Images of Antisemitisim

From Nazi Propaganda Era Films To Mel Gibson’s The

Passion of the Christ

Gail Herring Stanger

Marcia Sachs Littell

Steven Chernoski

In Genesis (Bereshit) 1 versus 26 and 27 we read: G-d said Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. And G-d created man in His own image, in the image of G-d created He him… (Plaut, et al. 19-20). As G-d is not visible to us, what then is the image that man is created in? Is it a physical likeness or representation, an optical counterpart or appearance such as a reflection that one sees in a mirror, a mental representation which enables us to formulate a concept or an idea or is it a form/appearance that we can process to enable us to visualize G-d? If we, Jews and Christians believe that we were/are created in G-d’s image why then has this image been distorted in order to create xenophobic tendencies? Did these tendencies exist before the Ecumenical Consensus of Paganism, when those following the Matriarchs and Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sara, Rachel, Rebecca and Leah) refused to follow the national religion of the land? Was it this refusal that begot xenophobic tendencies towards the Jews, which unfortunately have been found subtly and violently throughout the centuries? Or did it begin long before when one individual noticed that another did not look like nor resemble neither himself nor those that surrounded him?

From the beginning of time man has wanted to and has created replica images of himself and the world that surrounds him. As man and the art world evolved so too did the desire to create more exact life-like replicas. In the late eighteenth century the technique was developed for the casting of casting of multiple exact replica papier-mâché copies of printing type from papier-mâché mold and thus the term stereotype was coined. By the mid nineteenth century the term stereotype had already achieved a level of abstraction we find in such phrases as “a stereotyped expression” (Gilman 15). It was also during this time period (1862) that Wilhelm Marr of Hamburg, Germany coined term antisemitism, defined as hatred or hostility of the Jew(s), into the political vocabulary. With the printing of Marr’s

1

pamphlet Der Judenspiegel (“Jews Mirror”) and with the coinage and more prevalent use of the of this term negative images of the Jew although not new were now more openly and widely accepted among mainstream modern Europeans. This new view of the Jew combined older stereotypes with the pseudo-scientific thinking of the age (Strom et. al. 92). During the early twentieth century social psychologists adopted the term stereotype to designate images through which we all categorize the world (Gilman 16). This categorization of ‘us’ and ‘them’ enabled antisemitisim to find a home everywhere in Europe yet in Germany the growing antisemitism had a profound effect on the way German Jews saw themselves and others (Strom 142). Yet if in fact man was created in the image of G-d how then did one man differ so much from another and why did these differences matter?

As modern day antisemitism and stereotypical images continued to be disseminated by word of mouth and in the press Thomas Edison introduced the Kinetoscope (1893), an invention which allowed one person at a time to view continuous mirrored imaged pictures of man, beast, the sea, sky the world in which they lived on a screen and in motion. One year later, on April 14, 1894 the first cinema opened within the framework of an amusement parlor in New York City. Audiences were delighted and thus began the publics’ seemingly unending love affair with cinema. From its inception this media was unlike any form of media before it and has proven to be a most effective tool at causing sudden, mass change (Blackburn 1).

America entered World War I on April 6, 1917 and on April 13th President Woodrow Wilson created the Committee on Public Information (CPI). The CPI was to promote the war domestically and publicize the goals of America abroad. The CPI blended advertising techniques with a sophisticated understanding of human psychology, and its efforts represent the first time that a modern government disseminated propaganda on such a large scale (Delwiche 1). The Division of Films noted that moving images were more popular than still images. Thus the CPI enlisted and Hollywood producers and they created movies such as The Kaiser: The Beast of Berlin and Perishing’s Crusade, which created an urgent feeling and thus mobilized the country’s resources fully behind the war effort.

In the years that followed World War I motion pictures continually developed and by 1926 sound accompanied the picture. As cinema was becoming more polished with its sites, sounds and techniques, patrons waited anxiously for newly released newsreels and films. In 1929 the stock market crashed, the world economy sank into depression, and people around the world saw the cinema as a form of escapism. Therefore they saved their pennies and went to the movies whenever possible.

Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels were ardent movie fans enjoying films that were entertaining even before their rise to power. Joseph Goebbels was especially enamored with American film legend Walt Disney. Goebbels had followed his career from 1919 and was enthralled with his development of special effects and in time Goebbels had a highly developed appreciation of the potential impact of the film medium. As the Third Reich grew Hitler and Goebbels believed that film

2

propaganda was the way towards mobilizing popular support, bringing about a revolutionary transformation of the ideology of the mass of the people and ensuing commitment to propaganda within German National Socialism (Blackburn 1). Thus in 1933 Hitler established the State Film Agency, Reichfilmkammat, and Joseph Goebbels became the head of this agency as well as the Nazi Minister for Propaganda and Enlightenment.

Goebbels understood that the objects in our world are reduced to images. No matter how well articulated, these images are constantly alerted by our interaction with the realities upon which they are based on and that every social group has a set vocabulary of images for this externalized Other. These images are the product of history and of a culture that perpetuates them. None is random; none is isolated from historical context (Gilman 19, 20). Therefore Hitler and Goebbels saw the task of reeducating the German people on a society based upon a drastically restructured value system (Blackburn 1). Adolf Hitler realized that in every great revolutionary movement propaganda will first have to spread the idea of the movement (Mosse 7). In 1943 Joseph Goebbels spoke at one of many Nuremberg Rallies and openly stated: Propaganda is a means to an end. Its purpose is to lead the people to an understanding that will allow them to willingly and without internal resistance devote themselves to the tasks and goals of a superior leadership. If propaganda is to succeed, it must know what it wants. It must keep a clear and firm goal in mind, and seek the appropriate means and methods to reach that goal. Propaganda as such is neither good nor evil. Its moral value is determined by the goals it seeks. Propaganda must be creative. It is by no means a matter for the bureaucracy or official administration, rather it is a matter of productive fantasy (Bytwerk 2). Therefore every movie from cartoons, to newsreels and feature films that was made in Nazi Germany had a political function and that Nazi leaders utilized films to sway public opinion towards the parties goals and objectives.

To create positive self-images for the Aryan nation, Leni Riefenstahl became the very passionate cinematographer of the Nazi party. In 1935 Riefenstahl was commissioned to make a full-length movie of a Party Congress, she produced Reichsparteitag (1935), a rationalization for Hitler and his Party. Also in 1935 Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will documented a Nuremberg Rally, which enabled those unable to attend the rally to feel as if they too were present and a vital link amongst the chain of the Nazi Third Reich. To mark Adolf Hitler’s forty-ninth birthday an epic of the Berlin Olympic Games, Olympia, opened at a gala premiere. Goebbels and Hitler also wanted to create animated films for the entire family. They created an animation studio that was to copy the style of Disney. In 1940 the first animated film Der Störenfried - The Troublemaker by Hans Held was released. This animated motion picture shows, how all animals of the forest hold together in order to drive the troublemaker - a fox - away. The hedgehogs with Wehrmacht helmets and the wasps mobilized (Tischmeyer 1). Throughout the war other animated feature films were released with the final film, Das dumme Gänslein - The Dumb Goose, released in 1944/45.

3

Juxtaposed to these positive images in 1938 Goebbels and the propaganda ministry sent out a request to all German film companies a request to produce antisemetic films (Stewart 161). In the next few years four major antisemetic films, Robert und Bertram (1939), Die Rothschild Aktien von Waterloo, Jude Suss and Der ewige Jude (1940), were produced. In these films, filmmakers such as Erich Waschneck (Die Rothchilds) Viet Harlan (Jud Suss) and Fritz Rippler (Der ewige Jude) utilized highly characterized versions of Jewish characters. For example Jews in these films had darker skin, looked ‘dirty’, had larger noses sometimes being ‘hooked’ in nature, portrayed the Jews as wanderers and able to ‘infiltrate’ into any society as well as the ultimate power that ‘all’ of the Jews hold over financial institutions and thus the world entire.

The antisemetic film Jude Suss is historically based and was produced with the sole purpose of fueling anti-Jewish attitudes and reactions among the people of Germany. The movie was adapted from Lion Feuchtwanger’s 1925 novel Jud Suss. A Jew himself Feuchtwanger wanted to probe the psychological reasons for Suss’ path to self-destruction. Josef Suss Oppenheimer was born in Heidelberg, Germany in 1692 and as a young man he moved to Frankfurt where he rapidly became one of the very few Jews to become a man of power and success in the financial world. At the age of forty (1732) Suss became a member of the court of Duke Karl Alexander of Wurttemberg. Suss became a financial advisor to the sovereign and loaned him a large amount of money. In return for this Suss was gradually given control of the duchy and thus he gained the authority to collect taxes and tolls. This position obviously did not endear him to the Duke’s subjects. Suss’ solution to the courts continued need for money was to debase the coinage. Suss ‘terrorized’ the duchy for a number of years creating mayhem under the protection of the profligate duke. In 1738 Duke Karl Alexander died and the duchy revolted. Due to his actions against members of the duchy Suss was publicly hung on February 4, 1738 (Stewart 161-162). Goebbels insisted that as Jude Suss was based on a ‘biographical novel’ it was to be billed as true to the facts. He noted that every effort had been expanded to bring them true history in the guise of spectacle, as well as suggesting that the research for each film was, for the first time, bringing to the screen a true portrait, or at least a singularly true version or accurate characterization of a person (Rentschler 150-151). Jude Suss premiered in September 1940 to a very large audience and movie-goers were gauged to get feedback on the reaction of the masses (Blackburn 6). Goebbels noted in his diary on September 25th : The film is an incredible success. One hears only enthusiastic responses. The whole room raves. That’s exactly what I had hoped for (Rentschler 149). Jude Suss was just one of Nazi Germany’s historical pageants. German film historians Herbert Holba and Helmut Blobner have noted that it was the best propaganda film due to the high level of film technique. Well known players portrayed their roles so convincingly that even the unbiased spectator was captured by their acting. The fascination exercised by this film was twice as dangerous, since

4

the insidious intention of this work was fully attained – the film was a great box-office hit (Stewart 169). Jude Suss was in fact a convincingly antisemetic exhibition portraying a shifty Jewish figure who was able to shift his images in order to fit into the world at large. Thus the Jew, Suss, was both real and horrible and authentic, fantastic yet real (Rentschler 154-55). In the film Suss becomes a secularized devil, the spirit of negativity, which assumes dynamic and dialect guises (Rentschler 164). For the German public this historical pageant with all its antisemitic images incited much violence against the Jews (Blackburn 5). The impact of this film on adolescents was enormous and devastating and although it was a hit at the box office with 20.3 million viewers by 1943, it was classified as “unsuitable for young (under 14) people” (Stewart 69). Director Veit Harlan utilized stereotypical images of the Jew throughout Jude Suss. He was able to effectively utilize patterns of association that are most commonly based, on a combination of real-life experiences (as filtered through models of perception) and the world of the myth, and the two intertwine to form fabulous images, neither entirely of this world nor of the realm of myth. Thus since analogies are rooted in habitual perception of the world, they are understood as an adequate representation of reality and all experience can thus be measured against this “reality” (Gilman 21). Viet Harlan created a movie that’s effect is undeniable. Jude Suss contributed its full share to the martyrdom of the Jews during the Nazi period and is still utilized today, over sixty years later, to incite anti-Israel feelings and propaganda in the near and middle east (Rentschler 150). Thus in hindsight one may wonder if Lion Feuchtwanger, a Jew himself would have been able to envision that his novel, Jud Suss, would have been utilized to create such virulent antisemitism for generations yet to come, would he have decided to delve into the psychological reasons for Josef Suss Oppenheimer’s actions and reactions to the world in which he lived? The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust states that the vilest of the Nazi propaganda films is Der ewige Jude (The Eternal Jew) (Gutman 484). This is due to the fact that this film portrays itself as a documentary utilizing maps and statistics as well as visual images to verify the statements made throughout the film. The goal of Der ewige Jude was to create awareness amongst the German people of the supposed insidious dangers posed by the Jews (Blackburn 4). While Der ewige Jude clearly imparted the Nazi party message, that the Jew was a parasite to society and that the National Socialist government would in fact eradicate these pests from the face of the earth, it was unsuccessful at the box office. This though was not due to the fact that the message was not heard nor understood but due to the fact that public saw no story line beyond what pictures and facts that were being documented. Today we think of Der ewige Jude as the ‘hate’ picture of all time, and one of the great examples of the way in which the film medium can be used as a propaganda tool far greater than the printed or spoken word alone and are grateful for the fact that this film is inaccessible beyond a few film archives where it is being kept (Stewart 173-74).

5

In July of 2000 film historian and scholar Judith Doneson stated that there are two things that are important to know about any film and that they are very obvious. One is to know where the film is from and what is happening in the place and during the era the film is made. The other is to know and understand who is telling the story. Today when one is utilizing and studying the Shoah (Holocaust) one tends to view a wide variety of films. When doing so one notes that many of the images they are to view are tainted for vast inventory of film relating to the Final Solution consists of film shot by the Nazis to be used for antisemetic propaganda (Totten 194). Others are ‘docudramas’, recreations of stories and history that have been written and passed on to the world at large. In the sixty odd years that have passed since the Shoah the docudrama has evolved cinematographically as has the art of filmmaking and both have become a mainstay of the public at large. The debate surrounding docudrama has become heated at times. In 1997 when Roberto Benigni released Life Is Beautiful, (the fable of a child’s survival in a Nazi Death Camp), many people questioned how comedy could be used to tell a story about the Holocaust. Others worried that the story would be seen not as a “fable” as stated in the prologue but as one that is true for the last line ended with “this is my story.” And yet others marveled at how a father could love his son so much that he made fun of each situation to take his sons fears away. Seven years later the controversy surrounding a docudrama became heated once again when Mel Gibson, an actor who had been delighting audiences for over twenty-five years with his portrayal of soldiers, futuristic warriors, historical leaders and romantic characters, released his epic historically based pageant, The Passion of the Christ on Ash Wednesday, February 25, 2004. The filmmaker/storyteller, Mel Gibson is member of a Catholic sect called "Holy Family" which has distanced itself from the main body of Catholicism, and is not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Diocese since Vatican II. In a prime-time television interview Gibson told Diane Sawyer that he felt a calling to make The Passion of the Christ and thus utilized his own financial resources and high profile to finance and film this docudrama epic. The Passion of the Christ is indeed an artistic film. It is as was Jude Suss based on a historical figure. Yet having been filmed in the twenty-first century with modern technological inventions, it is beautifully photographed in muted colors, with impressive settings and costuming that far surpass most Hollywood biblical epics (Senior 1). To date, although scholars have noted that The Passion of the Christ contains many historical errors, Gibson has and continues to claim that his film is the most accurate portrayal of the death of Jesus ever filmed (Cunnigham 10). Indeed The Passion of the Christ is a powerful cinematic experience that will no doubt emotionally move many viewers. Many individuals will feel and see only love and a connection with their Lord Jesus Christ, yet others feel and see virulent antisemitic images and a fear that once again the portrayal of Passion continues its unambiguous portrayal of Jews as being responsible for the death of Jesus (ADL 1).

6

The controversy surrounding The Passion of the Christ mounted even before its release. Today we are living in a post Shoah world, sixty years past the death of Hitler, Nazism and virulent antisemetic films. Therefore, the challenge for anyone, let alone a mega movie and directorial star who would draw worldwide attention for his production, is how to treat the anti-Jewish aspects of the biblical texts. Do they constitute a major theme? Are they exaggerated or embellished to make them even more prominent and negative? (Sandmel 3). During the National Executive Committee Meeting (February 6, 2004 in Palm Beach, Florida), Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League acknowledged that for many that the fears surrounding this film would be realized for The Passion of the Christ is/was a flashback in history. He stated: “ For almost 2,000 years in Western civilization, four words legitimized, rationalized, and fueled anti-Semitisim: “The Jews killed Christ.” For hundreds of years those four words – acted out, spoken out, sermonized out – inspired and legitimized pogroms, inquisitions and expulsions. Hitler, in 1934, visited Oberammergau Passion Play, and when he left, he proclaimed (and I paraphrase): “The whole world needs to see this Passion Play, for then they will understand why I despise the Jewish people” (Foxman 1). For Christians worldwide the story of the Passion is one of faith, love and sacrifice. It is a key element in their belief and faith. The Passion story in fact was first told in order to evoke a personal and spiritual response. Therefore in every telling the viewers are invited to identify with the story and its characters and to carry its meaning into their own life (Scholars 2). Due to the fact that Passion portrayals showing only what we know happened historically would be very short and evoke little if no emotion free space, the ability to fill in the details within the framework of the scenes is given to playwrights/filmmakers (Scholars 2-3). Choosing this framework is a colossal task for when writers, producers or directors make this choice, their own purposes become a part of the story they are portraying (Scholars 5). In The Passion of the Christ Mel Gibson is the producer, director and the story- teller. Gibson alone makes the choices that he does in telling his story. Throughout The Passion of the Christ Gibson utilizes ancient languages which gives the film a veneer of the historical verisimilitude that may lead some viewers into thinking that they are watching a documentary (Cunningham 10). Gibson also relies on extra-biblical sources. He chooses to utilize Anne Catherine Emmerich’s 1819 purported visions of the death of Jesus. Emmerich, an Augustinian nun, lived in Westphalia Germany was renowned as a mystic and stigmata. She lived at a time when Christians simply took it for granted that Jews were collectively cursed for the crucifixion of Jesus, and thus her narratives emphasize Jewish evildoing. Her account of the Passion is full of racist descriptions of Jews “with hooked noses and prominently features negative images of Jews which include a close association with the demonic” (Cunningham 8). Within Gibson’s retelling of The Passion of the Christ one can see many old anti-Jewish Hitlerite motifs. In the Passion the high priest and his wicked associates wear costumes that evoke contemporary prayer shawls (Berger 6). In addition having the priests wear their priestly breastplate and prayer shawls all day further

7

caricaturizes these instruments of worship (Frizzell 1). Judas is characterized as a Jew, who like Josef Suss Oppenheimer longs and hungers for power and wealth. Gibson further foster this image when the thirty pieces of silver Judas is awarded for reporting where Jesus can be found are thrown to him in slow motion, scattering on the floor, and he greedily picks them up. The Jewish boys who pursue Judas are transformed into little demons— the metaphoric progeny, as Andrew Sullivan has noted, of Satan himself, who flits menacingly among the Jewish crowds (Berger 6). This image may again be akin to Suss Oppenheimer who in 1940 was referred to as a ‘secularized devil’. Gibson has also utilized anti-Jewish stereotypical motifs in depicting the scenes of the Sanhedrin trial as well as the mob scene before Pontius Pilate. Just as in Der ewige Jude the Jews depicted in The Passion of the Christ are seen as extremely powerful and having the ability to manipulate scenes and people to achieve their aims and perhaps take over the world. Gibson also depicts the Roman Prelate, Pontius Pilate, in a softer and more gentle light than does historical evidence. In fact, in a controversial scene that is indeed in one of the Gospels, when Jesus is taken before Pilate, Pilate seems that if he would not do with Jesus what the desire of the crowd was he would loose total control. To ease his guilt surrounding the impending murder of an ‘innocent man’ Pilate washes his hands of guilt, and the crowd exclaims, “His blood be on us and on our children.” This scene is highly controversial, problematic and many see that by Gibson having made this scene so vivid that he is two-thousand years later reinstating the terrible specter of antisemitisim and vision of the Jew as Christ’s killer into the minds of young and old alike (Rutgers 6). At the end of the movie, the filmmaker/story teller Gibson of The Passion of the Christ chose to leave the viewer with the implication that Judaism is finished because of what they did to Jesus. As one watches The Passion of the Christ one sees and almost feels the earth quaking. The rocks within the Jewish Temple are split and there is almost total devastation within the chamber of the Sanhedrin (Frizzell 2). Here, as in many of the Nazi propaganda era films, the viewer connects that G-d’s judgment has, is and continues to be visited upon the Jewish institution and it’s leaders for what they did to Jesus. Although the Jew remains as the only identifiable group of the Passion Characters today, viewers in mainstream America are unaware of antisemetic Jewish motifs found within the framework of The Passion of the Christ. Many viewers today may be unaware of the films and images that are almost mirrored images to those portrayed within the framework of the Nazi propaganda era images and films. Yet these images exist and so to does their reproduction and use for purporting anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish propaganda around the world. These images are now out in the world in perpetuity. While Gibson has implied and stated in numerous interviews that The Passion of the Christ might be his downfall – it has and is not. It has in fact been a blockbuster success from its opening on Ash Wednesday, February 26, 2004. Although the movie is rated R (Restricted) and has been by many deemed unsuitable for young audiences (under 14 just as Jud Suss was) on opening day, with children in hand movie goers stood in line to see The Passion of the Christ. It, as was Jud Suss a huge success! On opening day many movie theatres were sold out and by the end of the day the film had grossed 26.6 million dollars!

8

Thirteen weeks later the movie has made over $369,336,919! The assets that have thus accumulated for The Passion of the Christ are before its release into markets in the near and middle east as well as its release into DVD and VHS format. Therefore, while filmmaker, storyteller Mel Gibson may have felt that he was telling the greatest story of all time. That he was giving visual image to the Passion story and creating a greater awareness and religious awakening amongst people of the world, he should have and could have utilized images that were not so virulently filled with antisemitisim. For in telling a story, any story, the interpreter is always culpable. And Gibson knows that the way the crucifying of Jesus has been portrayed has brought harm to those upon whom it has been traditionally blamed for generations yet to come (Nanos 3).

9

Work Cited

AntiDefamation League. “ADL and Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ: Frequently Asked Questions”. 25 February 2004. 10 May 2004. On Line. Available: http://www.adl.org/Interfaith/Gibson_trigger.asp

Berger, David. “Jews, Christians, and The Passion.” Commentary 117/5 (May 2004). 10 May 2004. On Line. Available: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/, and reprinted with permission on http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/education/berger_gibson.htm

Blackburn, Kevin D. “Nazi Propaganda Example 2.” 8 May 2004. On Line. Available: http://www.arts.nie.edu.sg/his/blackburn/nazipropagandaexample2.html.

Bytwerk, Randall. “Goebbels at Nuremberg – 1934.” German Propaganda Archive: Calvin Minds in the Making. 2000. 8 May 2004. On Line. Available: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb59.htm

The Christian Scholars Group on Christian-Jewish Relations. “Facts, Faith, and Film-Making: Jesus’ Passion and Its Portrayal: A Study Guide for Viewers and Reviewers. 2004. 10 May 2004. On Line. Available: http: www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/partners/CSG/passion_guide.htm

Cunningham, Philip A. “The Passion of the Christ – Challenge to Catholic Teachings.” February 25, 2004. 30 April 2004. On Line. Available: http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/reviews/gibson_cunningham.htm

Delwiche, Aaron. “Wartime Propaganda: World war I The Committee on Public Information.” March 12, 1995. 20 May 2004. On Line. Available: http://carmen.artsci.washington.edu/propaganda/war2.htm

Dirks, Tom. “Film History Before 1920.” The History of Film. 28 May 2004. On Line. Available: http://www.greatestfilms.org/pre20sintro.html.

Doneson, Judith. “Why Film?” Summer Session I. The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey’s Master of Arts in Holocaust and Genocide Studies Program. Pomona, NJ, 5 July 2000.

10

Foxman, Abraham. Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ:" Could It Trigger Anti-Semitism? Speech to the ADL National Executive Committee Meeting: Palm Beach, Florida. February 6, 2004. 10 March 2004. On Line. Available: http://www.adl.org/Interfaith/gibson_trigger.asp

Frizzell, Lawrence. “The Passion of the Christ: A Catholic Response.” 2004. 10 May 2004. On Line. Available: http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/reviews/gibson_frizzell.htm

Gilman, Sander C. Difference and Psychology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985

Gutman, Israel, Editor in Chief. Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA, 1990.

Hull, David S. Film in the Third Reich: A Study of the German Cinema, 1933-1945. Berkley, University of California Press, 1969.

Mosse, George. Nazi Culture Intellectual, Cultural and Social Life in the Third Reich. New York: Grossest & Dunlap, 1966.

Nanos, Mark. “The Missing Logic that Threatens the Jewish Other A Review of the Passion of the Christ.” March 14, 2004. 10 May 2004. On Line. Available: http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/reviews/gibson_nanos.htm

Plaut, W. Gunther. The Torah: A Modern Commentary. New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1981.

Rentschler, Eric. The Ministry of Illusion: Nazi Cinema and Its Afterlife.. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996.

Rutgers, Paul H. Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ A Protestant View.” March 2004. 10 May 2004. On Line. Available: http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/reviews/Chicago_passion_reviews.htm

Sandmel, David Fox. “Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ A Jewish View.” March 2004. 10 May 2004. On Line. Available: http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/reviews/Chicago_passion_reviews.htm

Sawyer, Diane. “Pain and Passion: Mel Gibson Tackles Addiction, Recovery and Controversies Over His New Film.” 17 February 2004. Prime Time Live: A Television Exclusive Interview. 10 May 2004. On Line. Available: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Primetime/Entertainment/mel_gibson_passion_ 040216-1.html

11

12

Senior, Donald. “What We Have To Say: Review of The Passion of the Christ.” March 2004. 18 May 2004. On Line. Available: http://www.ctu.edu/WhatWeHaveToSay?Passion_Senior.htm

Strom, Margaret, et. al. Facing History & Ourselves: Holocaust & Human Behavior Resource Book. Brookline: Massachusetts, 1994.

Tischmeyer, Heniz. “The Animated Cartoon Film in the Third Reich.” 2004.Collector’s Homepage: Gallery of German Film 1903-1945. 5 May, 2004. On Line. Available: http://www.cyranos.ch/animat-e.htm

Totten, Samuel, Stephen Feinberg. Teaching and Studying The Holocaust. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001