In just under a week, Mel Gibson's third film behind the camera, "The Passion of the Christ," will be released, and it will finally be able to speak for itself. It's about time, because for the past year just about everyone and their mother has been perfectly willing to speak for it.
For all those who haven't heard: last year, actor-director Gibson began production on what was then merely called "The Passion," an account of the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ. Along with his powerful visual style, the very Catholic Gibson announced that he would also bring two new twists to this cinematic Gospel adaptation: that the only languages spoken in the film would be Latin and Aramaic, and that the brutality visited upon Christ during the crucifixion process would be portrayed in as much graphical realism as possible.
When a specially designed trailer hit the Internet last summer, millions of viewers were subject to the passionate work Gibson was still completing: astounding imagery of Jesus (played by actor James Caviezel) beaten bloody with chains during the pre-crucifixion scourging, then being ruthlessly nailed to the cross and left to ask why his father had forsaken him.
Then the negativity started. The main charge, constantly echoed by the anti-racist watchdog group, the Anti-Defamation League, was alleged anti-Semitism.
Historically, many "passion" plays were indeed racist, perverting the Gospel accounts in order to slander all Jews as collective "Christ-killers," leading to anti-Jewish violence in medieval times. After spending months harshly rebuking Gibson and labeling his film as racist in press releases, the ADL has seen "The Passion" and finally relented, with representative Abraham Foxman telling ABC that he doesn't believe either Gibson or the finished film are anti-Semitic, but he still claims that the movie has the "potential to fuel anti-Semitism" in viewers.
Foxman does have something of a point. Although the heroes of the movie are all obviously Jews, the film does apparently remain true to the notion held by Gibson and most Christians that the Jews in power in that area at that time were some of the material agents responsible for Christ's death. The tricky part is that Christians hold the Romans likewise accountable. Can the film be expected then to start pogroms against modern-day Italians? For that matter, how many anti-British riots was Gibson's previous directorial effort, "Braveheart," responsible for?
Besides, Gibson has continuously stated the true Christian belief on who made Christ's death necessary: we did. Mankind's sinful nature is collectively responsible for killing Jesus, a fact the director symbolizes by making it be his own hand you see hold Christ down as the first spike is driven through. Gibson holds himself as accountable as he does anybody else.
But all this misses the point. As Gibson told Diane Sawyer earlier this week, the film is about "faith, hope, love and forgiveness," not blame. To paraphrase a popular saying: It's the grace, stupid.
Because of the controversy, the film, which many once feared would never find a distributor, will be opening next week on over 2,000 screens. The movie could be speaking for itself, but those who tried to silence it gave it a megaphone.
Eric Spratling is a public relations senior. Reach him at eric.spratling@asu.edu.
