I'm confused. Jesus and Mary were Jews. How can they be portrayed in a negative light in a movie about the passion? If they are not, then it is hardly fair to say that "all the Jews", or even just "the Jews" are portrayed in as negative a light as possible. It seems instead that some Jews, in particular the Temple elite are portrayed in a negative light.
Er....had it always been logical, you'd have an argument. Sadly, however, you'd have to overlook the centuries upon centuries where Christians persecuted Jews because of 'what they had done to Christ.'
Should the story be told in a way that didn't happen to account for the idiocy of people that came a thousand years later?
It came much harder upon the event than that, but in answer to your question, it's a distinction I'm happy I don't have to make; historical accuracy vs. sensitivity to the repercussions of similar depictions over the millenia...I know which course I'd choose, but then it's easy to say in respose. I suppose one question to ask is, in other regards, how closely aligned to history does this film try to hold? But to actually respond, I wasn't suggesting altering history, I was merely answering your question about how this could be perceived to be a negative portrayal.
True, but if the idiocy was limited to the time shortly after the events occurred, then it wouldn't be a big issue. It is the idiocy that occurs 1000+ years later that spurs this debate. Gotcha.
I thought some of you might find this article interesting reading. It's from the Sunday Austin American-Statesman. http://www.statesman.com/life/conte...life_entertainment_0473017f656ce05e009b.html# 'Masterpiece'? 'Anti-Semitic'? Austin previewers take on Jesus film: Local audience that saw 'The Passion of the Christ' with Mel Gibson in attendance weighs in on the controversial release... By John DeFore SPECIAL TO THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN Sunday, February 22, 2004 In every corner of the media world, a torrent of opinion is spilling over Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ." To listen to the talk, you'd think this is the most potent movie ever made, capable of (depending on who's talking) converting the heathen masses or sparking new waves of persecution. Trouble is, most of the people talking haven't seen the film, which opens this week on Ash Wednesday, and many of those who have may be, as religious or political leaders, inclined to see things in it the rest of us won't. For two and a half months, a small group of Austinites has watched silently as bishops and rabbis pontificate. They're the "Butt-Numb-A-Thon-ers," the die-hard movie fans who attended online film guru Harry Knowles' 24-hour film marathon (held at the Alamo Drafthouse downtown) that just happened to end with a screening of "The Passion," in unfinished form, and a Q&A with its director. This, perhaps the most diverse audience to have seen the film to date, was a crowd of Christians, Jews, atheists and hobbit-worshippers, united by little more than a deep respect for the art of cinema. They were hand-chosen by Harry Knowles, whose rumor site aintitcool.com has been vocal in its support of the film since the screening. In a description of the event at the site, Knowles writes, "Mel loved the idea that only the owner of the Alamo Drafthouse and I would know that he and the film would be coming." In other words, there would be no rabble-rousers sneaking in just to trash his movie. What the Butt-Numb-A-Thon-ers saw was still missing its final soundtrack and special effects shots, and almost certainly included some scenes that by now have been trimmed for the release version. But this was already a polished work. When the American-Statesman covered the event in December, we reported that the word "masterpiece" was bandied freely after "The Passion" unspooled. We also acknowledged that some degree of enthusiasm might be attributed to Gibson's presence -- which may have convinced audiences at the screening that the movie they've just seen is better than it really is. But time has passed, and opinions have had time to ripen. Speaking via e-mail, a number of audience members shared their take on the film. One topic of universal agreement is that "The Passion" is extraordinarily violent -- and this is coming from moviegoers who in the previous 24 hours had watched flesh-eating zombies and teenage werewolves. "I had a hard time watching the parts where Jesus is beaten and crucified," says St. Edward's student Katie Pfeil. Postal employee Darryl Mott Jr., despite being an avowed fan of horror movies, agrees: "No film in a decade or more has been able to make me squirm in my seat for as long as this film did . . . Christians have said 'Jesus suffered for your sins' so much it's become a cliché. This film succeeds in bringing that phrase to life." It is also surprisingly easy to find a consensus on a more controversial topic: Of those from the preview audience who replied to the paper's inquiries, not one viewer found anti-Semitic sentiments within the film. Tami Cerny, a Jewish woman in her 30s, described her background before addressing the question: "While (members of my family) weren't terribly religious, there were certain aspects of the faith that we did participate in. "The charges that this film encourages anti-Semitism are ludicrous to me," she says. "Those who are shouting anti-Semitism seem to be conveniently forgetting the Jewish women who were there weeping for Jesus and wanting to help him. They're forgetting the man who helped Jesus bear his cross." Her husband Alan Cerny, who describes himself as a lapsed Catholic, also defends the film. Responding to assertions that the Jewish people as a whole are portrayed as responsible for Jesus' death, Cerny argues that he saw the Jewish leaders who argue for Christ's crucifixion not so much "as a religious organization as a political one." Echoing the sentiments of other attendees, he says "the film portrays Jews as real people, with many different ideas and beliefs. Some Jews are screaming for the death of Jesus. Some Jews are yelling for his freedom." Erik Secrest, an Austin hospice worker who describes himself as agnostic, adds, "Since the whole point of the movie is that Jesus forgives those who capture, torture and kill him, it seems rather silly to me to say that Mel Gibson is trying to focus blame on anyone at all, let alone one specific group of people." If not every viewer is convinced "The Passion" is a masterpiece -- Pfeil, for one, didn't like it much in the first place, though she's intrigued enough to see the final version -- the group tends to agree that it's an impressive piece of filmmaking. "After months and months of debate and controversy, I feel saddened by the fact that no one will be able to walk in and watch this film as a film," Mott laments. "I feel without a doubt that 'The Passion of the Christ' will be one of the most important films of this decade."
Thanks Deckard. Those reports sound quite different from the early screenings, and much more promising. Guess we'll hear...or see... about the final product soon enough.
Did I post it in the wrong thread? I just realized that. I can put it there if someone thinks it's worthwhile. It's amazing how much "heat" this movie is causing among a wide variety of the public.
I went and saw 50 First Dates today, which was actually pretty good. Everyone else in line at the box office was buying tickets for Passion tho. Damn why couldn't the studios release Hidalgo or Starsky & Hutch this weekend instead of next? The only big release is Ashley Judd's "Twisted" and that looks pretty weak so Passion will likely be #1 this weekend.
I would think with all the hype and the "I gotta see it for myself" and the church groups and whatnot, The Passion would've been number 1 even up against stronger competition. I'm going to see Club Dread, though.
