Delia Views - Mel Gibson's "The Passion" / Part 2

As we continue our dissection of Delia Gallagher's momentous movie discourse, I would like to interject another point that is so visceral one cannot help but gape at the portrait it paints: Delia not keen on "chomping at the bit."

Scholars have argued that this expression - which literally refers to a horse biting and generally fussing to get moving - was originally spelled "champing at the bit" and evolved into its present form. I guess if you're a horse, "chomp, chomp" and "champ, champ" eventually sound the same.

But I digress.

The image of Delia NOT thinking of "chomping at the bit" presents new clues as to her psyche while she was being ushered into that dark movie theatre sans popcorn, diet coke, Goobers, or Raisinets. It's a powerful image that evokes equally powerful emotions from present and future Delian Scholars alike.

Date: 2004-02-19
Viewing the Finished "Passion"
Brutal, but Not Gratuitous
By Delia Gallagher ROME, FEB 19, 2004 Zenit.Org

Continued from prior post

The figure of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, brings an emotional gravitas to the terrible violence and was the chief reason, I think, for the tears of those around me. For while it is difficult to completely identify with the suffering of Jesus, it is less of a stretch to understand the overwhelming pain of his Mother, who watches her son from beginning to end being whipped, tortured and nailed to a cross.

One understands why Mary is such a revered figure in Catholicism: not so much for her "fiat" when told she would bear the Son of God -- that was the easy part -- but her "fiat" in witnessing his suffering and crucifixion.

Any mother, indeed anyone who has ever loved, will know the wild pain of watching as a loved one suffers, unable to do anything, and the willingness to be put in his place, if only he could be spared.

The actress Maia Morgenstern, who plays Mary, is perfectly cast. She is not a delicate, innocent beauty, but an earthy and strong woman.

In one of the most poignant scenes of the film, after Jesus is scourged by the Romans, and the crowds disperse, Mary is seen alone with Mary Magdalene (played by Italian beauty Monica Bellucci), wiping up the blood-splattered pavement with white cloths.

It is a futile act; so strange in the context, yet that is exactly what a mother does: cleans up the mess in the midst of her despair. Theologians will also note here Mary's appreciation for Jesus' precious blood, but the purely human element is striking in its own right.

As to the accusations about the film's alleged anti-Semitism, I side with those who say that perhaps Jews and Christians will view this movie through different lenses. I, for one, did not notice any overtly anti-Jewish exaggeration of the original Gospel sources.

That the Gospels themselves may contain anti-Jewish elements is a debate that must be argued with the historical-religious context in mind and only the beginning of a longer debate about Christians' contribution to the history of anti-Semitism.

That Jews may fear a reprisal of anti-Semitic sentiment because of the film, is a concern that should be taken seriously. My guess, though, is that those fears will prove to be unfounded.

I have seen a checklist of "motifs-to-look-out-for" compiled by two Jewish professors from a U.S. university and circulated widely in anticipation of the movie, based on earlier script versions they had read. The checklist asks, for instance, if the Jewish men in the movie are portrayed as being scruffy, while the Romans are clean-shaven. I found myself answering "no" to this and most of the "possible motifs."

Another question of the checklist is: "Is it fair to say that the film is so violent in expressing Jesus' torture that the theater audience will be likely to feel outrage at those who perpetrated such a horrendous crime?"

Well, I can only respond for the 12 people in the theater audience who saw the film with me (three of whom were not Christian): One is so spent by the end, that the reaction, far from outrage, is total silence.

It is a violence that moves one to tears, not anger; and invites one to reflect not on the Jews, but on Jesus.

The second part of Delia's thesis is remarkable in its shift from violence justification to her tender, very emotional rendition of the Blessed Lady's part in this whole drama. Artists and philosophers, poets and dreamers, Saints and siners - all throughout history, have regarded the Passion of Jesus as inextricably joined with that of His Mother's, so magnificently manifested in the Pieta -mathematical disproportions aside - a marble statue that bleeds of love. I still wonder, up to now, who hurt more that Good Friday: Jesus who died sheding His Life and Blood, or Mary who died a thousand deaths watching.

It may be assumed that Delia also thought that the actress who played Mary Magdalene was HOT. (Well, maybe Delia doesn't, really, but I do, especially as Persephone in Matrix Reloaded.)

Delia's last postulate is the issue of Semitism. As this juncture, I will just say what I (and Carrie Bradsaw) always said about race and discrimination: unless you have walked in a person's shoes, don't pretend you know the difference between a Manolo Blahnik or a Jimmy Choo. I am not Jewish and I surmise that neither is Delia - which renders us un-equipped to empathize fully.

The pre-release polemics that Delia referred to could have been the result not of the film per se - non-gratuitous violence aside - but from the director's own source material: a book based on the memoirs of an 18th century German mystic, Venerable Catherine Emmerich, which was littered with anti-Jewish sentiments like the following:

The soul of the old Jewess Meyr told me on the way that it was true that in former times the Jews, both in our country and elsewhere, had strangled many Christians, principally children, and used their blood for all sort of superstitious and diabolical practices. She had once believed it lawful; but she now knew that it was abominable murder. They still follow such practices in this country and in others more distant; but very secretly, because they are obliged to have commercial intercourse with Christians

Delia Gallagher and her fellow movie goers - all 12 of them - were so spent at the end of the movie that they were reduced to silence or even tears, probably because of its highly charged, emotional, nature.

Or probably from lack of Goobers and Raisinets.