Educational Media Reviews Online

The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism hosted a panel discussion on Mel Gibson’s somewhat controversial film, The Passion of the Christ, in 2014, which is provided here in videotaped form. Fr. Michael McGarry, head of the Tantur Ecumenical Institute in Jerusalem, now head of the Paulist Fathers in New York, presents the Christian perspective with a heavy Catholic influence. Presenting the Jewish perspective is David Safran, Professor of Comparative Religion at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. After their presentations, a question and answer period follows, rounding out the panel discussion.

To its credit, the panel discussion engages many difficult issues around Christian anti-Semitism and Jewish mistrust of cinematic portrayals of early Christianity. Fr. McGarry rightfully points out that if one goes to see The Passion of the Christ looking for anti-Semitism, one will inevitably find it there. In his presentation, McGarry addresses cultural prejudices such as Jews as Christ-killers, medieval Catholicism’s focus on the blood and gore of the Passion and the distinction between the New Testament’s anti-Judaism as polemic and our modern understanding of anti-Semitism, two very different concepts. He concludes with a quote from the late Fr. Andrew Greeley: “…If you want to fight anti-Semitism, then contribute to Catholic schools,” a sort of commercial plug that seems more than a bit out of place in this forum.

Professor Safran challenges the notion that Jews somehow are barred from criticizing this film, as if to do so is to offer a wholesale criticism of Christianity itself. Safran rightly points out the The Passion is director Mel Gibson’s own personal statement of faith and does not really provide a responsible understanding of Catholic Church doctrine or of the faith of early Christianity since in many ways it departs from the depiction of the Passion offered in the gospel accounts. Given the graphic and unrelenting violence as well as the historical inaccuracies, he concludes that this is at best a cinematic recreation of crucifixion, which has neither historical nor cultural legitimacy.

With those comments in mind, the drawbacks to this video are significant. Both presenters openly admit that they are making their comments in light of not having viewed the film. Furthermore, most (although not all) in the primarily Jewish audience, which are given an hour of question and answer with the presenters, also admit that they have not seen the film. McGarry concedes that he does not in general like cinematic depictions of Jesus and has viewed very few of them. Safran admits that his comments are in response to the responses to the film, which began in earnest long before the release of the film, rather than to the film itself. For some, these admissions potentially lessen the impact of their evaluations.

Moreover, as with most films published by the Sassoon Center, this is a poorly produced video. It’s a single camera view from the back of a lecture hall. Thus, the visuals are grainy and often, the back of someone’s head is seen crossing in front of the camera. The sound is as basic as the equipment meaning it picks up the speaker as well as any murmuring from the audience and even muffled conversations in outside hallways. And while continuing to film the question and answer period might offer new insights, for this film they did not and ultimately, only added to the length of the film.

It’s an interesting topic that is weakened for all the reasons above and is recommended only where interest warrants.