I don't think Gibson made the move to be anti-semetic or that he is an anti-semite. I do agree with some arguments that this might fuel people who are already anti-semetic...however.. ...how can you EVER make a movie that shows one group against someone else if this is the rule you live by? Mel Gibson made a good point. He's seen Schindler's List. He knew that it was an accurate portrayal of the events that happened. He doesn't hold it against current day Germans and this was 55-60 years ago. He's just making a movie of what he feels is a true account of the way that Jesus was tried and killed. Just because Jews had a part in it, doesn't mean that 2000 years later you should hate Jews. Romans killed him too, but nobody is anti-Italian about this. He even took out some statements that could be could have stirred up even more trouble. The Diane Sawyer interview was a good one: He stated he was not anti-semitic, he doesn't hate Jews, he doesn't hold the Jewish population responsible for Jesus being killed, he agrees that the holocaust happens, and he will not let a wedge be driven between his father and him because of his Father's beliefs. He also stated that the true killers of Jesus is everybody he died for, including himself, because Jesus died for him.
This is a point that needs to be stressed. Whatever this movie (or the gospels, for that matter) says about the involvement of the Jews in the death of Jesus doesn't reflect in any way upon Jews living today. For some reason, many people can't seem to see this. By the same reasoning, are we against the people of Germany today if we point out that Hitler killed Jews? I know of no one who would say this. I don't believe Mel Gibson was trying to make a statement about Jews living today anymore than I believe Jewish documentaries on the holocaust try to place blame on Germans living today (at least those who weren't alive then and therefore didn't play in part in the holocaust). Many of the claims about this movie just don't seem to coincide with the facts. People are trying to make more out of it than is really there. Perhaps we need to heed the principle stated in this quote from Nicodemus: "Does our law condemn anyone without first hearing him to find out what he is doing?" (John 7:51) Maybe the same applies to movies. I don't know that I've ever read so many confident assertions based on nothing more than second-hand information. Would it be too much to ask that you judge for yourself after you see the movie (at least those of you who are inclined to see it)?
I don't understand this. Specifically, the reference to TMBG, but also "theoretically." Cohen, Gibson, being a literalist, could only make the movie the way he did. Understand that those who temper the language/story of the gospels would be considered more "liberal" theologians to him. Similar to orthadox Jews, keeping kosher, etc.. To him, saying he should change it might be the same as saying he should make a movie about Muhammed. From what I have read, the "villification" of the Jews sounds pretty standard for the gospels and their original interpretations. Gibson pretty much believes anything changing it is wrong - apparently even the 17th century changes in interpretation. I am waiting to see it, but it definitely sounds as if people such as Max will feel comfort and enjoyment in the visual depiction, while those needing more excuse will get anti-semitic ammunition from it...again, though, that remains to be seen, and it is not as if this hasn't been around for 1600 years.
Well, you may be guilty. If one is to strongly prejudice her viewing of art by using knowledge of the artist's political and religious beliefs, then it follows that the "pure" (if there is such a thing) aesthetic value of the artwork will rise or fall. This could result in a sublime work being considered mediocre, or a pathetic work being considered worthwhile (e.g. TMBG, where a friendly, politically correct, warm and fuzzy image masked the true horror of their musical creations). I am just teasing of course. I ain't no art appreciationist.
Hmm.... http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,12272,777742,00.html ...Defying warnings from some theologians that the unprecedented apology would undermine the church's authority, the 79-year-old pontiff asked God to forgive the persecution of the Jews. "We are deeply saddened by the behaviour of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood." ... Pope Pius XII never publicly condemned the Nazis' persecution of Jews, even when they were being rounded up and deported from Rome. His silence is partly blamed for the failure of Germany's Catholics to resist Hitler. Anti-Jewish Catholic doctrines such as the claim that the Jews murdered Christ were said to have ideologically underpinned nazism. Vatican officials allegedly helped Nazis escape Europe after the war. If that seemed impersonal to me at all, I can always recall how my parents were treated. My father, a WWII veteran who fought under Patton, wanted to marry the woman he loved. Out of respect for his mother-in-law to be, he approached a priest to request the service. Exactly 10 years after the holocaust ended, he was physically thrown out of the church for being Jewish. My mother was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic church...for marrying a Jew. How do you think my maternal grandmother felt? Born in Italy, the most devout Catholic you would ever meet. I give the current Pope credit for what he has done, and I don't blame Catholics today for past errors. But don't tell me how sweet your church has been to Jews through out history, even the recent past. I won't buy it.
Because for ages people have failed to make the distinction, and it is why Jews have been prejudiced against, repeatedly and to extremes.
Absurd, isn't it? I'm Cajun. (Insert favorite Cajun joke here. ) My ancestors were basically persecuted and forced to leave the area in and around Nova Scotia because of the British. They ended up in Louisiana -- not a good trade off. Would it make any sense for me to hold that against the people of Britain today? Not at all. Regardless of what may have been done by some Jews at some point in the ancient past -- regardless of how significant it was -- it's absurd to think that Jews today must be treated poorly because of it. In my opinion, that ranks right up there with hating someone because of the color of their skin -- or hair, or eyes, or blood type, etc. I haven't seen Mel Gibson's movie yet, so in my comments I'm going to assume (at least until I learn otherwise) that it's true to what is said in the gospels. If it is, I don't think it's helpful to say the movie itself is anti-Semitic. Some people may use it as an accuse to engage in anti-Semitism, but that's not the same as it being anti-Semitic --or even promoting anti-Semitism. The problem is not with the movie itself; it's with the people who have drawn wrong conclusions from it. If the logical conclusion to the movie is that Jews must be persecuted, then you could say it's anti-Semitic. If that's not the logical conclusion, then the movie itself isn't the problem. Some might think it's best not to produce a movie that some people might respond to in an illogical way. But do we really want to set a precedent of not producing works that people might respond to illogically or inappropriately? Precious little would ever be produced. It's kind of like Ozzy's "Suicide Solution," a song about Bon Scott (sp?). Some kids supposedly committed suicide in response to the song, but the problem wasn't with the song itself. Ozzy was just dealing with the death of a friend who died because of alcohol. It's tragic that these kids died. But I don't think blame can be placed at Ozzy's feet. To ban the song would have been a superficial response. I think the same thing can be said of this movie based on the accounts in the gospels. (It's not often I get to draw a comparison between something biblical and Ozzy. )
I read a ton, but I also know that what someone else sees in a movie is often not what I see in a movie, and I can't count the number of times I've seen a religious group denounce a movie for being something that it isn't (and even in this case, it starts before the movie had been seen by anyone). And add to that all the people, including Mr. Dave here, who pile on to attack the movie they haven't seen yet based entirely on someone else's impression. To me, if you want to attack the movie after you've seen it, that's fine with me. Go right ahead. But I would not dare to call this movie anything until I've seen it myself. It may well be the worst of the worst. It may be everything those who have spoken out against it have said. But I'm not going to pile on until I know by seeing it myself. Of course, chances are, I wasn't going to see this movie anyway, but I'm not going to have an opinion on it until I see it for myself. I would expect others to make their own decisions, as well. I'm not going to let articles I've read about a movie become my opinion of the movie. But if you want to do that, that's fine. And perhaps you could simply stop going to the movies altogether. Just read some articles about them instead. No need to see them for yourself.
Yep. It's all just about a religious message.... ...The filmmaker has denied the anti-Semitism claims, but in what is either irony or shrewdness he was the first to raise them. Gibson granted one of his first interviews about "The Passion" to the Fox News channel in January 2003, appearing with the conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly. And both of them were bristling. Gibson said that his work on "The Passion" had led reporters from "reputable publications" to try digging up dirt on him by questioning his then 85-year-old father. "You can pick on me," Gibson said. "But if you start picking on my family ..." It was a pre-emptive attack. No one had raised any concerns yet, beyond speculation that Gibson was pouring his talent into a certain flop. Three months later, The New York Times Magazine quoted his father, Hutton Gibson, downplaying the Holocaust and describing the Second Vatican Council which in the 1960s proclaimed that Jews did not bear responsibility for Christ's death as "a Masonic plot backed by the Jews." Since then, Mel Gibson has chosen mainly to preach to the converted like conservative pundit Peggy Noonan in the latest edition of Readers Digest. "The Holocaust happened, right?" Noonan asked. Even that softball question got Gibson in trouble. "Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible," Gibson said. "The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps." Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles responded with a scathing letter: "To describe Jewish suffering during the Holocaust as 'some of them were Jews in concentration camps' ... feeds right into the hands of Holocaust deniers and revisionists." Gibson also talked to The New Yorker magazine about his movie and its critics including Frank Rich, a New York Times columnist who accused Gibson of trying to "bait Jews and sow religious conflict." "I want to kill him," Gibson told The New Yorker, regarding Rich. "I want his intestines on a stick." Despite such colorful responses to critics, Gibson has manipulated their concerns with a bait-and-tease routine on one hand complaining that they shouldn't attack a movie without seeing it, and on the other banning them from screenings while sympathetic viewers see the picture by the thousands. Many scholars, reporters and critics say Gibson has prevented them from viewing the film until Feb. 23, giving them just one day to print reviews. ... http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/ap20040218_1430.html Gibson sucks.
From the ADL: ADL's concerns include: The film portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish "mob" as forcing the decision to torture and execute Jesus, thus assuming responsibility for the crucifixion. The film relies on sinister medieval stereotypes, portraying Jews as blood-thirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of God who lack compassion and humanity. The film relies on historical errors, chief among them its depiction of the Jewish high priest controlling Pontius Pilate The film uses an anti-Jewish account of a 19th century mystical anti-Semitic nun, distorts New Testament interpretation by selectively citing passages to weave a narrative that oversimplifies history, and is hostile to Jews and Judaism. The film portrays Jews who adhere to their Jewish faith as enemies of God and the locus of evil. http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4291_12.htm
arggghhhhh!!!!! Are you failing to see that that is not church dogma? Do you understand what dogma is? It's not the feelings of one pope about a particular action in time. It's theology. No where in our theology will you see a dogma about mandatory persecution of Jews. It juest doesn't exist. Sorry, try again.
I forgot....people don't get excommunicated for marrying people of other faiths. She might have not been able to get married in a Catholic Church, as was the way then and I think maybe still now, but she definitely wasn't excommunicated, I know plenty of Catholics who are married to Jewish people or people of other faiths. I don't hate Russians because they force marched my dad's family across Germany.
Wow. The dontrine in question is the one that blamed Jews for the death of Jesus. The results was a couple of thousand years of persecution, which continued up until fairly recently. Sticking your head in the sand won't change the truth.
I promised to highlight Mel’s ‘enhancements’. I also tried to abbreviate, to little avail.. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4212787/
<yawn>... is this STILL going on? if your guys have so many objections, go make your own ******* movie. it is a fact that many jews played a major role in jesus's death. and if that alone makes portraying the passion like it was inherently anti-semitic, well, that's just too bad. **** happens. gibson never intended for his movie to please everyone, nor does he have to. if he were to cater to everyone's sensibilities, then he won't be making this movie at all. how about all the hindus and shintoists in the world to whom this project is blasphemy? The Passion is going to go down as one of the great cinematic achievements of these past few years, and i for one am certainly not going to miss it. seeing all these people bring in gibson's father and gibson himself as whipping boys only hypes the film more and piques my interest. i just find it disgusting that institutions like the ADL are supposed to be fighting for freedoms, but campaigns to shut down and silence this movie. they are supposed to fight for tolerance, but asks sons to betray and repudiate their fathers in dotage. they ask the world to treat history with integrity and respect, but they themselves treat the present with a warped sense of destructive paranoia. but hey these institutions can do and say whatever the hell they want. so can gibson. as for me, i'm gonna go watch his movie.
Catch 22. Here we have an instance of the very issue that has led to 2000 years of persecution for Jews. Do you ignore it? Or do you express your concern? Now many here have mentioned how it’s irrelevant (on more than one level) what the race or religion was of those who killed Jesus. That would be great, if all felt that way. History shows us that is not the way it is, so let’s stop discussing how un-Christian it is to feel that way. We all accept that. Is Mel anti-semitic? I’ll state again for those who won’t read these 2 threads, I don’t think so. But that’s not the salient issue. I think he filled in the blanks (in the Gospel) where needed in a way to make his movie more entertaining. Clear antagonist/protagonist. The result, according to the detailed analyses of the movie that are available, is to portray the Jews at the time in the most negative way possible. (Has anyone found a detailed analysis of the money that argues, point by point, how this movie did not skew against Jews? If so, please provide a link since I have not found one). It is hard for me to get a picture out of my mind..a still of one of the Jews looking sinister, evil. Gibson believes that all who oppose(d) Jesus either work for Satan or are dupes of Satan. The criticisms of this movie are not w/o basis, as some here have suggested. Read Jon Meacham’s (an Episcopalian, FWIW) article above. Based on the descriptions of the movie, and consistent with the still image I saw, the imagery depicted in the film will be a large part of the issue. Again, this issue is the basis for years of persecution. And this persecution and racism is not just historical. I imagine you would be hard-pressed to find a Jew who hasn’t experienced it to some extent (e.g. when moving from an up-sclae Austin neighborhood, my sister had a note placed on her door: ’Good Riddance Jew’) . The Catch 22 is do you look the other way when there are events which can inflame the racism that exists? Or do you risk pissing off folks, many who seeem to have difficulty disassociating a criticism of a movie with criticism of their religion? As one could understand, history has forced the Jews to speak-out against anti-semiticism. I don’t think anyone here would expect them to act like sheep for the slaughter. Yet the catch is that there will always be the folks (Gibson, FD Kahn, etc) who scream about ‘they always yell anti-semiticism, anti-semiticism’. There’s a reason for that. Anti-semticism is still widespread, and still a threat. Is it so hard to understand why this topic, in particular, is so sensitive? I find it reprehensible that Gibson dealt with this topic the way he did. I think part of it was to recoup his $25 million. So for mammon, he inflames passions? Crap. It’s understandable that people are also sensitive about their religion, and some here have responded as if criticism of the movie was attacking Christianity. Not so. But also reprehensible, is when folks try to take advantage of the situation…namely, FD Khan and Lil. Lil: Have the Jews EVER said sorry? Did the wink make this more acceptable? Or FD Khan’s This is the story of the Jesus' last hours. A man that Christians and Muslims, which make up over 75% of this planet, believe was the voice of God.. I ask, how does that address the issue with the movie’s portrayal of Jews? It doesn’t. It’s just opportunistic. FD, maybe you would like to add another hyphen in ‘Judeo-Christian’? Or would you would prefer replacing ‘Judeo’ with ‘Islamic’? I can understand how innocent Muslims could feel some discomfort in these times, but to try and use this issue for personal gain is disgusting … and self-defeating. If you want to fight racism and prejudice, it has to be fought on all fronts; all races and religions. Not just your own. In summary, even if you believe in a strict interpretation of the Gospels and ignore most historians and many of the Christian faiths (including Cathlocism), and based on all of the detailed analyses available, Gibson went farther. It’s irresponsible. And I'll re-emphasize. The criticisms and concerns are not an attack on Christianity or Jesus. I am certain of this because personally, it would be quite illogical of me to do so.
Originally posted by Lil <yawn>... is this STILL going on? if your guys have so many objections, go make your own ******* movie. it is a fact that many jews played a major role in jesus's death. and if that alone makes portraying the passion like it was inherently anti-semitic, well, that's just too bad. It's really no surprise that this is how you feel, is it? **** happens. gibson never intended for his movie to please everyone, nor does he have to. if he were to cater to everyone's sensibilities, But he shouldn't act irresponsibly, either. If he's creating fictional events and imagery that will inflame racists tendencies, then ITS AN ISSUE THAT NEEDS DISCUSSION. Sorry it doesn't EFFECT YOU, else you might be more inclined to deem it worthy. ...then he won't be making this movie at all. how about all the hindus and shintoists in the world to whom this project is blasphemy? How will Hindus and Shintoists be effected by this movie? Have they been persecuted for eons because of issues in this movie? How ignorant. ... seeing all these people bring in gibson's father and gibson himself as whipping boys only hypes the film more and piques my interest. i just find it disgusting that institutions like the ADL are supposed to be fighting for freedoms, but campaigns to shut down and silence this movie. they are supposed to fight for tolerance, .. WRONG. WHo tried to 'shut down' the movie? NO ONE. The ADL expresses valid concerns over the fall-out from this movie, and the next thing you hear is that they tried to shut it down. ... but asks sons to betray and repudiate their fathers in dotage. they ask the world to treat history with integrity and respect, but they themselves treat the present with a warped sense of destructive paranoia. ... Yep. Really warped. Nothing bad has ever happened to Jews because of this issue. There are no anti-Semites. There was no Holocaust, no pogroms, no Jews were ever killed or persecuted in any way. It's all just a rampant, warped imagination. What a flaming racist.
