In a piece titled “Studio Script Notes On ‘The Passion’,” written by director, actor and comedian Steve Martin in the latest issue of The New Yorker — an article which, unfortunately, is not available online — Martin launches a biting satirical attack on Mel Gibson and his Hollywood version of the death of Jesus Christ, mocking the film as a piece of money-making show business — and suggests that he, too, regards the film as anti-Semitic.
While Gibson, who made the film with his own money, claims that his intention was to produce a profound statement of his religious beliefs, Martin — influenced, perhaps, by the film’s ticket sales of $212 million US in less than two weeks — appears to disagree.
In Martin’s column, “Stan,” a fictitious studio boss, sends Gibson “studio script notes” on “The Passion”, effusing excitedly at the commercial and dramatic prospects for the script he has just been sent but suggesting some changes to widen its appeal.
“Dear Mel: We love, love the script! The ending works great. You’ll be getting a call from us to start negotiations for the book rights,” he begins.
Jesus is such a “likeable” character, Martin’s fictional studio boss enthuses, because he “can’t seem to catch a break” and everyone can identify with that. But there is a flaw that, he suggests, audiences will not understand. Why did Jesus not use his “superpowers” to save himself? An explanation is in order: cut away to two spectators, have the first pose the question and the second reply, “He can only use his superpowers to save others.”
“Stan” proceeds to offer a list of helpful suggestions in memo form. “Does it matter which garden? Gethsemane is hard to say, and Eden is a much more recognizable garden. Just thinking out loud,” he writes. Then there is the Last Supper. “Could he change water into wine in the Last Supper scene? Would be a great moment, and it’s legit: history compression is a movie tradition and it could really brighten up the scene. Great trailer moment, too.”
On the lengthy and gruesome scenes of Jesus being whipped, which have forced many cinema-goers to turn their heads, “Stan” remarks briefly: “Love the flaying.”
Other suggestions he offers include: “Could the rabbis be Hispanic? There’s lots of hot Latino actors now, could give us a little zing at the box office.” And: “Possible title change: ‘Lethal Passion.’ Kinda works.”
In a move that reflects Hollywood’s practice of including a recognizable brand on screen in return for sponsorship from the manufacturer, “Stan” suggests some product placement.
“Is there someplace where Jesus could be using an iBook?” he asks. “Think about it. Maybe we start a shot in heaven with Jesus thoughtfully closing the top.”
Then there is the “merchandising.” The Cross “has been done to death” and is in the public domain, so “Stan” suggests: “Could the crucifixion scene involve something else? A Toyota would be wrong, but maybe there’s a shape we can copyright, like a wagon wheel?”
Martin’s “Stan” thinks he has spotted a typing error — “Aramaic,” the ancient language of the film, is surely meant to read “American.” In a line that pointedly suggests Martin shares the widespread belief that the film has anti-Semitic undertones, “Stan” points out another apparent spelling mistake. “In the description of the bystanders, there should be a space between the words ‘Jew’ and ‘boy,'” he writes.
A spokesman for Icon Productions, Gibson’s production company, refused comment on Martin’s column, when asked by various media organizations.
i read steve’s article a little differently. i thought he was satarizing the movie industry as a whole. even if he was mocking mel, there are worse things that can happen to a christian than to be made a martyr. this is a subject that will never be agreed upon. after all, one man’s martyr is another man’s terrorist.