Actor's film of 'Passion' is others' fury

Mel Gibson battled post-apocalyptic biker gangs in "Mad Max," English oppressors in "Braveheart," and space aliens in "Signs," but now he has stepped into the biggest battle of his career. In just over two weeks, on Ash Wednesday, Gibson's production company will release "The Passion of The Christ," which has, by design or by happenstance, reopened the most painful fault line between Christians and Jews over who is responsible for the death of Jesus, while drawing new attention to a deep division among Christians over how to interpret the Gospels.

The movie, which depicts in bloody detail the last 12 hours of Jesus's life, has enjoyed extraordinary prerelease publicity because of the controversy it has generated. Already, in private screenings, some Christians have been moved to tears by the vivid depiction of Jesus being scourged and crucified.

But the handful of Jewish leaders who have seen early versions have denounced the movie as likely to exacerbate anti-Semitism by portraying Jews as demanding the death of Jesus, and some Catholic and Protestant scholars are also criticizing Gibson's depiction of the Jewish community of which Jesus was part.

"I don't think there are going to be pogroms this Easter, but there is a revival of the culture wars going on in this country, and this has been dragged into it," said Mark Silk, founding director of the Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College in Hartford.

Gibson, who is the movie's director, producer, and cowriter, bankrolled the $25 million film, which stars James Caviezel ("The Thin Red Line") as Jesus, and Italian movie siren Monica Bellucci ("The Matrix Reloaded") as Mary Magdalene. Based on the four Gospels of the New Testament, with material gleaned from the published visions of two 19th-century nuns, "The Passion" is Gibson's attempt to, in his words, "tell the truth about one of the pivotal events in world history."

The Anti-Defamation League has expressed concern that Gibson's movie blames Jews for the death of Jesus by repeatedly showing the Jewish high priest calling for Jesus's death, supported by large crowds of Jews, and by portraying Pontius Pilate as compassionate but Jews as "bloodthirsty and vengeful."

Those depictions run counter to the trend in many contemporary performances of passion plays. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops publishes guidelines for churches performing such plays saying that any crowd scene "should reflect the fact that some in the crowd and among the Jewish leaders supported Jesus and that the rest were manipulated by his opponents." The guidelines also warn against mob scenes, saying that "Jews should not be portrayed as avaricious . . . bloodthirsty . . . or implacable enemies of Christ."

The movie opens Feb. 25 with an unusually wide-release pattern for an R-rated, subtitled film whose dialogue is spoken in two dead languages, Latin and Aramaic. Rather than starting with urban art-house theaters to build word of mouth and then expanding nationally, the distributor of "The Passion," New York-based Newmarket Films, will send it to 2,000 mainstream, multiplex theaters across the country.

Advance sales are brisk, as supporters of Gibson, who has aggressively courted evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics, have begun buying tickets in bulk.

"We are excited about it and will be encouraging our congregation to go see it and take their friends," said Richard Rhodes, pastor of outreach at Grace Chapel, a large evangelical Protestant church in Lexington. "We are looking into renting out a theater for an evening."

The leadership of the Jewish community of Boston is apprehensive about the movie and is seeking support for its concerns from allies among Catholic and Protestant churches.

Leaders of the Jewish Community Relations Council, the Anti-Defamation League, and Combined Jewish Philanthropies recently met with Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley of the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston and expressed their concerns; O'Malley, who has not seen the film, has declined to comment, deferring to an anticipated review from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops' in-house film critics, who have not yet received a copy of the film.

The Massachusetts Council of Churches, an umbrella organization of mainline Protestant and Orthodox churches, plans to discuss concerns about the film at a board meeting Thursday.

The film began generating controversy last March, when The New York Times Magazine ran an article about Gibson and the film that featured an interview with his father, Hutton, a traditionalist Catholic who expressed doubts in the interview about the legitimacy of all popes since the 1950s and about the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust.

The controversy continued when a panel of biblical scholars, including Philip A. Cunningham of Boston College and Paula Fred-riksen of Boston University, criticized a screenplay of the film. Then in November, the New York Post obtained a tape of the film and showed it to a priest, a rabbi, a professor of religion, a film critic, and a woman chosen from among passersby. Only the latter found the portrayal of Jews to be fair.

Gibson has responded to these and other articles by biting back, much as he did when gay activists protested the portrayal of Edward III in the star's 1995 Oscar winner "Braveheart" as homophobic.

A traditionalist Catholic who objects to changes in the Catholic Church since Vatican II, Gibson has screened the film only to sympathetic religious groups and has baited his critics in a way that ratchets up anticipation of the film. "I want his intestines on a stick," Gibson said of the New York Times's Frank Rich, a vocal critic, in a New Yorker profile. "I want to kill his dog."

As the movie's premiere nears, Gibson has become somewhat conciliatory. Last month, in a public exchange of letters with Abraham H. Foxman, the president of the Anti-Defamation League, Gibson said, "You are a man of integrity and a man of faith, and I do not take your concerns lightly." He then agreed to drop from the film a particularly controversial line from the Gospel of Matthew in which a Jewish crowd says, "His blood be on us and on our children," according to a report in The New York Times. Reaction has been mixed. Within the last few days, Shmuley Boteach, a New Jersey rabbi who is also a talk show host, has called for a boycott of the movie, while the Executive Council of Australian Jewry downplayed concerns, declaring, "We think it would be very unlikely that there would be hostility because of one person's artistic rendering of a Bible story."

Gibson scored a publicity boost by showing the film to Pope John Paul II in early December. Gibson's publicist said the pope responded by saying, "It is as it was," suggesting that the pope endorsed the film's depiction of Jesus's suffering and death. But the pope's spokesman later distanced the Vatican from the remark, saying, "It is the Holy Father's custom not to express public judgments on artistic works, judgments which are always open to diverse evaluations of an aesthetic nature."

Several Jewish leaders who have seen the film are deeply concerned, objecting to depictions of multiple Jews calling for Jesus's death.

"At every single opportunity, Gibson's film reinforces the notion that the Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob are the ones ultimately responsible for the crucifixion," the Anti-Defamation League's Foxman said in a statement after sneaking into a screening for evangelical Protestants in Orlando, Fla., by registering as a representative of "The Church of Truth."

But many Christians who have seen the movie report being deeply, spiritually moved. "It was by far the most vivid portrayal of the last 12 hours of Christ's life that I've ever seen," said Stephen A. Macchia, director of the Pierce Center for Disciple-Building at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, who attended a screening. "I think it's going to impact the entire Easter season, because a lot of people will be talking about going as part of their Easter celebration."

Within the film industry, executives are holding their breath. Those who have seen it say it is powerful and violent, but disagree on the extent of its divisiveness. Most will only speak anonymously: Hollywood is a town where few are willing to jeopardize future business relationships.

One industry executive who has seen the film twice said: "Nobody looks good in it. I'm a Catholic, but the Romans don't look good, the Jews don't look good. The flogging scene is enough to make you sick, it's so violent. This is two hours of one man being tortured to death."

Counters another Christian who has seen it: "Himmler could have cast this movie. Everybody looks like they're auditioning for the part of Fagin."

Reached by phone, "The Passion" producer Bruce Davey said it was premature for him to comment on any aspect of the film prior to its release.

Some in Hollywood predict that the controversy may hurt Gibson. Said David Kanter, a manager and producer for the Culver City-based production company and talent agency Anonymous Content, "People feel betrayed, because here's a nice guy who has done the time and worked really hard in the business, creating a statement that many, many people are going to find offensive."

Others in the industry express a grudging admiration for the way Gibson has played the media and turned a vanity project into a must-see movie.

"He's been very shrewd," said a partner at a major Hollywood talent agency. "He has positioned this picture very well politically. For a movie he made for next to nothing -- in Aramaic -- Gibson and his people have done a pretty good job of creating awareness."

Nevertheless, the agent said the reported violence will keep him from watching the film himself. "I just don't want to see that kind of relentlessly brutal movie," he said.

Michael Paulson can be reached at mpaulson@globe.com; Ty Burr can be reached at tburr@globe.com.