![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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)
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)
no subject
Date: 2004-03-10 02:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-10 03:16 pm (UTC)and Christianity isn't inherently anti-Semitic--well, not necessarily. first, a *huge* chunk of the Gospels, especially the two written by we-used-to-be-Jews-and-all-we-wrote-were-these-lousy-Gospels (Matthew and Mark, if i'm remembering correctly) are based directly on the Old Testament and Jewish prophecy. Mark--if i'm not confusing him and Matt--draws HEAVILY on prophecy, to the point of downright annoyance. i mean seriously, "and then Jesus stopped to look at the crocuses, which harkens back to what Isaiah said: and lo, the Messiah will look at the heralds of spring, and ye." the boy just does NOT let go.
but Matt and Mark were the early guys--the Gospels are in chronological(ly written) order, and so Matt and Mark not only had the luck to have been Jews at one point, they also wrote their Gospels when the Jews and the Christians were still getting along--back when Christianity was still Jewish, to a large degree. it's not till Doctor Luke, Medicine Gentile came along that the Christians started going "hmm. do we *have* to be Jewish?"
the early answer, incidentally, was yes. but then Paul showed up. and you know people who convert to something--they're always the worst because they've always got something to prove: "i'm not like *them* anymore." Paul, nee Saul, had the biggest chip on his shoulder coz he'd been a Christian-killer up till God whacked him upside the head hard enough to knock him off his ass and onto his ass. (heh.) Paul's largely responsible for Christianity becoming its own thing rather than a big happy Jews for Jesus party. he was the one who said "no!1 we *don't* have to get circumcised!1" (although i'd put money on the fact that it was because he was all growed up and didn't like the thought of anybody--not even Doctor Luke, Medicine Gentile--coming at his best friends with a knife more than anything else).
Paul did a whole lot to push the split between Judaism and Christianity, and a whole lot to push the splinter group up onto its own two feet (Mommy, wow!1 i'm a religion now). Paul, never a Jew himself, was responsible for a lot of the Other-ing of Judaism back there in the second century after the big JC. he was also the guy who took the garage band and made it into a stadium tour--in other words, he was responsible for getting the word out as far as he possibly could. which led to the question--aren't you boys just rehashing the Jewish thing, but with a twist? so in its later early days, Paul went around to everyone and said "no, man, we're different. those Jewish boys, they're alright, but we've got style, man."
well, that and "women belong in the kitchen," but that wacky Paul, always trying to prove how hardcore he was.
so i don't know that Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic, any more than it's anti-Roman or anti-Babylonian or anti-Egyptian. at its absolute core it *is* Jewish....just with a twist (the twist being that--oh crap!1--the Messiah actually showed up, whereas Judaism is still waiting on his first appearance). Christianity is what you make of it. Paul made it different from Judaism; over the years it's been all across the board in terms of its relations with the Jews and Judaism. but i don't think you can say that in (all of) its origins, Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic. Matt and Mark, in the very least, would have some issues with that (Mark "he must be the Messiah because eating Wheaties was in accordance with the prophecy of Isaiah" especially).
sorry. it's been a while since i've gotten my religion geek on. whew.
-kate-
no subject
Date: 2004-03-10 04:50 pm (UTC)I have not seen the movie and therefore cannot comment on the idea that the movie is Pro Roman Elite, but when it comes out on Video (right in time for Xmas I am sure) I will keep those thoughts in the back of my head.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-11 06:45 am (UTC)I suppose a better term for what I'm talking about would be to say that Christianity is "post-semitic". The process of its being post-semitic could be compared to postmodernity in the way that postmodernity is rooted in a critique of many of modernity's concerns and tenets, but has developed to the point where it is its own entity.
The books of the bible that focus on Jesus' teachings are concentrated around a critique of certain Judaic philosophical, theological and cultural traditions, beliefs and practices. The Christian church in large part is based on these critiques (about the nature of God, the nature of sin, and our relationship with both). This was and is a huge break from Judaic cosmology. While this may not have been "true" in some ill-defined historical context, I'd only say that our knowlege of "history" is retroactively constituted in the present, to serve present needs and interests. There are many points in history when Christians saw themselves as constituted in a conflicting dichotomy with Jews, and those views of Christianity have had just as much a hand in influencing what Christianity means today as any "authentic" Ur-Christianity. How it "really was" isn't a thing that can be fully understood. How it is and how we think it was is what we have to work with. The spectre of "authenticity" (and its power) is something we always have to deal with, but that we should probably not give in to. All starting points are arbitrary.
There are many things that Christianity means today, but for most people there is an awareness that at its core, Christianity was a break from certain Judaic teachings, and an institution of a different way of understanding one's relationship with God, which for many Christians is what the core of a religions should be about.
Therefore, although I still thing anti-semitic could be an appropriate apellation if it weren't for the word's association with hatred and holocaust, I can also not ignore those associations because they have become part of the word's "meaning". So I'll use the term post-semitic, which might better convey the idea I was trying to convey, although it won't have the same glibness.
See, but post-semitic still doesn't work. It may be because I'm agree with a whole lot of the post's (postmodernism, post-processualism, post-colonialism, post-feminism), but I tend to see the critiques that the posts have of what came before as valid, and I tend to think what came before was problematic. I do not think this is the same situation as Judaism and Christianity.
Grr. Language. Utterly useless tool for the purposes of conveying meaning.
But I still think the movie is horrificly anti-semitic.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-11 08:55 am (UTC)Still haven't managed to see the Passion because I can't find anyone to go see it with me. Grrrrr. Should I get to see it, I'll keep an eye out for the Roman stuff. However, I'm becoming very curious as to what sort of sudience it is really reaching. I just keep thinking back to elementary school when we learned that:
"The Jews killed Our Lord Jesus, because they didn't want the Christians to have a Messiah. Luckily for us, he was too strong for Satan and the Jews to kill and he came back to spread the Faith and then go back to God."
no subject
Date: 2004-03-12 01:09 am (UTC)My understanding is that plebeian would indicate either than the claim of anti-semitism is common, or that it is vulgar, and I'm not entirely certain that I understand why it would be necessary to point out that an observation was specifically "common", or what might be vulgar about the observation that the film was, and I think most people are probably implying a silent "active" in front of the, anti-semitic?
Not trying to be critical, so much as responding to a slight offense I took at the word, and wanting to know what the intent or the motivation in the specification was. Plebeian has some sort of nasty pejorative connotations, I think.
If it was just a random grab at at word, sorry for the emphasis on it. Don't bother explaining if this question is just a random hair.
-Me