CHRIST ON A BIKE
=

In 1965, a bunch of Catholic big cheeses at the Second Vatican
Council in Rome sat down around a table, after a pot of coffee
and some custard creams, and took it upon themselves to decide
that Jews couldn't and shouldn't be held culpable for the death
of Jesus Christ. Very nice. A good day's work. Must be about
teatime now. Perfezione with a smidge of dolcelatte? Shall we?

Scoot forward forty years and it appears the leading lights in
anti-anti-Semitism are using this biscuit-fuelled meeting of
minds at the Vatican as carte blanche for censorship.

Movie star, Catholic traditionalist and cigar-chomping God-
botherer Mel Gibson is in the middle of melding the two great
loves of his life - the pursuit of godliness and the pursuit of
fame - to create 'The Passion', his big-screen interpretation of
the last days of Christ’s life.

Usually this sort of proposal would be met with a low groan of
'Jesus Christ, not another cheesy film about Jesus Christ', and
Gibson’s efforts would be sucked into straight-to-video limbo
before being granted a heavenly reprieve on the Hallmark channel.

But no. The anti-anti-Semites really don't like it, and Twentieth
Century Fox have refused to distribute it. In fact, after all the
fuss last month, the film is still without a distributor. What
has happened here? Has the film effectively been censored?

"The film unambiguously portrays Jewish authorities and the
Jewish mob as the ones responsible for the decision to crucify
Jesus," says Abraham H Foxman, the national director of the Anti-
Defamation League (ADL). Foxman and ADL’s director of inter-faith
affairs, Rabbi Eugene Korn, saw the as-yet-unreleased film at a
private screening at the Museum of Fine Arts in Texas back in
August. And after munching his popcorn and sucking loudly on his
supersize Fanta to get the last bit out, Rabbi Korn said: "Jews
are uniformly characterised as negative, and the Jewish mob is
depicted as forcing the decision onto Pontius Pilate, when in
reality it was Pilate’s decision alone. There are gross
historical inaccuracies, and there is massive and gratuitous
violence."

But hang on a minute.

Gross historical inaccuracies? Gibson is making a film, not
writing a bible. He could give Jesus a speech impediment and an
allergy to grilled lamb if it fitted in with his artistic vision.
Which doesn't mean to say that Jesus *actually did* break out in
a rash whenever he had a kebab. And anyway, these events took
place (assuming they *did* take place) some 2,000 years ago: no-
one who witnessed them is likely to be alive now, except maybe
Bill Deedes, and he probably wasn't more than five or six at the
time. What exactly is Rabbi Korn's touchstone when determining
historical inaccuracies in the story of the crucifixion of
Christ? The New Testament?

And what about the charge of gratuitous violence? The bible isn't
exactly known for its Janet and John picture book prettiness. It
contains about as many stories of gruesome gore and violent
destruction as you can plaster onto those wafty thin pages
without them turning into a blood-soaked mush.

And what on earth does all this talk of 'Jews' and 'the Jewish
mob' mean? Practically *everyone* involved in the story who
wasn't Roman was Jewish. Jesus was Jewish. His mum was Jewish.
His friends were Jewish. His followers were Jewish. He ate Jewish
bread and drank Jewish wine. The first Christians (before it was
meaningful to use such a term) were Jewish. You can't use the
word "Jew" in its 21st Century sense when talking about the life
and crucifixion of Jesus. You might as well say: the human
authorities and the human mob.

And the fact that Jesus, 2000 years ago, took a stance against
the Judaism of his day does not mean that his life story is a
critique of modern Judaism. If it is, then what about the
portrayal of the Egyptians in the DreamWorks cartoon feature,
'Prince of Egypt'? Oh no, hang on - they're Arabs, so that's
okay.

You can't have it both ways.

Likewise, Jack Valenti, outgoing head of the AAMAS (Hollywood's
Washington lobbying group) said after watching the movie: "I did
not see any anti-Semitism in it. The villains are the Roman
soldiers." Does this mean that the Italian Military Deformation
League should make a complaint?

And anyway, to concentrate the argument on whether Jews or the
Romans were responsible for Christ's death, and whether Gibson's
finger-pointing is right or wrong, is to deflect attention from
the major issue at the heart of this debate. Regardless of
whether Jews had anything to do with getting Christ strung up or
whether, as the Catholic council said, Jews weren't responsible,
getting in a religious huff should not be used to excuse
censorship.

Foxman's opinion of Gibson's film prompted him to say, "We hope
that Mr Gibson and Icon Productions will consider modifying The
Passion so that the film will be one that is historically
accurate, theologically sound and free of any anti-Semitic
message." This is basically Foxman saying: "I saw the film and
it's not what we say happened. Change it."

But how can you change it to suit everybody? Have Christ turn
round during a sermon in the run up to Easter and say: "Y’know,
folks, what I’d really like now is to be nailed to a cross and
hoisted on high for all to see. And if you could arrange it so
that I get to carry my own massively heavy wooden cross up to
Calvary - I do love that spot, such a good view - that would be
awfully nice."? Bingo - no one's to blame! The story's shit
though. Shall we bother making a film? Nah.

You've taken a dodgy turn if you're gong to prevent someone from
expressing their beliefs, expressing their interpretation of a
religious event of great importance to them, just because you
don't like it. If you're going to go down this route, then you
might as well chuck the New Testament on the fire - because
that's just one more human interpretation of events (in which,
like it or not, the Pharisees take a knock or two).

Portraying the Jewish authorities of 2000 years ago as being
instrumental in the death of Jesus is not, in and of itself,
defamatory. If the film *caricatures* Jews, then that's a totally
different matter, because a caricature is ahistorical, and would
be a slur on Jews living now. This, in fact, is what Rabbi Korn
suggests: "the film relies on sinister medieval stereotypes" -
but Deal W. Hudson, writing in the Spectator claims: "I do not
know anyone who recognises either Korn's or Foxman's description
of the film..." And the editor-in-chief of Daily Variety says:
"Those who know Gibson well describe him as a quirky, tormented
soul with deep Catholic beliefs who is devoid of anti-Semitism.
Upon viewing, his film is also without anti-Semitic overtones."

So where does this leave us? We have a film suppressed by a
powerful illiberal contingent who are screaming "racism!" so
loudly that the distributors won't touch it with a bargepole.
Racism is an evil to be sought out and fought, but if you point
the finger over-zealously and in too many directions then you
just end up doing a sort of maniacal disco routine. The ADL exist
to combat anti-Semitism but if they want to keep the concept of
"defamation" meaningful, then they should pick better targets
than Mel Gibson. After all, he did kill lots of Germans in
'Attack Force Z' - surely that must count for something.

Or were they Japanese?

Japanese / German - all the same really, when you think about it.
Just plain evil. You've seen the films: it must be true.