I have been considering whether I will see Mel Gibson's Passion, going back and forth for several weeks. The question of anti-semitism has been thrown around quite a bit, but it is one that Gibson could not necessarily have answered on his own. [On edit: The Angry Crafty Girl has a different look at this issue.] Passion plays have had a long history of anti-Jewish violence associated with them. The purpose of the Passion play is to draw as much attention as possible on the suffering of Jesus through theatrical presentation. The villainy of the those who wanted the crucifixion (as recorded in the Gospels) is accentuated for dramatic effect.

Of course, Jews are blamed, as individuals and as a people, by the Gospels. The Gospels have suffered from contradictions between what is known about the historical actors and their portrayal. At least one is that the religious group that pursued the execution is the one that would have most approved of Jesus zealotry and his defiance of Roman rule. The "good" religious sect in the Gospel is the one that historically collaborated with the Roman occupation, that represented the interests of the Hellenized Jewish bourgeoisie, the one that was bringing Judaism closer to Roman and Greek paganism. In essence, the Gospels have Jesus delivered over to the Romans by the religious leaders who were trying to revive spiritual life in Judea and who supported movements to expel the Romans--contradistinction. The second is the inconsistencies of the authorities that conducted the execution. Jesus was executed by Roman soldiers in the manner consistent with Roman law in the manner that Romans would have found most humiliating. He was not executed by Jewish authorities in the manner that they would have mandated (stoning) at a time when they would have allowed it (Pesach). The Gospels fail to question whether Pontius Pilate could have washed his hands of the guilt and transfer that guilt, whether to the Jews before him or the entire Jewish nation.

In Passion plays, Jews are the obvious villains, and the ugliness of their character is played up. Passion plays typically roused anti-semitic feelings, and coming at the most emotional part of the ritual calender, encouraged violence. Indeed, many Passion plays ended with the sacking of the ghetto. It is only in the last several decades that Jewish groups have sought to deal with this problem and have protested against the presentation of Passion plays in order to have them changed. Bu this itself is a thorny issue. As James Shapiro points out in his excellent book, Oberammergau: The Troubling Story of the World's Most Famous Passion Play (New York: Pantheon, 2000) (no Amazon link--look for it discounted in overstock sales), the story of the Passion can only be changed so much and remain faithful to canonical texts. The outreach between the two has been productive, but it is not yet clear how to present the Passion and deal with its antisemitic sections. At best, the newer scripts have emphasized the Jewishness of Jesus. Shapiro himself notes that German actors at Oberammergau were made to recite the Hebrew blessing over the Last Supper meal (at moment that he interfered in as he was asked to correct their pronunciation, a moment that is not recorded in his book).

It is unclear how Gibson would be able to resolve these problems on his own. He wants to remain faithful to the text. His antiquated version of Catholicism would necessitate an overly traditional reading of the Gospels. And if the movie were destined for a smaller audience, no one would care.

The other issue is the violence of the movie. I heard of it before I left for class yesterday on MSNBC. I heard people talking about it on 96.9 in Boston. Everyone is being critical of the movie as a reductive portrayal of Jesus' life. In the film era of stylized violence, I am surprised by this criticism. Gibson has put the story into a style that is very current. And the Passion is a story that should be conveyed with the spotlight put on the suffering that Jesus endured. Should we feel revulsion? I cannot answer that. But what strikes me is that the attention put on the violence is typical of how more "Protestant" political cultures react to more "Catholic" ideas of communal activism. Catholics emphasize the importance of Crucifixion, Protestants emphasize the importance of Redemption. This is a generalization, but a defensible one. I think that the reaction to the film is typical of a culture that is losing confidence in social programs and that is seeking solace in closed communities in which people look and think alike. It is typical of a culture that is unwilling to weigh the burdens suffered by different economic classes.