'Worst movie ever,' says Siena professor

Dr. Peter Zaas calls Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" "the worst movie I have ever seen."

Dr. Zaas is a professor of religious studies at Siena College in Loudonville and director of the Hayyim H. Kieval Institute for Jewish-Christian Studies. Jewish himself, he saw the movie as not only anti-Semitic, but also anti-Catholic.

"It's not true to the Gospels or history or Christian theology," he asserted. "It's rampant with anti-Semitic images: mobs of vicious, caricatured Jews clamoring for Jesus' crucifixion; moderate Romans in charge; a complete hash of Jewish legal procedures" in that era.

Hollywood, not history

Regarding Jesus' trial, he said that there are no charges and no witnesses -- "nothing that makes a legal trial" -- and that Caiaphas is portrayed as being in charge, which is historically inaccurate.

However, the professor stressed that "The Passion" is a Hollywood movie, "not a worship experience, not a work of religious devotion."

Although he was disturbed at the portrayal of the Jewish people, he does not believe the film will promote anti-Semitism because he think viewers will focus on the harm being done to Jesus, not on which characters inflicting harm are Jewish.

Violence

Dr. Zaas said the "sensory bombardment" of the film's constant graphic violence makes it hard to evaluate the storyline. He noted that at the screening he attended, many people cried during the first half of Christ's scourging, then went silent for the remainder -- even during the Crucifixion, when the violence escalated further.

"After a while, it began to look very unreal, like [Jesus] was wearing a rubber `wound suit,'" the professor remarked.

Dr. Zaas said he doesn't come from a religious tradition that values suffering as an act of piety, so he was offended by Mr. Gibson's choice to focus so exclusively on Christ's suffering during the Passion.

"For someone to tell his audience that what's important to know about Jesus is the extent He suffered....It would have been a better movie if they covered the Passion in a more historical and biblically true manner," he said. "The interesting features -- the politics, the religious background, Jesus' teachings that led up [to the Passion] -- all of these were missing from the film.

"I don't know that Jesus suffered more on His Cross than other people; I don't know if He suffered more than His Father or His Mother."

Inaccuracies

Dr. Zaas also noted that Christ's sufferings were dwelt upon to the extent of being inaccurate: For instance, Romans crucifying people at that time tried not to let them bleed so they would live to suffer longer, but "The Passion" shows Jesus' blood pouring from His hands and running down the Cross.

"I don't know how much blood Jesus had, but He seemed to have lost a lot of it," Prof. Zaas said wryly. "It was a non-historical portrayal, and it came under the guise of being historical and accurate."

Dr. Zaas admitted that, while he has yet to see a Hollywood movie about Jesus that he likes, he doesn't usually react as negatively as he did to "The Passion." But he saw the extreme violence in the movie as having no purpose, no resolution other than "just this grim Jesus who rises from the dead and goes off to His next adventure.

"I didn't get anything from it except concern that someone was showing me these images on purpose: It was Mel Gibson crucifying Christ."

One aspect of "The Passion" did impress Dr. Zaas: "I was really moved by the relationship between Mary and Jesus."

However, he added that much of the portrayal of women in general was not historically accurate and seemed to have come from the writings of 19-century diarist, Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich.

"It was unrealistic, untrue to the Gospels," he stated, adding: "I don't know what it means that Satan was a woman" in the film.

(3/4/04) [[In-content Ad]]