New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

That Gibson filmed what was written in the Gospels didn’t please everyone. The Anti Defamation League somehow got a hold of an early draft of the script and were worried about the inclusion of a line from the book of Matthew – “His blood be on us and on our children.” They were worried that the film could “falsify history and fuel the animus of those who hate Jews.”

In August 2003, after attending a preview screening, Rabbi Eugene Korn of the ADL released the following statement: “We are deeply concerned that the film, if released in its present form, could fuel the hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard to repudiate.” You know, because it’s already in a book that millions of people own, so God forbid the line be captured on celluloid. However, they were also worried that the film portrays Jews as “blood-thirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of God.”

Weeks later, it was because of this that 20th Century Fox passed on distributing the film theatrically. Having a joint production deal with Icon meant that they were initially offered the opportunity to distribute, but along with protests outside their News Corp. building, they eventually released a statement highlighting that, “Fox will not be involved in the release of the film.” As Gibson kept previewing the film across the US, Newmarket Films picked up on the interest and demand that was being generated. In October 2003, Icon and Newmarket closed a deal that would result in Newmarket helping to distribute the film theatrically across the US in exchange for a small percentage of the profits.

Amid this, it’s believed that The New York Post had acquired a bootleg copy of the film during a preview screening. In November 2003, they thought it would be a good idea to screen it to a catholic priest, a rabbi, a professor of Christianity, one of their readers and their own critic, and then publish their thoughts. Only the Post reader was positive about the film, describing it as “riveting.” The result of this was an FBI investigation into how the New York Post obtained a bootleg copy of the film.

In December 2003, The Vatican had requested to see the film. A private screening was held with former Pope John Paul II. Those in attendance appeared to approve of the film, but it was the reported endorsement from the Pope himself that made the headlines, with his opinion quoted as, “It is at it was.” Validation like this was exactly what the film needed. However, weeks later, this was suddenly denied, with the Pope’s secretary Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz saying, “The Holy Father told no one his opinion of the film.”

On February 4, 2004, a few weeks before the film’s release, the news came that Gibson would remove the line that got the ADL so worked up. However, while the subtitle of this line had been removed, the words are still heard in Aramaic. Gibson said that he felt that the line referred to “all men,” not just Jews, and admitted that he felt strongly about keeping it in because he “didn't want to let someone else dictate what could or couldn’t be said.” Audiences were divided even before the film was released. Given the controversy that this raised, people could simply view the film and judge for themselves. While anyone going in with the full intention of looking for anti-Semitism would class it as such, Gibson defended himself and his film, stating that “Anti-Semitism is not only contrary to my personal beliefs, it is also contrary to the core message of my movie.”

Continued:       1       2       3