Mel Gibson's (ABC) Television Interview on the PASSION.
In response to an opening question as to WHY he made the picture, Gibson gave one of the most succinct and accurate theological descriptions of the Redemption of the Human Race I have ever heard. There was no recourse to the ambiguous touching-all-the-bases semantic tap-dancing so popular with contemporary vendors of the New Theology.
The aboriginal calamity we call Original Sin "closed" the doors of Heaven until an appropriate Sacrifice could be offered which would "re-open" those doors to ALL men. The sacrifice of the Cross (or the Passion) is one of forgiveness and love and meaning. This all inclusive sacrifice is presented graphically in the Film because most of us shy away from realities and tend to cosmetize what " really is." Gibson's intent was to thrust the viewer into the horror of the Cross which medium was the road to Redemption. To experience what Jesus willingly suffered that the Hindu and the Muslim and the Jew and the Christian might enjoy eternal joy with God, is to begin to sense the all important Love that God has for ALL of us.
At 22 years of age, he was called the "Sexiest man in America" and by 26, having deserted the Faith of his Fathers, he reached the peak of artistic success. Now he says that he would never want to go back there where he experienced the hollowness and emptiness which seduced him into the despair and addiction which teetered on the brink of suicide. He reports that he sank to his knees and cried for Help! When he discusses his conversion back to the Lord, he freely adverts to the inspiration of the Holy "Ghost" (more currently Spirit) and the help of the Lord. It smacks of the experience of Augustine of Hippo who, in his early years led what one might call a " spotty" life, had a conversion which led him into a totally new way of life. He, too, would not want to " go back" there. Once he tasted the life of God, all else became a kind of " dung."
The interviewer, sitting to show off her long legs to advantage, struggled to find some inkling of an implied anti-Semitic (or anti-Jewish) element either in the film or in the psyche of Gibson. It is pleasant to report that she failed on all counts. He is simply too intelligent for her even though he is not a scholar but only a brilliant artist. He categorically denies any anti- Semitism in his makeup citing his Faith which considers such positions as sinful. It was almost laughable to witness the lengths to which the Network would go in order to hang bigotry labels on this man. A Rabbi was introduced who, while admitting that neither Gibson nor the film is anti-semitic, lamely reached for some "potential" negative fallout which MIGHT be used by "some one" for anti-semitic purposes.
With a palpable frustration, the interviewer then asked " Well, who crucified Christ?". Gibson, with what I saw as inspiration, replied: " We all did. And I lead the list." It was not a weak or even a savage Pilate nor a cunning or subservient Caiphas who drove the nails and lashed the back and shouted insults. It was not a political maneuver by Jews or Romans or anyone. It was the "I" of all human beings. If one follows this traditional (or orthodox) theology, it was the collective GUILT of all of us.
This an area with which modern interviewers are unfamiliar. They feel at home with charges of discrimination and conspiracy and "payoffs". But to enter this world of the metaphysical and transcendent is to make them uneasy. Their questions, like the interviewer in this instance, are superficial because they do not understand. Easier to attempt a smear on the work because Gibson's father has some unusual perceptions of religion than to wrestle with the profundities of Faith. It is easier to be superficial than to seek the message in this artistic presentation.
Even a New York daily, when commenting on the interview, had to resort to some absurd motivation for the film as stemming from Gibson's tendency to the gory and bloody. Gibson's insight is about ultimates and basics. It is about God's implacable love for us and His mercy toward our puny revolts and the deep Meaning of existence. Is the movie anti-semitic? It appears that it is totally free of such garbage as far we can see. If it were so, I as a half Jew would be on the street with my placard and loudspeaker protesting the bastardization of my Faith. As my German-Jewish ophthalmologist reminded me recently, I would have been in Dachau very quickly had I been in Munich in 1938--- regardless of my obvious Catholic fidelity!
Ambassador Raymond Flynn, former American envoy to the Vatican, reported that he had seen the movie twice - - - and saw not a single instance of the bigotry implied by shrill voices. He delicately suggested that (even with full awareness of the horror of the Shoah) certain Jewish leaders were " a bit over reactive." Even the voluble Bill O'Reilly dismisses the anti-Semitism charge with his typical shrug and smirk.
Then Why the rash of protest? Why the screaming about a non-existent bias? Alleged Bigotries are not the real reasons. There is something deeper and more sinister. Gibson's message threatens a way of life which is precious to the secular mind and which had presumed, in turn, that IT was triumphant. The Passion suddenly threatens the hedonism and narcissism which has been sanctified by the "special interest groups."
It is not our Jewish Brethren ( and we are spiritual semites). It is the force of evil lurking as always under the Mask of good. Gibson has disturbed the hold of Evil on America. It will try to skewer him. I fear that real anti-Semitism can result from the incessant attacks on Gibson and on the American tradition of free artistic expression. There is a boomerang effect spreading in otherwise peaceful communities. But behold! The struggle between God and Satan always ends the same way. Guess Who always wins!
Feb.18, 2004
New York City