The Passion is still with us

This is an interesting story, given the sensitivity in the American mainstream media to concerns about anti-Semitism in general and to complaints that things are “run by Jews” in particular: Will Oscar Listen? The article, on the Academy Awards, is quite forthright on the point that Hollywood’s “Jewish roots” are the reason The Passion of the Christ won’t get nominated for Best Picture. Some quotes:

  • “‘A lot of older Academy voters, who are largely Jewish, refuse to even see this movie,’ says one Oscar-campaign vet. ‘There’s a level of animosity toward this film that is very real.'”
  • “‘I’ll tell you why ‘The Passion’ won’t be nominated [for an Oscar],’ snaps one industry executive. ‘Happily, there are too many people in the Academy who believe the Holocaust actually happened.'”

It seems to me that what the story shows isn’t a decline in concern about anti-Semitism, or a new maturity that makes it possible to discuss religion and ethnicity in a more direct way. What it shows is a sense among the well-placed secular liberals for whom Newsweek speaks that there’s something about serious religion in general and serious Catholicism in particular that deserves suppression.

The key point is that you’re allowed to talk about “the Jews in Hollywood” if they’ve done something good but not if they’ve done something bad. If you say Jewish influence explains the industry’s concern with civil rights, that’s OK, because it’s good. On the other hand, if you say it explains movie stereotypes about other minorities, that’s not OK, because it’s bad.

What the article shows, then, is that saying Jewish influence is shutting out The Passion is in the former category. That movie, and traditional Catholicism, are weird, they’re a threat, and if someone says they belong with the Holocaust there must be something to it. Those who object can be shrugged off as “born-agains … screaming [about] Sodom and Gomorrah.” So since pushing The Passion and everything associated with out out of public life is a good thing, what’s the problem with saying Jews are involved? The bottom line is the obvious: it’s not just secular Jews or Hollywood who wanted to scuttle The Passion, for their own particular reasons. It’s the whole of our dominant classes, because serious popular religion strikes at the heart of their position and their understanding of things.

12 thoughts on “The Passion is still with us”

  1. F.I.R.M.–Film Industry Reform Movement
    John W. Cones : Patterns of Bias in Motion Picture Content: Religious Bias

    from: F.I.R.M.—Film Industry Reform Movement

    The major premise is th at , much as Goldberg said of the news business, films reflect the interests of those who make them or are filtered through a particular bias. The majority of films are produced by liberal, not very religious Jews of middle European ancestry. “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” is an example of that bias. No Hollywood major would touch it. Jews and Greeks have issues (unknown to me until reading about the struggle to produce one of the biggest box office successes in recent years).

    The answer, of course, are more Mel Gibsons, more Christians and more people of other faiths producing movies.

  2. The Passion
    I can think of another reason in addition to the Jewish roots of the film industry, namely that the Passion was a gratuitous, sanguine, decontextualized piece of rubbish that played out more like a s&m video than something which in any way exemplified the ministry of Christ.

    All the same, I do think there is some merit to the argument being made here, simply because over-the-top violence has not proven to be an impediment for so many other films in garnering nominations. But it’s one thing to allege that Hollywood has a Jewish cultural bias, and quite another to allege that the Holocaust never happened. The former is simply something that any detached observer will come to recognise after sufficient analysis, the latter is the most vile sort of calumny against a people (i.e that their collective testimony accounts for nothing) and betrays a singularly perverse and reptilian mind devoid of any elevated qualities (mercy, compassion etc) whatsoever.

    Simply put, no thinking conservative will allege any such thing, only those of the tendentious anti-Semitic bent will, and they are no true conservatives.

    • Michael, what’s Holocaust denial got to do with “The Passion”?
      I watched The Passion about a month ago for the first time (video rental) and agree totally with those who detected no anti-Semitism in it—certainly I saw none whatsoever though I scrutinized every minute, nay every second of the film (except for part of the overly long scourging passage which I and my wife fast-forwarded through) looking in vain for evidence of it. It is baffling how the ADL and other Jewish groups, and some individual Jewish pundits such as Charles Krauthammer, could see that in it.

      On the other hand, I also agree with those who felt it was not a good film artistically, apart from any question of anti-Semitism. (Incidentally, other “conservative” films which I didn’t like artistically or thematically or both include The Gladiator, Braveheart, The Patriot—only saw fragments, and disliked them —, Master and Commander, and Gods and Generals.)

      As regards commenter Michael’s mention of Holocaust denial, to whom does he refer? I’ve not seen where Mel Gibson has denied the Holocaust, if Michael’s implying he has.


      “If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.

      • Clarification for Fred
        The comment I was reffering to in the article was:

        “‘I’ll tell you why ‘The Passion’ won’t be nominated [for an Oscar],’ snaps one industry executive. ‘Happily, there are too many people in the Academy who believe the Holocaust actually happened.'”

        But looking back on it, I think that I may have misread it. Sorry for the confusion.

  3. The Holocaust-Passion relationship
    Because Jews suffered the Holocaust, they (and the State of Israel) must be compensated for this by practically everyone. Since this argument is merely emotional it could be very much affected by negative propaganda, and The Passion of Christ, independently on the personal opinions about its artistic quality, presents a negative view of the Jews. The fact that this view corresponds strictly to the one that is shown in the Bible does not have anything to do. It is not the Jews that misbehave at that time, but the Bible who misrepresent them and must be eliminated. The film is negative propaganda against one of the main powers of the present times and must be eliminated (now the film, the Bible as soon as possible).
    Think of the immense benefit the Jews and the State of Israel are getting from the continuous remembrance of the Holocaust: cash from Germany has been the basic financial resource of the State for ages, with the excuse of the Holocaust the State of Israel has been able to corrupt any law or agreement and has carried out kidnappings, assassinations, in other countries and in Palestine. Also individual Jews (often called intellectuals) are using the Holocaust as an alibi to impose their views: whoever does not agree with them, on any subject, is automatically suspect of being an accomplice of Hitler. The Holocaust is, one way or another, the final argument that allows the Jews and the State of Israel to do whatever they want, be it or not legal or even decent. Such a capital deserves protection, don’t you think so?

  4. The Passion
    I am curious as to why Michael brings up holocaust denial when addressing the movie “The Passion of the Christ.” Gibson focused on the brutal and violent nature of Christ’s sacrifice in a way that today’s de-sensitized audiences might appreciate. He also departed from scriptural accounts in several instances. Despite these flaws and the narrowness of focus, I found it a compelling statement overall. Violence is part of real life – look at all of the beheading videos posted on the net these days. We have to face this dark side of our nature whether we like it or not.

    As to the ruthless smears directed at Gibson from leftist Jews, I can only say that it reveals more about them – and their fundamental hatred of Christians and Christianity itself – than the film. If anything, the overall impression I got from the film was one of sympathy for the average Jews who had to endure such gratuitous abuse at the hands of the Romans with no help from their Quisling “leaders.”

    No honest person can deny what the National Socialists did in Germany and in the areas they occupied from 1933-1945, Michael. That’s not a serious issue. Those that deny this genocide are like the flat earth society. No one takes them seriously. They are laughable. In contrast, a denial that stands to this day is the one that utterly ignores the 120 million victims of Marxism.

    Why is it that Hitler is somehow worse than Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and a host of other Marxist luminaries? The New York Times went to great lengths to defend the ridiculous Pulitzer Prize of Walter Duranty last year despite the fact that he fabricated stories and lied about the slaughter of 8 million men, women, and children in the Ukraine – at the hand of Lazare Kaganovich under orders from Stalin. What do you think the reason for that is, Michael? The New York Times has a lot more influence and credibility (undeserved as it is) than a few tinfoil-hat types who deny the evil of Auschwitz and Dachau.

    • Gibson denied the “uniqueness” of the Holocaust
      By referring to non-Jews who were slaughtered before and during WWII , Gibson denied the “uniqueness” of the Holocaust. The fear was (and is) that could lead to discussion of the Holodomor, Lazar Kaganovich, Minei Gubel’man’s League of Militant Atheists, Willi Munzenberg, Zinoviev’s pledge in 1919 that ten percent of the Russian people would have to be liquidated, the activities of Trotsky during War Communism and other crimes and individuals the liberal elites are determined to bury.

      No accident that the last and one of the few major film on the Bolshevik Revolution—“Reds” (1981) starring Warren Beatty—was based on native born American John Reed ..

  5. facts about the psssion of christ
    fact number one:gibson is NO a catholic,he is a member from a sedevacantisti traditionalist catholic church,an entirely different religious group,with tenets very differents to catholic church. fact number two:denial from holocaust comes from parents from mel gibson,no from himselfand the original source is jewish defense league!,please if you feel this film is antisemite try to communicate with zionist jewish actress maia morgenstern-she plays mary,mother from our Lord in the movie- and ask about her opinion about it,rabbi daniel lapin,jewish zionist ilana mercer,israeli journalist israel shamir who promotes these movie can be very interested in hear about your arguments against it. fact number three: if you are thinking this movie is wrong or faulty in their way to communicate gospel,writes to thousands of muslims touched and moved by these film,by example that ayatollah in kuwait teaching that muslims wanting to learn about christian doctrines,must to see this work;and in same way atheists communists leaders from a certain regime in latin america,totally impressed by the movie,can be happy to share their and your opinions about it.

    • Mel Gibson and the Church
      If Mel Gibson belongs to a group “with tenets very differents to catholic church,” then that proves that what is passed off as the “Catholic Church” isn’t the Catholic Church, because Catholic teachings can’t change. Gibson believes what every Catholic before Vatican II believed. Since this is so, and since Catholic teachings can’t claim to be true AND changing, then what gives?

      (My answer: the Catholic Church IS the true Church, Her teachings don’t change, etc., but you have to look harder to find that Church lately. You’ll find it mostly at S.S.P.X. chapels and such. Look for the “traditional” label!)

      • Is there any hard info on Gibson and the Church?
        If there is, references, especially web links, would help. Back when there was the fuss about The Passion I looked and couldn’t find anything solid about his affiliations. People were asking and no one seemed to know.

        Rem tene, verba sequentur.

        • Mel Gibson is a traditional C
          Mel Gibson is a traditional Catholic who, at least during the filming of “The Passion of the Christ,” worshipped at traditional Masses offered by Fr. Somerville, who is associated with the Society of St. Pius X (the “S.S.P.X.”), a priestly fraternity dedicated to preserving the Catholic Faith and Sacraments even if they have to be disobedient to do so.

          Fr. Somerville had been a member of the I.C.E.L., the committe that translated the Novus Ordo Missae from Latin into English for use in English-speaking countries. He’s repented of that work, gotten into trouble with his superiors, and is now associated with the S.S.P.X. (Good move, Father!)


Leave a Comment