A wildly successful film director is usually lauded as a hero in the celebrity-worshipping world of Hollywood. He is praised for his artistic vision, courage, and amazing talent. Movie studios typically line up to produce his next film in hopes of hitting the jackpot once again. Strangely, none of these things have happened to the director of this year’s runaway success, The Passion of the Christ.
Instead, Mel Gibson has become public enemy number one in the eyes of Hollywood bigwigs. His film, which depicts the last twelve hours of the life of Jesus according to the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, is a smash hit and is expected to rake in around $300 million in the United States alone, yet Gibson has been vilified by his colleagues.
The charges are many. First, the film has been labeled anti-Semitic because it allegedly blames the Jews for the death of Jesus. The statements of Gibson’s father, Hutton Gibson, a Catholic dissident, have amplified these charges. The elder Gibson’s claims that the Holocaust was exaggerated are fresh meat to his son’s attackers. Since Dad made some loony statements about the Holocaust, Mel, therefore, must be out to blame the Jews and start a new wave of anti-Semitism, they say.
These claims are preposterous on several levels. First of all, Hutton Gibson and Mel Gibson are not the same person. Second, Mel Gibson has repeatedly stated that he is not anti-Semitic. Third, the film itself is not the least bit anti-Semitic. It contains Jewish heroes as well as Jewish villains. It is also made clear through Jesus’ own words and actions that Jesus is laying down His own life, and that it is not being taken from Him. Jesus is not a renegade rabbi trying to escape the angry Jewish mobs; instead, He is allowing himself to be killed to fulfill His Father’s plan. It just so happens that Jesus was a Jew, surrounded by Jews. It is interesting to note that the Romans are portrayed as brutal, unfeeling, and sadistic, but no one in Hollywood seems concerned that the film is anti-Italian.
Some have disguised their attacks in another argument: the film is not anti-Semitic, but it has the potential to usher in a “new era of persecution” against Jews. Many thousands of Americans have already seen the movie, and, as of yet, no such persecution has occurred. The overwhelming majority of the movie’s target audience, Christians, believes that Jesus laid down His own life, and therefore no group of people is “to blame.” People leave the theater touched, amazed, grateful, shocked, and even triumphant; no one leaves the theater angry.
Another charge against Gibson is that his film is historically inaccurate. Apparently, some aspects of the film do not fit with what historians believe about the time. This argument misses a key point: the Gospels are the only record we have of the events portrayed in the film. If one is to make a movie about the crucifixion of Jesus, the only texts available are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Many Christians believe that these accounts are literally accurate. Others do not. Fine. The point is, a film about Jesus should be based on the only account we have of His life. Would it have been more accurate if Mel Gibson had simply made up the facts instead of sticking to the Gospels? The facts of history can be debated, but when only one record of an event exists, it is only logical to use that record.
These attacks on the film are part of a grander scheme to prevent the success of The Passion. Newt Gingrich put it best: a secular liberal has great fear for this film, because it will cause people to take religion more seriously and bring Jesus into the public square. Liberals want religion in a box, to be kept under the beds of church-goers; they fear anything that will bring it into public debate. It is bad enough to bring up the name of “God,” let alone “Jesus Christ.”
They see the same poll numbers that I see: 82 percent of Americans say they are Christians, and 60 percent of Americans take Bible stories literally, according to an ABC News poll. Diligent church-goers and evangelical Christians are many times more likely to vote Republican than Democrat. To oversimplify, more religious people are generally more conservative and more Republican. If a larger portion of the 82 percent were to become regular church attendees, a major electoral shift would occur toward the Republicans. Because of this reality, liberals fear The Passion, and they will bring out any charge to keep people from seeing it.
The film is at the center of the raging culture war in America, and Mel Gibson is now a leader of the traditionalist side. Evangelicals and other conservatives feel that their country is being stolen by activist judges and liberal legislators. It appears that they are now ready to fight back, and The Passion of the Christ serves to galvanize them to action. The film is thus both a religious and political call to action, and its effect on the American public could have far-reaching consequences.
The real tragedy of the attacks on the film is their personal nature. Mel Gibson has effectively been blacklisted in Hollywood. Other stars and executives have been quoted as saying they will never work with Gibson again. This comes from a culture which praises controversial films like Martin Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ, which was called blasphemous by every major Christian denomination. To Hollywood, it was bold, daring, and courageous, and Scorsese was nominated for Best Director.
The hypocrisy is incredible. A blasphemous film is lauded, while a film which follows the gospel account is deemed unacceptable. How ironically appropriate. In the world of the cinema, an industry which claims to be a bastion of tolerance and open-mindedness, the Bible is apparently intolerable. Mel Gibson sacrificed his career to make this film, and Hollywood has been as brutal as the on-screen Roman guards. Gibson has become a martyr for the causes of Christianity and traditionalism. But in the end, no liberal attack machine can stop the shockwaves created by The Passion of the Christ.
Comments