This is an excerpt from "Dear Christa" that was written about two and a half years ago. Now that some of the stuff therein is starting to happen, don't say I didn't warn you:
Who's Ballot Would Hilter Cast?
A writer, and (possibly) an angel. I've got a novel coming soon. In the meantime, I like to perform spoken word. Check out the transcripts right here . . .
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
There’s So Much Rain ‘Cause the Angels Are Crying
One Opinion and What Everyone Needs to Know About "The Passion of the Christ"
This week I read an editorial in amNew York by Leonard Pitts regarding “Passion of the Christ,” in which he said, “As someone who’ll never experience anti-Semitism, I don’t know that I have standing to say there’s none in Gibson’s movie. But I didn’t see any.”
Now of course, I would never be closed minded enough to say that an opinion expressed in a free newspaper that’s handed out by homeless people is worth less than anyone else’s, god knows I take great joy in receiving my copy on the way to the 6 train every morning. But speaking as a Jewish person, as someone who has experienced anti-Semitism, I can say that the film is barbarically anti-Semitic. It’s an abomination, a two hour character assassination on an entire people, and dare I say, an insult to the art of cinema.
Another article I read quoted a girl who said, “Anyone who thinks the film blames Jews for Christ’s death hasn’t see it. The Romans kill Christ.” But no one’s disputing who actually cracked the whip and hammered the nails. Perhaps that's the attempt on Gibson’s part to make the film appear balanced, because the Roman solders who are ordered to torture Jesus all look like professional wrestlers who take great pleasure in ripping him to shreds. But the film places the responsibility for what’s happening entirely on the Jews. The Romans don’t even appear until about half an hour into the film, at which point they seem unaware of what’s going on and are unable to understand the significance. However, the Jews are quick to change that. According to Gibson, Pontius Pilot did nothing but try to quell an insurgence. Evil incarnate is represented in the film, not by Satan (who is a character), but by the Jewish High Priest Caiphus. It’s Caiphus who takes Christ to Pilot, unflinching in his insistent demand that he be executed. Caiphus then riles the masses to clamor for Christ’s death. Pilot repeatedly laments the “horrible” situation he finds himself in; he sadly whines to his wife how it’s been his job for 11 years to stop uprisings, now he’s cursed with the situation of having to choose between killing a man who’s committed no crime or risking a revolt. You can practically see the halo around his head.
Pilot gives the order to have Christ beaten and tortured, but only in an attempt to save his life. His hope is that if Jesus visibly maimed badly enough, it will be enough to satisfy the growing hoard of Jewish demonstrators. And indeed, after the solders go to town on him, Pilot displays Jesus to the crowd looking like a piece of lunchmeat, asking, “Is this not enough?” But Caiphus screams, “Crucify him!” which the crowd repeats with a fervor like the chant for “D-Fense” at Knicks game.
Gibson’s Pilot is so desperate to free Christ that he then announces to the crowd that he’s permitted to grant clemency to one criminal a year, and make them chose between Jesus, or the convicted murderer, Babbas. Babbas is brought out in shackles, jerking around and snarling like a feral animal, looking something like what a Jewish werewolf might look like just as the full moon hit the sky. So Pilot says, “Jesus?” He’s not motioning towards him with his head with raised eyebrows, but he might as well be. “Or Babbas?”
Only the most horrifically vindictive monster would not chose Jesus over this villanous savage. Of course, Caiphus cries, “Free Babbas! Free Babbas!” Pilot begrudgingly does, and Babbas hisses and snivels his way out, stopping only to give Jesus a quick smile and nod like the one Azul gave the mariachi in El Mariachi when he realized his enemy’s men were chasing the Mariachi and not him.
Any doubt as to who the film blames for Christ’s death is removed from the words of Jesus himself. Of the Romans, as the cross is being raised, he cries, “Forgive them father, for they know not what they do?” What does he have to say about the Jews? He says to Pilot, “The greater sin is on he who brought me to you,” essentially giving Pilot absolution and rendering the guilty verdict on Caiphus.
When I heard that line, I literally shot straight up from my bed and shouted, “What the FUCK?!” as it was that I was watching the film at home via the bootleg dvd I bought in Chinatown that afternoon. I needed to see it for myself before I could judge it, but I didn’t want to risk supporting Gibson’s propaganda of hatred. After watching it, I was greatly relieved that it was the guy on the Broadway and Canal who sells the burned cds and remix disks who got my five dollars and not Mel getting his cut of a ten dollar ticket. It’s not that Jews are depicted badly in film, it’s that they’re not depicted in any other way. There’s not a single positive Jewish depiction, very little is seen of those who followed and believed in him, except for Mary who spend the entire movie crawling on the floor and crying, and John, who stands by Jesus ‘til the end. Here’s what you need to know about John. It’s been widely reported that all the Jewish characters are ugly men with kinky hair and big noses, and this is true, with a few exceptions. Jim Cavezal, who plays Christ, is a good looking man, I think we all know that by now. Oh yeah, Christ was a Jew, lest we forget. But Gibson is quite particular in separating Christ from his Jewish roots, as he also does with John, who’s played by a handsome actor from Bulgaria, and Mary Magdalene, played by Italian uber-babe Monica Belluci, polarizing them in not only in physical appearance, but apparently in ideology as well. He doesn’t want us to think of them as being Jewish, in fact, we’re not even supposed to know they are. As the Voice reported, only the traitor Judas is crude enough to actually call Jesus, “Rabbi.” Judas by the way, appears to commit suicide, not out of guilt for betraying Christ, but to end the torturous tauntings he bears from the minions of Satan, as if to say not only is he unable to redeem himself, the evil hook-nosed Jew didn’t even want to.
The characters which Gibson distinguishes as Jews are never fully explained. If you want to make the argument that the film is only meant to encapsulate half a day and the rest you’re supposed to know, fine. I don’t think it’s a very valid argument, considering all the flashbacks we see, but let’s move on. The film makes no attempt to explain who the Pharisees are, in fact I can’t remember if the word is even used. Who were the Pharisees? The Pharisees were the Hebrew ruling class, an elitist fundamentalist faction who were corrupted by their own power and would have seen Christ as a threat to their authority. But these socio-political aspects are nowhere to be seen. It’s never explained why they so desperately want Jesus dead, we see nothing but blind, unrelenting hatred, making the Pharisees appear as nothing but wicked sociopaths. What we also don’t see is how they’re not representative of an entire people. A woman I work with had this to say on the subject of Jews killing Christ, “There was definitely a conspiracy, ‘cause THEY didn’t like him.” They? Who is they? Every single Jew didn’t like him? We know that’s not true, even if that’s what people like Gibson want to take from the Gospels. But the actions of a few don’t define a people, such an assumption is the very definition of prejudiced stereotyping. Let’s put this in more modern terms, imagine people talking about “those Americans.” “Oh, those Americans, they’re definitely narrow-minded right-wingers. They wanted to go to war with Iraq, they want to change the constitution to make gay marriage illegal, they want to censor what you hear on the radio and they want to take away freedom of speech.” Does that sound like anyone you know? Get the picture now?
And even still, that’s only if you buy into what’s in the Gospels. One thing I’m getting tired of hearing is the film’s praise from right-wingers that it’s an accurate depiction of the events as they actually occurred. If the film weren’t so hateful, I might be able to laugh at the notion that if I were to somehow go back 2000 years to witness the incident, I don’t think I’d actually see those people there. Let’s just forget for a moment that out of hundreds of gospels that were written, the four that were considered most beneficial to the cause of attracting followers were the ones chosen. I know it’s in the Da Vinci Code, but it’s based on history. But even ignoring that, much of what’s stated in the Gospels is contradicted by actual history. The actual Pontius Pilot was knows to be a harsh prefect who was quick to execute any potential political rebel. The fact that Christ’s arrival in the city stirred up public interest would have been enough to send Pilot’s flags up. The apparent charge from the Pharisees on Christ was blasphemy. Although it’s debatable whether or not claiming to be the Messiah was considered blasphemous at the time, it’s irrelevant since the Pharisees would have only been using it as an excuse to remove the threat to their power. But the punishment for blasphemy was death by stoning, the priests would have condemned Jesus to that rather than hand him to Pilot for crucifixion. Paula Fredriksen, a scholar from Boston University, said, “If Pilate didn’t have an itchy trigger finger, the Crucifixion, which was a specifically political punishment, probably would not have happened.” It's also been documented that Rome executed hundreds of other men who claimed to be the Messiah, so these circumstances were not that uncommon.
What we need to know about Gospels is that they were believed to be written between years 70 and 110, which means they came about after the Jewish revolt against Rome that began in 66 and the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70. With the rise of anti-Jewish sentiment in the wake of the failed rebellion and resulting tightened grip of tyranny from the Roman Empire, the Gospels were the product of an attempt to separate Christianity from Judaism, written at a time when it would have been unwise, even suicidal, to blame Rome for the death of a pious redeemer.
The problem with putting this in the context of a film is that people are quick to believe what they read and what they see. How many people saw "From Hell" and said, “I didn’t know that’s who Jack the Ripper was!” It wasn’t, it was just one of the theories. And now, millions of people have probably exited The Passion of the Christ, saying, “I didn’t know that’s how it happened.” The truth is, it’s not, it’s just one man’s vision, seen 2000 years after the fact. But most people can’t distinguish cinema from reality, and won’t even give the idea that a movie might be historically inaccurate a first consideration.
What is clear, is the genesis of hatred that the film represents. For years, I wondered what the rational behind the notion that the Jews killed Christ was. One month ago, I still had no idea. Well I know now, and you can bet that plenty of people who are not so open-minded know as well. The only thing I might say I can thank Gibson for is opening my eyes. I never knew where this blind, widespread hatred of Jews came from. In Hebrew school, they tell you that Jews weren’t subject to Christian usury laws and thus were the only ones who could make a business of money trading. After being shut out of most industries, many did, leading to the stereotype of the money grubbing Jew. They also say that by becoming the minority, they were used as the scapegoats for any social-economic problem the leaders of varying time and places needed.
But they never told us that the most of the white world is raised with a group of texts that blamed us for the murder of God. That might have been useful to know before I got to college. You really think a white hooded redneck from Bumblefuck Missouri has issues with a money changer from the Renaissance when he yells, “Are you a Jeeeeeeeeeew?” Of course not. But people like Gibson are quick to believe everything that the Gospels tell them, apparently, except for the part that says Christ’s very mission and purpose was to be martyred and he came to this world knowing it would happen. They're also quick to forget about his resurrection, leaving them free to hate and vilify an entire people for the murder of someone who isn’t dead. And now, no one has to read a book, they can see it live on screen and be done with the anti-Semitism program download in two hours time. Another example of more terrifying life through technology, ‘cause at a time when Anti-Semitism is already on the rise, I don’t mind telling you, I’m fucking scared.
Another blatantly hollow sentiment Gibson expels when he goes on these news magazines and talk shows is that he doesn’t think that all Jews today should be blamed for what happened any more than all Germans today should be blamed for what the Nazis did in the Holocaust. That’s very sweet Riggs, but lets talk about how bigotry works. Ignorant hate-mongers (like your dad) don’t make such distinctions based on separate time and places. They identify a type and apply it to all examples that they see. Of the many lines I heard in college, including, “That’s so cheap, it’s so Jewish,” “I know you want to pick up that penny,” “You can’t take 25 cents out at the ATM,” “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the oven,” and “Your grandfather’s a lampshade,” the worst of all was quite possibly, “There was one Jewish kid at my high school and he was an asshole, so I assumed that all Jews were assholes.” What happens when people with the same mindset see Jews that are wicked Christ killers? You don’t have to imagine the answers, you only need to see the history of Passion Plays and the rioting and killing of Jewish people that followed to get your answer. In 1942, the Slovakian papal nuncio was asked to intervene on the behalf of Jewish children who were slated to be sent to concentration camps. He refused, saying, “There is no innocent blood of Jewish children in the world. All Jewish blood is guilty. You have to die. This is the punishment that has been awaiting you because of that sin (of deicide).”
And now the sin of deicide is available for viewing at a theater near you. And Mel Gibson is no doubt very comfortable reaping the box office profits from the upcoming wave of violence and hatred he’s created. Well thank god he didn’t get my ten dollars, in fact he won’t get anything from me ever again. At least the money I would have spent on any future Gibson projects should more than cover the copy of Schindler’s List I’m gonna buy. I’m not suggesting that everyone boycott the man. You do what you want. And if you must see The Passion of the Christ, it’s your right. Just hear me when I say this: please don’t.
One Opinion and What Everyone Needs to Know About "The Passion of the Christ"
This week I read an editorial in amNew York by Leonard Pitts regarding “Passion of the Christ,” in which he said, “As someone who’ll never experience anti-Semitism, I don’t know that I have standing to say there’s none in Gibson’s movie. But I didn’t see any.”
Now of course, I would never be closed minded enough to say that an opinion expressed in a free newspaper that’s handed out by homeless people is worth less than anyone else’s, god knows I take great joy in receiving my copy on the way to the 6 train every morning. But speaking as a Jewish person, as someone who has experienced anti-Semitism, I can say that the film is barbarically anti-Semitic. It’s an abomination, a two hour character assassination on an entire people, and dare I say, an insult to the art of cinema.
Another article I read quoted a girl who said, “Anyone who thinks the film blames Jews for Christ’s death hasn’t see it. The Romans kill Christ.” But no one’s disputing who actually cracked the whip and hammered the nails. Perhaps that's the attempt on Gibson’s part to make the film appear balanced, because the Roman solders who are ordered to torture Jesus all look like professional wrestlers who take great pleasure in ripping him to shreds. But the film places the responsibility for what’s happening entirely on the Jews. The Romans don’t even appear until about half an hour into the film, at which point they seem unaware of what’s going on and are unable to understand the significance. However, the Jews are quick to change that. According to Gibson, Pontius Pilot did nothing but try to quell an insurgence. Evil incarnate is represented in the film, not by Satan (who is a character), but by the Jewish High Priest Caiphus. It’s Caiphus who takes Christ to Pilot, unflinching in his insistent demand that he be executed. Caiphus then riles the masses to clamor for Christ’s death. Pilot repeatedly laments the “horrible” situation he finds himself in; he sadly whines to his wife how it’s been his job for 11 years to stop uprisings, now he’s cursed with the situation of having to choose between killing a man who’s committed no crime or risking a revolt. You can practically see the halo around his head.
Pilot gives the order to have Christ beaten and tortured, but only in an attempt to save his life. His hope is that if Jesus visibly maimed badly enough, it will be enough to satisfy the growing hoard of Jewish demonstrators. And indeed, after the solders go to town on him, Pilot displays Jesus to the crowd looking like a piece of lunchmeat, asking, “Is this not enough?” But Caiphus screams, “Crucify him!” which the crowd repeats with a fervor like the chant for “D-Fense” at Knicks game.
Gibson’s Pilot is so desperate to free Christ that he then announces to the crowd that he’s permitted to grant clemency to one criminal a year, and make them chose between Jesus, or the convicted murderer, Babbas. Babbas is brought out in shackles, jerking around and snarling like a feral animal, looking something like what a Jewish werewolf might look like just as the full moon hit the sky. So Pilot says, “Jesus?” He’s not motioning towards him with his head with raised eyebrows, but he might as well be. “Or Babbas?”
Only the most horrifically vindictive monster would not chose Jesus over this villanous savage. Of course, Caiphus cries, “Free Babbas! Free Babbas!” Pilot begrudgingly does, and Babbas hisses and snivels his way out, stopping only to give Jesus a quick smile and nod like the one Azul gave the mariachi in El Mariachi when he realized his enemy’s men were chasing the Mariachi and not him.
Any doubt as to who the film blames for Christ’s death is removed from the words of Jesus himself. Of the Romans, as the cross is being raised, he cries, “Forgive them father, for they know not what they do?” What does he have to say about the Jews? He says to Pilot, “The greater sin is on he who brought me to you,” essentially giving Pilot absolution and rendering the guilty verdict on Caiphus.
When I heard that line, I literally shot straight up from my bed and shouted, “What the FUCK?!” as it was that I was watching the film at home via the bootleg dvd I bought in Chinatown that afternoon. I needed to see it for myself before I could judge it, but I didn’t want to risk supporting Gibson’s propaganda of hatred. After watching it, I was greatly relieved that it was the guy on the Broadway and Canal who sells the burned cds and remix disks who got my five dollars and not Mel getting his cut of a ten dollar ticket. It’s not that Jews are depicted badly in film, it’s that they’re not depicted in any other way. There’s not a single positive Jewish depiction, very little is seen of those who followed and believed in him, except for Mary who spend the entire movie crawling on the floor and crying, and John, who stands by Jesus ‘til the end. Here’s what you need to know about John. It’s been widely reported that all the Jewish characters are ugly men with kinky hair and big noses, and this is true, with a few exceptions. Jim Cavezal, who plays Christ, is a good looking man, I think we all know that by now. Oh yeah, Christ was a Jew, lest we forget. But Gibson is quite particular in separating Christ from his Jewish roots, as he also does with John, who’s played by a handsome actor from Bulgaria, and Mary Magdalene, played by Italian uber-babe Monica Belluci, polarizing them in not only in physical appearance, but apparently in ideology as well. He doesn’t want us to think of them as being Jewish, in fact, we’re not even supposed to know they are. As the Voice reported, only the traitor Judas is crude enough to actually call Jesus, “Rabbi.” Judas by the way, appears to commit suicide, not out of guilt for betraying Christ, but to end the torturous tauntings he bears from the minions of Satan, as if to say not only is he unable to redeem himself, the evil hook-nosed Jew didn’t even want to.
The characters which Gibson distinguishes as Jews are never fully explained. If you want to make the argument that the film is only meant to encapsulate half a day and the rest you’re supposed to know, fine. I don’t think it’s a very valid argument, considering all the flashbacks we see, but let’s move on. The film makes no attempt to explain who the Pharisees are, in fact I can’t remember if the word is even used. Who were the Pharisees? The Pharisees were the Hebrew ruling class, an elitist fundamentalist faction who were corrupted by their own power and would have seen Christ as a threat to their authority. But these socio-political aspects are nowhere to be seen. It’s never explained why they so desperately want Jesus dead, we see nothing but blind, unrelenting hatred, making the Pharisees appear as nothing but wicked sociopaths. What we also don’t see is how they’re not representative of an entire people. A woman I work with had this to say on the subject of Jews killing Christ, “There was definitely a conspiracy, ‘cause THEY didn’t like him.” They? Who is they? Every single Jew didn’t like him? We know that’s not true, even if that’s what people like Gibson want to take from the Gospels. But the actions of a few don’t define a people, such an assumption is the very definition of prejudiced stereotyping. Let’s put this in more modern terms, imagine people talking about “those Americans.” “Oh, those Americans, they’re definitely narrow-minded right-wingers. They wanted to go to war with Iraq, they want to change the constitution to make gay marriage illegal, they want to censor what you hear on the radio and they want to take away freedom of speech.” Does that sound like anyone you know? Get the picture now?
And even still, that’s only if you buy into what’s in the Gospels. One thing I’m getting tired of hearing is the film’s praise from right-wingers that it’s an accurate depiction of the events as they actually occurred. If the film weren’t so hateful, I might be able to laugh at the notion that if I were to somehow go back 2000 years to witness the incident, I don’t think I’d actually see those people there. Let’s just forget for a moment that out of hundreds of gospels that were written, the four that were considered most beneficial to the cause of attracting followers were the ones chosen. I know it’s in the Da Vinci Code, but it’s based on history. But even ignoring that, much of what’s stated in the Gospels is contradicted by actual history. The actual Pontius Pilot was knows to be a harsh prefect who was quick to execute any potential political rebel. The fact that Christ’s arrival in the city stirred up public interest would have been enough to send Pilot’s flags up. The apparent charge from the Pharisees on Christ was blasphemy. Although it’s debatable whether or not claiming to be the Messiah was considered blasphemous at the time, it’s irrelevant since the Pharisees would have only been using it as an excuse to remove the threat to their power. But the punishment for blasphemy was death by stoning, the priests would have condemned Jesus to that rather than hand him to Pilot for crucifixion. Paula Fredriksen, a scholar from Boston University, said, “If Pilate didn’t have an itchy trigger finger, the Crucifixion, which was a specifically political punishment, probably would not have happened.” It's also been documented that Rome executed hundreds of other men who claimed to be the Messiah, so these circumstances were not that uncommon.
What we need to know about Gospels is that they were believed to be written between years 70 and 110, which means they came about after the Jewish revolt against Rome that began in 66 and the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70. With the rise of anti-Jewish sentiment in the wake of the failed rebellion and resulting tightened grip of tyranny from the Roman Empire, the Gospels were the product of an attempt to separate Christianity from Judaism, written at a time when it would have been unwise, even suicidal, to blame Rome for the death of a pious redeemer.
The problem with putting this in the context of a film is that people are quick to believe what they read and what they see. How many people saw "From Hell" and said, “I didn’t know that’s who Jack the Ripper was!” It wasn’t, it was just one of the theories. And now, millions of people have probably exited The Passion of the Christ, saying, “I didn’t know that’s how it happened.” The truth is, it’s not, it’s just one man’s vision, seen 2000 years after the fact. But most people can’t distinguish cinema from reality, and won’t even give the idea that a movie might be historically inaccurate a first consideration.
What is clear, is the genesis of hatred that the film represents. For years, I wondered what the rational behind the notion that the Jews killed Christ was. One month ago, I still had no idea. Well I know now, and you can bet that plenty of people who are not so open-minded know as well. The only thing I might say I can thank Gibson for is opening my eyes. I never knew where this blind, widespread hatred of Jews came from. In Hebrew school, they tell you that Jews weren’t subject to Christian usury laws and thus were the only ones who could make a business of money trading. After being shut out of most industries, many did, leading to the stereotype of the money grubbing Jew. They also say that by becoming the minority, they were used as the scapegoats for any social-economic problem the leaders of varying time and places needed.
But they never told us that the most of the white world is raised with a group of texts that blamed us for the murder of God. That might have been useful to know before I got to college. You really think a white hooded redneck from Bumblefuck Missouri has issues with a money changer from the Renaissance when he yells, “Are you a Jeeeeeeeeeew?” Of course not. But people like Gibson are quick to believe everything that the Gospels tell them, apparently, except for the part that says Christ’s very mission and purpose was to be martyred and he came to this world knowing it would happen. They're also quick to forget about his resurrection, leaving them free to hate and vilify an entire people for the murder of someone who isn’t dead. And now, no one has to read a book, they can see it live on screen and be done with the anti-Semitism program download in two hours time. Another example of more terrifying life through technology, ‘cause at a time when Anti-Semitism is already on the rise, I don’t mind telling you, I’m fucking scared.
Another blatantly hollow sentiment Gibson expels when he goes on these news magazines and talk shows is that he doesn’t think that all Jews today should be blamed for what happened any more than all Germans today should be blamed for what the Nazis did in the Holocaust. That’s very sweet Riggs, but lets talk about how bigotry works. Ignorant hate-mongers (like your dad) don’t make such distinctions based on separate time and places. They identify a type and apply it to all examples that they see. Of the many lines I heard in college, including, “That’s so cheap, it’s so Jewish,” “I know you want to pick up that penny,” “You can’t take 25 cents out at the ATM,” “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the oven,” and “Your grandfather’s a lampshade,” the worst of all was quite possibly, “There was one Jewish kid at my high school and he was an asshole, so I assumed that all Jews were assholes.” What happens when people with the same mindset see Jews that are wicked Christ killers? You don’t have to imagine the answers, you only need to see the history of Passion Plays and the rioting and killing of Jewish people that followed to get your answer. In 1942, the Slovakian papal nuncio was asked to intervene on the behalf of Jewish children who were slated to be sent to concentration camps. He refused, saying, “There is no innocent blood of Jewish children in the world. All Jewish blood is guilty. You have to die. This is the punishment that has been awaiting you because of that sin (of deicide).”
And now the sin of deicide is available for viewing at a theater near you. And Mel Gibson is no doubt very comfortable reaping the box office profits from the upcoming wave of violence and hatred he’s created. Well thank god he didn’t get my ten dollars, in fact he won’t get anything from me ever again. At least the money I would have spent on any future Gibson projects should more than cover the copy of Schindler’s List I’m gonna buy. I’m not suggesting that everyone boycott the man. You do what you want. And if you must see The Passion of the Christ, it’s your right. Just hear me when I say this: please don’t.