 |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
March 21, 2005 
VOL.
43, NO. 6Oakland,
CA
to Gibson’s ‘Passion of the Christ’
When Mel Gibson unveiled his controversial “The
Passion of the Christ” last year, some critics thought parts of
it were too violent, too gory or just downright creepy.
Take the grotesque hairy baby cradled by Gibson’s androgynous Satan
figure during the scourging of Jesus—where is that in the Bible?
Or the maggot-infested donkey skull that confronts Jesus’ betrayer,
Judas Iscariot. What’s up with that?
A young Catholic priest who consulted with Gibson on the film now has
some answers in a new book, “Inside the Passion” (Ascension
Press, $19.95), an authorized behind-the-scenes guide to Gibson’s
theology and artistic choices.
Father John Bartunek, a Cleveland-born priest who is currently studying
in Rome, said every part of the movie was aimed at helping the viewer
grasp the enormity of suffering that Jesus endured in his last hours.
“He wanted to show what it was really like because it (the crucifixion)
had been sugar-coated,” Bartunek said in an interview. “He
did us an incredible favor. ... Twenty centuries later we have forgotten
what it was like.”
Bartunek, 37, literally wandered onto the “Passion” set in
Italy and got to know Gibson. He became one of a half-dozen priests who
worked with Gibson on the film.
Bartunek’s book also sheds light on the influence of Sister Anne
Catherine Emmerich, a 19th century mystic who served as Gibson’s
muse. Emmerich is best-known for her grizzly visions of Jesus’ suffering,
but Jews say her writings were anti-Semitic because they seemed to blame
Jews for Jesus’ death.
For example, a scene that features an arrested Jesus dangling off a bridge
came from Emmerich’s visions, not the Gospels. So too the bloodthirsty
guards who became “inebriated” with rage during Jesus’
flogging, Bartunek said.
“What Anne Catherine added was very concrete, specific, almost stage
direction,” Bartunek said.
Bartunek called the charges of anti-Semitism lobbed against Emmerich and
Gibson “understandable ... but unfounded.”
“If you look at things that could be taken as anti-Semitic, you
can find them anywhere,” he said. “The same people who criticize
Anne Catherine for being anti-Semitic also criticize the New Testament
for being anti-Semitic.”
Bartunek’s other comment on the film:
On why the hairy baby and the donkey skull were used to show the ugliness
of evil: “It shows evil, and we don’t like to talk about evil
or call things evil. But evil is creepy, it’s disturbing, it’s
distorting,” he said.
