The whirlwind of controversy and excitement surrounding the record-breaking blockbuster The Passion of the Christ swept onto campus Tuesday as a diverse slice of the Georgetown community shared their reactions to Mel Gibson’s newest film in a panel discussion.
With descriptions ranging from “insulting” and “anti-Semitic” to “inspirational” and “important,” each person in the four-member panel approached the film from a unique perspective.
Members of the panel included Fr. Philip Boroughs, S.J., vice-president for ministry and mission, Jewish chaplain Rabbi Harold White, William Godwin (CAS ‘07), and Dr. Bernard Cook, professor of film.
Cook, who is a scholar of Gibson’s other works, said that the work was unusual for Hollywood but in keeping with the famed director’s fascination with violence and Catholicism. In its style of filmmaking, which he called “penitential witness,” the audience is compelled to suffer as it is faced with graphic violence, unusual shots, subtitles and an extraordinary length.
Cook’s surprise at the style of filmmaking was echoed by Boroughs, who felt put off by the detached and relentless violence against Jesus Christ that he saw in the film. “I was so overwhelmed by the objectification of Jesus that the movie became for me a kind of endurance test,” he said.
Several historical inaccuracies and a story line adopted from an unconventional amalgamation of all four of the Gospels of Jesus’ life and death also concerned him, he said. White also said there were many glaring historical errors in the film, which Gibson promoted as “a historical narrative.”
“There is a lot of liberty taken that I feel is insulting to both the Christian and particularly the Jewish traditions,” he said. He cited scenes in the movie, which, he said, play down the guilt of the Roman soldiers in Christ’s execution and show Jews to be grasping for loose coins and colluding with Satan.
He was particularly angered by a scene in the movie, which is not in the Gospels, he said, that insinuates that God destroyed the ancient Jewish temple in revenge for the crucifixion of Jesus. According to most historical accounts, the Roman army destroyed the temple in A.D. 70, about 40 years after Christ’s crucifixion.
“That film makes you believe that because the Jews were connected with the crucifixion, God punished them by destroying the temple,” he said. “That’s the type of speech that leads to anti-Semitism.”
Reacting against the criticisms of other panel members, however, and echoing the comments of many in the audience, Godwin, who was chosen by Boroughs to represent students, said that he and his peers viewed the film as deeply moving and important.
Regardless of one’s religious preference, he said, the film presents the role model of Jesus Christ to a generation of young people who relate best to what’s on screen.
“I think it brings us closer to God, it gives us a role model, and it gives us a passion in life to effect change,” he said.
The breadth of discussion among the four panelists and audience members reflected a nationwide conversation about the film, according to discussion moderator and panelist Boroughs. “If we can talk about it [the film] in a way that brings us new perspectives, it might well have some worth,” he said.
