculate that the gore and brutality in the film arises out of this traditon.

Alot of Catholicism is extraordinarily morbid and weird--the cult of Holy Relics, the obsession with Christ's bodily sufferings, transubstantiation. This stuff is alien to the American/Protestant sensibility. It's always much easier to sneer at somewhat bizarre religious rites, call them fetishistic and perverse, engage in psychological reductivism and regard them as mere neurosis and hysteria, than to try to understand them. Nothing in Gibson's film will shock anyone who's seen a Cimabui painting or Pasolini's deeply Catholic film, SALO. This doesn't take away from the fact that Gibson's gore and monster-movie literalism has more to do with commericial imperatives than with faith or "artistic vision". What "artistic vison" means in relation to the director of a piece of shit like BRAVEHEART I haven't the slightest idea.

Is that religion or a John Waters film?



Exactly what constitutes understanding here? It very well could be reducible to any of those or all of those or something else entirely. But an atheist isn't going to buy into the religious explanation for those phenomena, so there must be some other explanation, correct? Also, anyone who could watch SALO and not come away with elements of fetishism, perversity, neurosis and hysteria isn't paying attention. Psychologistic it isn't, though.

"The Pharisees are conniving and political and controlling the situation. There's nothing of traditional anti-semitic stereotyping in there, nosiree."

The Bible says some of the Pharisees were conniving and political and trying to control the situation.

Which is not to follow the pre-Vatican II Catholic thing about blaming the whole Jewish race for the death of Christ at all... but it's right there in the text of the Gospels.

The Sanhedrin's role in Christ's death is an important part of the story and portrayed in all four Gospels. I could ask why tone it down and focus more on Pilate and Herod? Other than political correctness, that is?

I just saw the movie, and the only thing I found possibly anti-semitic is that Pilate comes across as sort of likable and sympathetic in an odd way even though he's the one who tells his brute squad to crucify Jesus--like maybe he shouldn't be fully held responsible because he did try to go easier on Jesus, after all.

And I don't get the "apostles being less sterotypically Jewish" thing at all. The apostles were (mostly) working class slobs who experienced downward mobility when they gave up commercial fishing or tax collecting or whatever to follow Jesus around. It makes sense to put them in shabby robes.

The Pharisees are wearing their robes of office, so of course they're going to stand out more.

If you'll notice, the apostle John (the young guy who hangs out with Mary) wears a prayer shawl-like garment in several scenes and covers his head in the temple, as does Peter until his head covering falls off in a scuffle.

More nitpicky examples of Jewish behavior: Simon the Cyrene (the guy who helped carry the cross) is wearing an earlier version of a yarmulke until it gets knocked off his head, and his objections to carrying the cross are very much in keeping with the culture of the times. Mary Magdalene is shown wearing a dress with the blue stripes associated with Judaism (as seen on Israel's flag).

Heck, the last supper is a passover dinner and the bread is the traditional unleavened bread eaten to commemorate the exodus out of Egypt.

Just because something is true to the Gospels or an established view of the Gospels doesn't make it alright by me. However, as long as Gibson had good enough reasons for putting forth the story that he did, that's good enough for making the film that he did. Don't see a reason not to call a spade a spade, though.

Anyway, here\'s an interesting enough analysis of Jewishness in some major Jesus films of the 20th century.

A couple of quotes:



and



For your analytical pleasure: What\'s Not in the Bible? , much of which details the large influence The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ has on the contents of Gibson's film. The "author" of which, Sister Anne Emmerich, had the following views/visions of Jews:



Hitchens discusses her, along with Mary of Agreda, in his Vanity Fair essay (which isn't online), so you might find it of interest in considering the "possible" anti-semitic gloss of the film.

Even beyond this thread, you’ve been quite clear about your views towards Christians. I don’t think anybody knowing your “stance” on them would suspect you as a fellow to find something “alright” because it is in the Gospels. Not at all ...

Would that be my deep respect for the enduring intellectual tradition of Christianity or my strong disagreement with fundamentalist views of everything under the sun, including, I'm sure, the sun itself? My point was that just because it's a deeply held belief by some Christians that the Gospels are literal truth doesn't mean we can't evaluate those beliefs according to modern morality. Saying Gibson was true to that literalist tradition (give or take a few extraneous sources) doesn't in itself argue one way or the other to his film's anti-semitism. In short, it's not a defense.

FYI: I added some stuff to my previous post while you responded to it.

Shoe,

"Even beyond this thread, you’ve been quite clear about your views towards Christians. I don’t think anybody knowing your “stance” on them would suspect you as a fellow to find something “alright” because it is in the Gospels. Not at all ..."

Just to clarify for me...

First off, Charles was clearly making a statement about the BIBLE, not Christians. Related things, yet not identical.

Are you meaning to imply that if one does not believe the Bible is "true," then one's point of view -- in general or on a cinematic story of Jesus -- is automatically discredited or worthless?

Is it that the Bible is just TRUE, and those who think otherwise are just wrong and have nothing to say?

Because, whether or not you're meaning to limit your commentary to the narrower subject of Charles' thoughts and that alone, it sounds like you're coming terribly close to saying just those things.

One could as easily turn around and say, "Well, given what we know about Shoe's stance on Christians, we know to discount anything he has to say on the matter -- because the Bible is just false."

Matthew

I think there's some confusion here as to whether it's the movie or the Bible being discussed. If the anti-semitism qualm is more about the BIBLE being anti-semitic (and thus, vicariously, the movie), it's kind of a distinct discussion unto itself, no? Or at least a distinction worthy of explicit articulation at this point.

K

I didn't say they were. I'm speaking directly and specifically about Charles' feelings regarding Christians. (I went into more detail earlier today in a response to Charles, but I opted not to post that response).

Quote:

Are you meaning to imply that if one does not believe the Bible is "true," then one's point of view -- in general or on a cinematic story of Jesus -- is automatically discredited or worthless?

You seem to be making the assumption that I am a Christian or that I am speaking on behalf of Christians. Let's clear up this poor assumption now: I am not in any way, shape or form a Christian. I believe that Jesus, if he even existed, was just some dude. I put no more stock in Christian beliefs than I do most other major religions. I don't believe that the Bible is any different than any other pseudo-historical, religious text mixed with thematic elements common to myth. I do not believe Jesus was our savior, or any other such thing. I am not a Christian.

Just so we're clear.

Quote:

Is it that the Bible is just TRUE, and those who think otherwise are just wrong and have nothing to say?

As I already pointed out, you’re making an assumption that is incredibly and vastly wrong.

Quote:

One could as easily turn around and say, "Well, given what we know about Shoe's stance on Christians, we know to discount anything he has to say on the matter -- because the Bible is just false."

You could say that, and I'd laugh hysterically because I do not believe that the Bible is Truth.

My last post was speaking very specifically about Charles and his apparent views regarding Christians, not my own views about Christians or the Bible.

I hope we’re a bit clearer now.