A few nights ago I went to see "The Passion of the Christ".
Now, I must begin this analysis with a few caveats, because I honestly think that disrespecting people's closely held spiritual beliefs is not a way to foster communication, understanding, love or community, which to my understanding are some of the things that the teachings of Jesus Christ are supposed to be about. Therefore the following analysis is not meant to be a criticism of Christianity. It is a criticism of a movie made by Mel Gibson that while it may succeed in some places, has other places that I find incredibly ideologically offensive, and not at all in keeping with the spirit of the aforementioned teachings.
As a second caveat, I should note that this is a very surface reading. I've only seen the film once and don't intend to see it again (I'd rather watch "What Women Want", which until now has been my penultimate ideologically offensive movie. Huh...and it stars Mel Gibson. I'm starting to notice a trend). Doubtless more viewings would produce a more nuanced and textured reading, but I'm not invested enough in the issue to put myself through that.
Given my interests in national and ethnonational identity, it's rather predictable that my attention would be attracted to the portrayal of the Roman and Hebrew peoples. The popular consensus of people I know seems to be that the film is rather blatantly anti-semitic (a topic I'll touch on later), but most people have viewed it as anti-Roman as well. My reading of it is that it is disturbingly *pro-Roman*, or more to the point, pro-Roman *elite*. And there seem to be some pretty good (if terrifying) socio-political reasons for why Gibson might want to portray events in a pro-Roman elite way. Reasons that may or may not be supported by the observation that Gibson's sect of Catholocism seems deeply invested in a Rome-centric worship (his sect apparently rejects the results of Vatican II, which did a lot to decenter Rome's influence).
I think that the film acts as an apologia for the white upper-class Romans (Pilate, Claudia and the Guard Captain). To me the movie reads like a narrative gambit intended to rectify the conflict between Christianity and the Roman roots of Western Civilization.
In past narratives there has always been a certain difficulty for Christian dogma because of this conflict. On the one hand the Romans are directly and irrevocably (and villainously) implicated in the torture and crucifixion of the Christ, but on the other hand Christianity owes its perpetuation, expansion and incredible temporal power in large part to the spread of the Roman Empire. Also, Western Civilization -- which is largely Christian -- traces many of its cultural practices back to those of the Roman empire, and bases much of its perceived superiority over other cultures on these linkages.
What is to be done about such a conflict of interests? In this film, Mel Gibson finds a solution, which is to clear the Roman elite of all culpability in Jesus' death (we all know the elites were really the ones responsible for all that roman civilization stuff, because they were clean and compassionate and conflicted, just like in the film). Notice how Pilate's wife aids Mary Mother and Mary Magdalene in their quasi-Arthurian weeping trio. Even in her absence her spectre remains with them as they mop up the blood with the towels she gave them, a kind of feminized version of the trinity (Mother, Daughter, Civilized Roman Elite Ghost).
Likewise, notice how when Pilate washes Jesus' proverbial blood (and thus Pilate's imagined sin) from his hands, this image is juxtaposed with Jesus washing his hands. If the Christ is our spiritual savior, this juxtaposition of images seems to imply that Rome is our cultural one (because of course given his 'druthers, Pilate would never have crucified Jesus. The film tells us so). God (and country) forbid we should be like those hedonistic and debauched middle-easterners of Herod's court. Let us have senators, let us have congresses, let us not have cross-dressers, mascara, drunkenness, long hair and laughter.
Ultimately, the Roman elite are depicted as not *knowing* any better, but also as rational and civilized enough to eventually welcome the messages of Christianity. This is in counter to the Jews, who are depicted as too irrational, selfish, power-grubbing and vengeful (um, modern-day Shylock representations, anyone?) to ever understand.
As to the lower class Roman guards, who are depicted as vile, cruel and debauched, this seems to me to be a vilification of the lower classes of *every* society (a horrific ideology in it's own right). Likewise, other than a few mostly silent, silenced, or silently suffering voices, *all* the Jews depicted in this film are vile, vengeful and irrational.
Ancientwisdom has pointed out that to call the film anti-semitic is somewhat plebeian, since Christianity is at its very core anti-semitic (in that in its origins it set itself up in opposition to many of the teachings of the Judaic tradition). That does not mean to say that the particular forms that the anti-semitism in this film takes should be forgiven, any more than its classist or pro-Roman elite stances should be ignored or glossed.
I don't agree with all Christian doctrine, but I do respect most of it. The slanted readings that can easily be taken from this film, readings that would seem to encourage division, hatred, and a reinforcing of certain types of power and status hierarchies, do not seem to me to be in agreement with what I see as the best in Christ's teachings. I can only hope that what viewers take away from The Passion of the Christ is a desire to learn more from better sources, rather than accepting this film as (new) gospel. And I can only quote "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34, King James Bible)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
