Whose Passion? Media, Faith & Controversy video (concluded)

Thanks to David Mackinder for this one:

Whose Passion? Media, Faith & Controversy
Wednesday, March 3, 2004
5:00 pm
Taper Hall Room 101

Join Diane Winston, USC Annenberg’s Knight Chair in Media and Religion for a provocative discussion with a panel of experts to discuss Mel Gibson’s new film, The Passion of the Christ. Joining Prof. Winston for the discussion is Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times film critic and USC Annenberg adjunct professor; Benedict Fitzgerald, co-screenwriter of The Passion of the Christ, Richard Fox, USC history professor and author of Jesus in America: Personal Savior, Cultural Hero, National Obsession, Barbara Nicolosi, executive director of Act One, Inc., and William Fulco, NEH Chair in Ancient Mediterranean Studies at Loyola Marymount University who served as the on-set filming consultant for the film . . . . . .

Watch the video

It's over an hour long and is fascinating viewing. The first main speaker is Benedict Fitzgerald, co-screen-writer who uses up most of his time reading out a review and does not use his time as well as one might have hoped. Next up is Richard Wightman Fox, author of Jesus in America, who makes lots of interesting points, e.g. he notes that the mirror of the anti-Semitism debate happened with Cecil B. de Mille's The King of Kings. That would certainly be something worth hearing more about. He talks a little about the fact that American evangelicals have, on the whole, loved this very Catholic film and speculates on the reasons. One of the reasons he offers is that the film gives evangelicals the opportunity to lay to rest once for all the memory of The Last Temptation of Christ and, to a lesser extent, Jesus Christ Superstar. In The Passion of the Christ there is no sexual fantasy about Mary Magdalene and no close friendship with Judas. A very interesting point.

The next contributor is Barbara Nicolosi who is also well worth hearing. She relates a story about a viewing she attended with Mel Gibson and some Church leaders. Afterwards one evangelical pastor pressed Gibson on the scene of Satan with the ugly baby. Where was this in the Bible? he wanted to know. Gibson replies that it's in there somewhere. Pressed further on what it's doing in the film, Gibson replies that he "Thought it was really creepy". Still dissatisfied, the pastor presses Gibson further: What was the source of this incident? Gibson replies, "I guess I just pulled it out of my ass". Nicolosi uses this to reflect on the way that an artist works. This is art, not documentary, and the interpretation of the events is indistinguishable from the narration of those events. (I am paraphrasing, of course, and not transcribing.)

William J. Fulco, S. J. is up next and his contribution is really engaging -- it's the first time I have seen him in action. Would that we could hear more of his defence of the film against its critics. He says that he is taken aback by many of the reviews of the film, especially those from the New York Times and the LA Times, which seem to miss the spiritual dimension to the film. He says that he has seen the film forty times because of having to watch the languages through the editing process and he reveals that he has cried every one of those forty times. He reflects on the way that people react to this film -- they seem either to love it or hate it. He thinks that this is because it is so "in your face". It is difficult to be neutral about it. He also relays an interesting story about his pushing Mel Gibson concerning the resurrection. He suggests to Gibson that the ending is problematic -- they need more depiction of the resurrection. At first Gibson is interested and wants to talk about it some more. The next time he sees him, he asks what they are going to do about the problem with the ending, but Gibson replies "What problem?" and Fulco realises that he is just the translator.

Kenneth Turan from the LA Times is the final speaker before the questions and offers a profound contrast to the others. He actually comes across very Eeyore. He does not want to be there, he repeats over and over again that he found the film and the controversy surrounding it really depressing and he talks about the hate mail that he has received. He says that he has never seen a reaction like this to any other film since he has begun reviewing and he finds it very depressing.

In the Question and Answer session (starts about 52 minutes in), a questioner brings up the question of Catherine Emmerich's contribution to the screenplay, so frequently discussed in the pre-publicity and publicity surrounding the film. Fulco and Fitzgerald both answer. Fulco says that Gibson "was not influenced by her ideology or anti-Semitism" but was looking for ideas. If one used soley the Biblical text, one would have a five-minute movie. He agrees that Emmerich has anti-Semitic stuff, he describes it as "God awful", says that it has nothing to do with the movie and describes it as a "canard" to bring in her position. Fitzgerald (who spent two years writing the script with Gibson) then comes in with the striking claim that "She had practically no influence whatsoever on any of this." He says that "She was, in some respects, the supplier of a couple of ideas, but these were not anti-Semitic ideas; they were ideas about how to treat Claudia Proclea (sic), who was the wife of Pilate." He adds that there are other texts about this character too. (I must admit that I am ignorant of these. Note: the Beliefnet breakdown also references Mary of Agreda's "City of God".)

At the same point, Richard Wightman Fox draws an interesting contrast between the way that Gibson portrays the scourging and the way that it was done in From the Manger to the Cross (1912), in which the viewer's attention is directed to the Roman soldier doing the scourging who is eventually too tired himself to go on. Fox feels that there are artistic ways of showing the scourging without turning it on the viewer to hurt the viewer.

There is another question about Gibson's father, his attitude to Vatican II and so on, and it is acknowledged by Fulco and Fitzgerald that Gibson's father has crazy views.

On the discussion of anti-Semitism, Barbara Nicolosi submits that The Last Temptation of Christ is more anti-Semitic than this film, but Richard Fox counters by saying that Scorsese set the standard for how to depict Caiaphas responsibly -- he dug deep to make sure that he did not use any non-Biblical racial stereotype.