Watching the Mel interview

First, Diane Sawyer sucks. But that isn't really the point. She has actually done worse interviews--it is called her day job!

So, how is it going? Mel makes a great point about how riches and fame are problematic. Says that he has had as much as anyone, and found it to be unfilling. I have no problem with that. He also takes (some) responsibility for this being his vision.

But Mel claims that the Bible is historically accurate--and dismisses the other historical accounts. And he does recognize that anti-semitism is a problem, but he treats it as if it was aberrant, not a bigger part of human history.

I will say that he does something I like. He said that his reaction to the claims of anti-semitism is one of compassion. I would say that if most evangelicals were to respond to that this way, the problem would be less. Jews are not irrational to fear this film. Remember that many passion plays portrayed jews as devils and demons. Hard not to take that negatively.

The film does treat Jews more responsible than the romans. Even at one point, Mel dismisses some of the criticism of the film. If people read this as blaming the Jews, he surmises, then they would have to make that jump from any film where "one group of people" does something bad to another group of people. This, I think, is the heart of the problem. Blaming certain Jewish leaders for their culpability? not a problem. Blaming Jews as "a group of people?" Problem.

Interesting. Mel has just said that he chose to portray Jesus as more verile and strong--arguing that previous treatments have made him more effete. Interesting. Also, his Jesus looks like the paintings. Interesting.

I think his insistence on this film being accurate is the part that bugs me. Here is an aryan Jesus who is killed by evil jews while the Romans kind of fade to the background and Jesus's social radicalism is omitted. That bugs me. And no, I have not seen the film. And probably won't.

Perhaps more later.