DEAR MS. NOONAN AND MR. GIBSON (AND ASSORTED OTHERS)

Please forgive me for presuming to write to you about a matter of weighty religious significance, when religion is not a subject I consider myself at all expert in. In addition, this particular matter involves complex historical conflicts, as well as a long history of horrifically destructive discrimination and mass murder, subjects I am certain you are both all too familiar with, especially after the debate that has gone on for many months now.

And I myself would not want to be the person to bring you perhaps unwelcome news, especially when you have entrusted this subject to people with motives undoubtedly purer and nobler than mine, people such as one of the producers of Mr. Gibson's film,"The Passion of the Christ," and perhaps assorted press agents. But I am sure Mr. Gibson had his reasons for believing those individuals would bring the proper perspective to a topic of such deep and intense personal concern to millions of people across the world.

In view of Ms. Noonan's ongoing concern with the Pope's (possible) verdict about Mr. Gibson's film, I take the liberty of addressing her as well. And since I would not wish to be the bearer of bad tidings, I am especially heartened that James Shapiro has written on this subject, in the Los Angeles Times. I realize that Mr. Shapiro is not a movie producer or a press agent, but I hope you will consider his remarks in light of his not inconsiderable credentials:

James Shapiro is author of"Oberammergau: The Troubling Story of the World's Most Famous Passion Play" (Vintage, 2001). He teaches literature at Columbia University.

Mr. Shapiro begins by noting the following:

The pope's reported verdict on Mel Gibson's"The Passion of the Christ" —"It is as it was" — is what admirers have been saying about every Passion play since the first one was performed in the 12th century.

Though the story line, language, motivation and even the cast of characters have changed over the years, the one constant is that every audience believes that the Passion story they are watching captures exactly what happened to Jesus.

But how does the pope, Gibson or anyone else know how"it was"? After all, our main sources for Jesus' final days are the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Writing a generation or so after the death of Jesus, the evangelists didn't witness these events, their accounts differ and they fail to provide crucial details.

Gibson has said that in making this film he was moved by the Holy Ghost and did little more than direct traffic. But like any Hollywood director confronted with four scripts of a well-known story, he had to do a lot of editing. And he had to go beyond what Scripture says.

I truly do realize that neither Mr. Shapiro nor I can stand any kind of comparison with the Holy Ghost, but nonetheless I think his points have some merit.

But it is this passage in Mr. Shapiro's article that I particularly wanted to draw to your attention:

But even when edited selectively, the Gospels didn't go quite far enough in providing a relentless and incriminating story of Jewish perfidy. So 19th century directors turned to ideas offered by the likes of Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824), whose ecstatic visions offered damning and dramatically satisfying details nowhere mentioned in Scripture, such as the notion that the Jewish high priests passed out bribes and that the cross was built in the Temple. (Emmerich's influence on Gibson was at first acknowledged, then hastily denied.)

The new story line dominated stage and screen Passions (one of the earliest films ever made was of this Passion) right up to, and even after, the Holocaust. It was an interpretation that Adolf Hitler singled out for praise when he attended a performance in Oberammergau, Germany, where Passion plays have been performed continuously since the 1600s. He applauded the way the Oberammergau Pilate stood out"like a firm, clean rock in the middle of the whole muck and mire of Jewry."

Then, in 1965, came Vatican II, which rewrote the Catholic Church's position on how the Passion narrative could be told. No longer could the Jews be considered Christ killers, collectively and in perpetuity. Still, change was slow. It was only in 2000, for example, that Oberammergau eliminated the blood curse from its script and showed some Jews defending Jesus. Even so, its 19th century-inflected story line remains disturbing for Jewish spectators.

Whatever other differences we might have, I think you both would certainly agree that any similarities between Mr. Gibson's version of"The Passion of the Christ" and a version that was praised and applauded by Adolf Hitler might be a matter of some concern.

I hope you will read all of Mr. Shapiro's commentary. And trusting in the sincerity of your religious beliefs, and your desire not to cause unnecessary offense and dismay, I am certain you will address these issues. In fact, I would truly like to know what genuinely has been on your mind with regard to your film, Mr. Gibson, and what truly motivates both of you (and others who share your perspective) in connection with this controversy.

Oh...wait, though. On second thought, I am not at all sure that it would be an altogether pleasant experience to know what your concerns actually are in this matter. Please forget that I mentioned it.

But I do hope you will give these issues some serious consideration, and I will look for any further comments either of you might care to offer. Since true sincerity is important in matters such as these, I won't wish you great success with your film, Mr. Gibson. I wouldn't mean it. So perhaps I might phrase it this way: I hope your film has the success and enjoys the reputation that it deserves.

Well, I think that covers everything I wished to say. I am sure I will take as much pleasure in your future remarks on this subject as I have enjoyed those you have both offered in the past.

Arthur Silber

(P.S. Mr. Gibson, please permit me one additional cautionary note. I certainly hope that the matter of a screen credit for the Holy Ghost won't end up in any sort of arbitration with the Directors' Guild. That might be rather messy -- and given your adversary, I would not think you would be likely to win such a dispute. So you might want to give that matter some careful thought as well.)

(Cross-posted at The Light of Reason.)