|
|
October 10, 2003/Tishri 14 5764, Vol. 56, No.3
Jews debate Mel Gibson movie
JOE BERKOFSKY
Jewish Telegraphic Agency
NEW YORK - Movie star Mel Gibson's controversial $25 million film about Jesus has sparked a new battle - among Jews.
For months, Gibson's "The Passion" has spurred headlines from the Los Angeles Times to The New York Times, from Fox News to The New Yorker, for its reportedly graphic portrayal of the last days of Jesus and its laying heavy blame for his death on the Jews.
Much of the media coverage has focused on the conflict between Gibson, who belongs to a traditionalist Catholic sect opposed to Vatican reforms in general, and some Jewish figures who warn the film will stir anti-Semitism by splicing together the most anti-Jewish portions of the New Testament gospels with extra-biblical writings of mystics who blamed all Jews for the crucifixion.
Now that debate is turning inward, as Jews point fingers at one another over the way they have dealt with Gibson and argue over just how Jews should deal with Christian portrayals of the Jesus story in popular culture.
The internal conflict over the Gibson movie, meanwhile, comes amid Jewish disagreement over the release of yet another movie about Jesus, "The Gospel of John," which some Jews are calling a more sensitive portrayal of events.
On one side are figures such as Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, and Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles.
They have led an unsuccessful campaign to confer with Gibson to discuss their concerns in the hope that he will tone down the film's alleged anti-Jewish theme.
On the other side stand those such as Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, president and founder of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, and Michael Medved, a conservative film critic and observant Jew, who say the drive to refocus "The Passion" will misfire - and badly.
"The Jewish response so far has been extraordinarily counterproductive of Jewish interests, short-sighted, ill-considered and irresponsible," Medved said.
Christians may view the criticism by Foxman and others as "the Jews trying to stifle us from practicing our religion," Eckstein said.
The storm swirling around "The Passion" intensified when the ADL convened nine Jesus scholars, most of them Catholics, who reviewed an initial screenplay of the movie this spring.
The panel declared that it was "neither a true rendition of the Gospel stories nor a historically accurate account of what could have happened in Jerusalem, on Passover," when Pilate was prefect and Caiaphas was the Jewish high priest.
Among those attempting to meet with Gibson is Rabbi A. James Rudin, senior interreligious affairs adviser for the American Jewish Committee and a veteran of interfaith dialogue.
Rudin, one of a handful of Jewish officials who has seen the film, said the film's depiction of the events surrounding Jesus' death are historically inaccurate.
For example, he said, the film overstates the authority the high Jewish priest Caiaphas held and made the Roman leader Pontius Pilate seem like a weak Hamlet figure.
Further, the film included "toxic" images of "conniving bloodthirsty Jews who used Roman power" to carry out the crucifixion, he said.
The recently released film, "The Gospel of John," a literal, word-for-word translation of that New Testament story, has the backing of a Canadian group that includes several Jews, among them Garth Drabinsky, a producer, and Sandy Pearl, the executive producer.
Foxman pointed to "The Gospel of John" as a "sensitive" treatment of the Jesus story, in apparent contrast to Gibson's film.
The new movie portrays the Jewish leadership of the time as facing "a very difficult dilemma" by being caught between the "necessity of keeping the peace" with the Roman authorities and "somebody who seems dangerous" to Rome, said Alan Segal, a professor of religion and Jewish studies at Barnard College in New York and a consultant to the movie.
Still, Segal said Jews "can't avoid being concerned with what the Gospel says, especially the Gospel of John."
"We are portrayed as the villain - the question is, what do you do to not make it a blanket condemnation?" Segal said.
But Medved said the ADL's praise of the lesser-known Jesus film showed the "tremendous hypocrisy" of Jewish organizations.
While the credits in "The Gospel of John" were laden with Jewish names, Medved said, Gibson "made the mistake of not inviting that kind of Jewish participation."
Foxman, dismissed Med-ved's criticism and said the ADL's assessment of "The Gospel of John" had nothing to do with its Jewish credits.
|
