![]() |
![]() ![]() |
||||||
![]() |
OF PASSION AND BELIEFRead the review ...Eddie Tamir has to finish the interview by six because its Friday. At sunset he will need to be home from work for the Sabbath. He is a prize-winning film-maker: one of his films, Lilliput Café won a Protestant film award in the Oberhausen Short Film Festival, and this year his latest, Father, will be shown at the St Kilda Film Festival. He is also the owner of two small suburban cinemas. One is the Classic, in Elsternwick, the other the Cameo in Belgrave which he bought recently, and refurbished. He picked out the most controversial film of the year for the Cameos gala opening. The film was Mel Gibsons The Passion of the Christ. It has been doing, he says, back-to-back box office. I ask what that means and he tells me that its when someone goes to see a film, comes out when its over, goes straight back to the box office to buy another ticket and goes back in to see it all over again. That is one extreme of the range of views that Gibsons film has engendered. The other reaction is of antipathy, ranging from aesthetic judgements (really bad film-making, tedious and boring) or moral/theological ones (it is inaccurate, dangerous and even anti-Semitic). Before seeing the movie, I tell him, I wondered how on earth anyone could blame Jewish people for the death of Jesus: its like blaming Danes for the death of Hamlet. Then when I saw it, I realised that the depiction of Jews might, despite Gibsons small attempts at balance, still be offensive and dangerous. Why show it then? The Jewish response has a whole other level. I think, Tamir says, that the question of the piece of art versus the actual artista lot of Jewish commentary has enmeshed that. We talk for a while about the fact of Gibsons father being a Holocaust denier; I worry because it seems to me that Gibson has, in interviews, publicly affirmed his rejection of that position, but doesnt want to go to the extent of saying that his aged father is either deluded or intentionally in grave error. But it goes deeper: Tamir has seen and heard comments after the movie that concern him. Someone said, "the Jews didnt actually kill him but they made it happen". He fears that some people believe, as Gibsons father is said to, the evil and ludicrous conspiracy theory of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Even if ordinary people around the world dont know of the theory, says Tamir, the stereotype is perpetuated in the film, of elite Jewish figures cynically manipulating a nations titular powersthat Jews are this all-powerful, dark force behind the scenes. He laughs and says, Anyone who really knew Jews would know that we cant agree on what to eat for lunch! I reflect on the films stark array of Jewish high priests near the beginning, plotting, all decked out in costumes that recall some of the ceremonial clothing of rabbis today; it must be very distasteful for Jewish people to watch that. And Pontius Pilate, he is painted as a complex character: he was a brute, so brutal that five years later even Rome got rid of him! Tamir feels that the depiction of Caiaphas and Pilate skews the moral balance as outrageously as though a story of the Holocaust were to downplay the role of Hitler, while raising Pope Pius XIIs role to that of the main evil-doer. Mel Gibsons assertion that anti-Semitism is a sin is nice, Tamir
says but it still concerns him, because he thinks that it is reductive
of Judaism, and sees it as simply part of the Christian world view. Juliette Hughes is a freelance writer. |
||||||
|
|
current issue | about | subscriptions | advertising | previous issues | links Reproduction of material from any Jesuit Publications pages
|
||||||