More Mel

After seeing Diane Sawyer's interview with Mel Gibson last, I reached three conclusions about Gibson and his soon-to-be-released film The Passion of Christ. First, Mel Gibson is not antisemitic. Second, he has good intentions. Third, through either ignorance or stubbornness, he entirely misses the thrust of the critiques made of Passion and is failing to engage with those critiques.

The first two are related and are certainly worthy of discussion and debate. But I'm going to restrict myself to the third point: Gibson's failure to understand the substance of what his critics have said. Two examples should suffice.

Much has been made of the allegedly antisemitic depictions of Jews in Passion. Critics have argued similar portrayals of Jews in passion plays have a long history of instigating violent actions by Christians against Jews. Gibson's response was that he saw Schlinder's List, which cast Germans in a less than positive light, and he doesn't hate Germans. Such a glib analogy misses the point. It's not that negative depictions of Jews are in of themselves bad (though, I'd imagine that most people would agree that's the case). The problem is that negative depictions of Jews have, throughout history, led to antisemitic behavior. To ignore this is to ignore the fact that antisemitism is still present in the world. To put an even finer point on it, Catholic antisemitism still exists (a former roommate, proudly Catholic, once assured me, before learning that I was Jewish, that Jews killed babies for their blood).

One theme that is nearly constant in Gibson's promotion of the film is that his account is based on the Gospels. While he's admitted that Passion is his interpretation of the last 12 hours of Jesus's life and therefore not the only possible narrative, Gibson is also quick to point out that his source is the Gospels, plain and simple. He believes in the veracity of the Gospels and he believes in the truth of his depiction of Jesus's last hours.

There's one problem: Gibson didn't restrict himself to using the Gospels as a source. Gibson freely admits, for example, that he drew on the visions and writings of Anne Catherine Emmerich, a German Catholic nun of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. I have no problem with Gibson drawing on non-biblical sources. I am troubled, however, by Gibson's claim that Passion is as historically accurate as possible. The visions of a nun who lived 1700 years after Jesus do not count as valid sources for those interested in historical authenticity. Gibson would do far better to admit that his film draws on a wide variety of sources and that it might get some of the details wrong.

None of this is to suggest that Passion is a bad movie. I expect it to be gruesome, disturbing, and of middling quality. There's virtually no way for it to live up to all the hype.

Instead, Gibson's responses to critiques of his film reveal him to be a charming guy who makes moderately enjoyable movies but lacks the ability or willingness to discuss in any substantive way the issues Passion raises.

On a side note, was anyone else struck by Gibson's words towards the Pope? Hardly respectful, especially coming from one as ardently and professedly Catholic as Mel Gibson.