Movie not to blame or anti-Semitism

Published 9:00 pm Saturday, March 6, 2004

Bill O’Reilly’s recent column about “The Passion” was fair and balanced, but he speaks of Mel Gibson as a business acquaintance, and ignores the fact that Gibson is a handsome, dynamic, sexy actor who has had a large fan base for more than 20 years. For most of us, this plays a part in our assessment of his work. The fact is that critics critique current movies, as does the public – Gibson doesn’t get a free pass just because his movie is religious. If his movie is well-made, his reputation isn’t going to suffer because the movie is controversial. In fact, the attention will probably increase his profits, and the academy will certainly want to consider it at award time. We are, after all, talking about a movie.

My sense is that for most Christian Americans, the movie will provide a profound religious experience. Gibson said his own suffering at one time was so great that he could identify yet more closely with Jesus, and that’s why he made the movie. The actor he chose to play the lead role even looks like him. Though American Christian feelings toward American Jews will most likely remain unchanged after seeing the movie, in Arab nations, and in Europe the effect will probably be different. The English have become so depraved in their anti-Semitism that they’ve chosen a cartoon depicting Sharon eating a bloody baby as the cartoon of the year, and in France anti-Semitism is so prevalent that many French Jews are thinking of leaving the land of their birth. The movie will probably contribute to those negative feelings, but neither Gibson nor his movie is responsible for the way the world is.

Granite Falls