|
Interview: Bishop Noel Jones of the City of Refuge Church and Rabbi Allen Freehling of the University OF Synagouge Discuss Mel Gibson's Film, "The Passion of the Christ"
The Tavis Smiley Show: March 1, 2004
Talking about Mel Gibson's 'Passion': Part 2
TAVIS SMILEY, host:
From NPR in Los Angeles, I'm Tavis Smiley.
Last week, Mel Gibson's controversial film, "The Passion of the Christ," opened across the country. Long before its release, the film about the last hours of the life of Jesus sparked controversy over its depictions of Jews and their role in the death. Against an historical backdrop of passion plays that led to numerous massacres of Jews, many of the film's critics feared it would fuel anti-Semitic violence. Others, including scholars and priests, have questioned "The Passion of the Christ"'s biblical accuracy. However, as writer, producer and director of the film, Gibson believes he's created a religious tribute that is true to the story of John and in so doing has created a box office smash, bringing in an estimated $115 million already.
Apparently people across America are deciding for themselves if the controversy is justified or overblown. Earlier, I spoke with a Christian and a Jew, a bishop and a rabbi, to be exact, about the merits of the film and its larger implications. This is the first of a two-part conversation with Bishop Noel Jones of the City of Refuge Church in Los Angeles, and Rabbi Allen Freehling, rabbi emeritus at the University of Synagogue here in Los Angeles. I began by asking the rabbi if he thought the film was, in fact, anti-Semitic.
Rabbi ALLEN FREEHLING (University of Synagogue): Well, the charge, of course, is that the film is a manifestation of Mel Gibson's being an anti-Semite or that the film itself is anti-Semitic, and that's not what I saw. From the technical point of view, anti-Semitism is a move to eliminate the Jewish people, and there certainly isn't that.
On the other hand, I will tell you that the Jewish people are certainly not depicted in any kind of a loving light whatsoever. My real concern is not with the film itself but what the audience reaction will be to the film, number one; number two, how the presence of the film and all the conversation and all the articles, how that's going to interfere with the process of bringing peoples together.
I mean, we have been working so hard in terms of not only the Jewish and non-Jewish community but all kinds of community, and the work that I do as the executive director of the city's human relations commission is obviously to build bridges, and my real concern at the moment is that there are people who, out of their own passion, if you will, are going to try their best to upset those bridges.
SMILEY: Bishop Jones, let me ask you a two-part question. First of all, how accurate do you believe this movie is to the Gospel that you preach every Sunday, and secondly, is it possible in today's politically correct world to do a movie like this if you accept the Gospel that he came unto his own and his own received him not? Is it possible to do a film like this in today's politically correct society and not be labeled anti-Semitic if you're being true to the story?
Bishop NOEL JONES (City of Refuge Church): Well, let me answer the first part. He was accurate to St. John's Gospel, and I think that's part of the cry from the Jewish community, and that is that he could have picked Matthew or he could have picked Mark. He could have picked a Gospel that wasn't as harsh to the Jewish people because of certain things that are said, of course, that John says and John writes and he was very graphic in its presentation. But cinematography has come into place now where whatever it depicts is going to be extremely graphic.
SMILEY: And a crucifixion is graphic it seems to me.
Bishop JONES: Yes, and it's a horrific torture, and it's a horrible presentation, of course, and, I mean, I saw the film. And it's not a film I would go back to see often because of the brutality.
Rabbi FREEHLING: I believe that the film industry itself has made a terrible mistake in not using an NC-17 code on this. I know that that's usually reserved for sex, but I've got to tell you that this orgy of brutality, which is unrelenting, I don't know if the audience is being fairly warned in advance what they are going to witness. And it isn't just a crucifixion. It's everything which occurs before the crucifixion, and I talked to some people afterwards and interesting comments. Number one, many of them indicated to me that there was so much brutality that at a certain point in the film, they sort of turned off. It just got to be too much of a muchness. And the other thing that bothered them, and obviously I was talking to non-Jews, is that they were looking forward to something more in terms of the resurrection than they found. The resurrection is almost like a PS.
SMILEY: If, in fact, what we say we appreciate about Hollywood is the rare occasion where we get a film that is true to the story, not changing the story, not altering the story, not making the story more palatable, but true to the story, Mel Gibson would tell you if he were in this room, that's what he set out to do. And it's a brutal retelling of the story because it was a brutal story.
Bishop JONES: Yes, yes, yes. There's no question in my mind that it was a brutal story, and it is a brutal story. But the issue here now is: How far do we go with the brutality, because the brutality is relentless. I mean, it's completely relentless. And for the Christian--and I preach--one of my greatest messages deals with the medical take on Jesus' crucifixion, and very definitely we want to show that he suffered for us. And it gives just a great picture of his suffering. But we have been preaching that long before the movie came out, which means that if this just becomes a tool for evangelism and this is the greatest tool for evangelism that we've ever had, then, of course, very definitely we would have failed all these 2000 years. I mean, this movie's just come out. The point is, at a certain point you understand that he suffered horrifically and to just keep pounding it and pounding it and pounding it makes it real difficult.
SMILEY: Rabbi, let me ask you whether or not it is, to Bishop Jones' point, a tool of evangelism. Is Mel Gibson a zealot? Is Mel Gibson trying to push an agenda here? Or is Mel Gibson a filmmaker who's being unfairly and unduly treated by those who happen not to like this particular film?
Rabbi FREEHLING: Since I've never met him, and I've never had an opportunity to talk to him, and I really now want to because I want to begin to understand his psychology, when you think about the films in which he's been involved, there is a very strong surge of martyrdom. When you think about how his character died in "Braveheart," when you think about how other characters that he's played have also died, there is something about him which causes him to be attracted to stories in which the hero dies a horrific death.
So we have to try to get beyond the surface and understand the nature of the filmmaker in this particular case. What he is giving to his audience is a vivid, dramatic portrayal of his interpretation, his zealotry, his moving away from that which has become the contemporary stance of his church, the Catholic Church, which in many ways, you know, he's walked away from because of his verve in terms of traditionalism, and therefore, yes, we may be seeing an interpretation of the Book of John, but I think that what we're really doing is we are looking at Mel Gibson's interpretation as he wishes to portray it for his audience.
SMILEY: Let me ask you whether or not, to the point that I've heard some make, indeed, some of the Jewish community, that this is the kind of film that could incite violence against Jews; it is the kind of film that could raise the level of anti-Semitism in our country. Is that possible with a film like this?
Rabbi FREEHLING: Again, looking at the audience on the way out of the theater, and I wanted to be an objective reporter and observer, I did not find anger. I found abject sadness and mourning.
SMILEY: Join us tomorrow for part two of our conversation with Rabbi Allen Freehling and Bishop Noel Jones, where we'll further discuss the social implications of Mel Gibson's film and the history behind it.
Coming up on this program, we'll kick off Women's History Month with a woman who's charted territory in the world of banking. And my man George Johnson has our weekly roundup of sports.
It's 29 minutes past the hour.
Copyright ©2003 National Public Radio®. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to National Public Radio. This transcript may not be reproduced in whole or in part without prior written permission. For further information, please contact NPR's Permissions Coordinator at (202) 513-2000.
This transcript was created by a contractor for NPR, and NPR has not verified its accuracy. For all NPR programs, the broadcast audio should be considered the authoritative
version.
|
