Passionate criticism over Gibson's "The Passion"

[SpaceForRent]

So what's up with all the outcry over this movie (that, by the way, isn't even released yet). Apparently both Jews and Catholics alike are upset over it. The Jewish side is claiming that the movie will fuel anti-jewish sentiment, and the Catholics are upset that it will turn against some of their recent doctrine. (Gibson is apparently a Catholic purist who is against some of the recent Catholic reform.)

For those unaware of the movie, The Passion is a new movie by Mel Gibson about the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ and also his death and resurrection.

Seems to me that this is just a bunch of whining, but I'm curious what others think (both Jewish and Catholic). If you want to see an article about the outcry, here is one from Yahoo:

Yahoo story (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=638&ncid=579&e=1&u=/nm/20030812/en_nm/leisure_thepassion_dc)

[sqweels]

And trying to stop a (presumably) faithful depiction of the Gospels from being publicly displayed won't fuel anti-jewish feelings?

[Skammer]

I heard that some of the advanced screenings that they have shown, have used English subtitles. I thought that one of Gibson's main objectives was to tell the story in only Hebrew and Aramaic, with no subtitles at all. Has he softened his approach? I wouldn't mind seeing it with no subtitles at first, but upon second viewing I might want to know what everyone is saying.

[yojimbo]

Skammer it was decided to add subtitles.

A accurate portrayal of the Gospels will also piss of Jewish people IMO as Paul didn't really care about the Jews but really wanted the Romans to get interested in his new religion*

A very broad brush I know but I'm busy ;)

[Skammer]

Originally posted by yojimbo
Skammer it was decided to add subtitles.

A accurate portrayal of the Gospels will also piss of Jewish people IMO as Paul didn't really care about the Jews but really wanted the Romans to get interested in his new religion*

A very broad brush I know but I'm busy ;)

Whether or not you're being fair to Paul's attitudes about the Jews, you can't blame him for anything in the Gospels -- he didn't write any of them.

[astorian]

Oddly enough, many of the people condemning Gibson's film without seeing it are the very folk who were outraged when fundamentalists condemned "The last Temptation of Christ" without seeing it.

[Sam Stone]

There seems to be two camps here - those who haven't seen the movie, and are 'outraged' by it, and those who have seen it (including some Catholics and Jews), who think it's the greatest movie ever made on the life and death of Christ. Not one of the people who have seen it think there's even a hint of anti-semitism in it.

The problem is that Gibson doesn't have a lot of friends in Hollywood. He's a conservative Catholic. A lot of people would like to knock him down a peg or two. They got some ammo from an early stolen script which they claim had some anti-semitic stuff in it. So now they're making a big noise.

In the end, they're just giving Mel a lot of free publicity for his movie. They should shut up and wait to actually see the film before trying to tear it down. After they see it they can make their case, and then other people can judge it on the evidence.

[John Mace]

I have seen interviews with a few (Jewish) movie critics who saw an advanced screening and none of them saw anti-semmitiism in the film. But let's face it, the Gospels are clrear that both Romans and Jews were involved in Jesus's demise. All the local players, including Jesus, were Jews! If you make a movie based on the Gospels, it's not going to portray the Jewish leadership of the time in a positive light, from the perspective of Christians.

Gibson is more than a "conservative Catholic" when it comes to the church. He and his father are members of a fringe group that pretty much reject the Vatican II changes. But he's a fun loving guy, not some religious fanatic. He just likes his Mass in Latin (and apparently his movies in that language, too).

I wasn't aware that the decision had been made to release the film with subtitles. Does anyone have a cite? At first glance it might seem off-putting to release it only in Aramaic and Latin (not Hebrew, by the way), but it's not like there are many people who don't know the story, so it shouldn't really be that confusing. But I think using a (basically) non-intelligible language in a film really makes sense only when the main character is in a position where he or she does not understand the language and the audience is suppose to see things from his or her point of view. The classic western A Man Called Horse used this effect very well, in my opinion.

[Skammer]

Oops, yes, I was thinking "Latin" when I wrote "Hebrew." Thanks for the correction.

I'm also surprised if it's true that he has decided to incorporate subtitles. Normally, he might be forced to do that in order to secure a major distributor; but this film has received so much press already that I'll bet there are plenty of studios willing to distribute it. It won't be a blockbuster, but should be pretty successful for an art-house type of film.

[Voyager]

First of all, no one who I am aware of is trying to prevent the movie from being seen. The reason people are criticizing the movie without seeing it (based on a script that was leaked) is that Gibson is not allowing anyone who is not predisposed to be favorable to the movie to see it. So, unless you want the groups with concerns to be quiet until
St. Mel deigns to let them see it, they are doing their best.

BTW, the rumor is the script came from an insider who was concerned about what was going on.

[Apos]

They got some ammo from an early stolen script which they claim had some anti-semitic stuff in it. So now they're making a big noise.

Seems more complex than that, and parts of your account seem false (stolen script/early script). The script was circulated by the movie's producers to a group of scholars to consider the historical accuracy of the script. They prepared a report of changes. The whole thing was supposed to be a private matter, with an agreement of full confidentiality between the script people and the scholars. Most of their criticisms involved cases in which they felt the Gospels contradicted what was in the script, or which the script involved scenes that came from the visions of a 12th century nun rather from any historical evidence. "Pilate talks to Caiphas in Latin, when it is far more likely that they'd converse in Greek": that sort of thing. They included also some concerns about where the Gospel stories had been changed or ammended to make the Jews come off even worse than the Gospels portrayed them as.

Then, all of a sudden, Jesuits started making references to people criticizing the script "how dare they!" and the scholars were suddenly accused of "stealing" the script, which was ludicruous given that they had gotten it under condition of anonymity from the scriptwriters themselves. The scholars were a bit surprised, but quickly caught on that obviously someone had read their report, decided that they hated what it said, and wanted to discredit it by claiming it had no connection to the movie's producers, that it was an attempt at extortion, etc. All of this appears to be smokescreen bullshit by the movie's producers.

As for it being an "early" script, that seems utterly false as well. The scholars got the script AFTER major shooting had been finished. And even it's producers had been talking about how faithful the movie was to the script (because the script was written to be super historically accurate, and they wanted to talk this aspect up).

Finally, to be clear, the criticism has been about the script: everyone knows that the movie could still change.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030728&s=fredriksen072803

All the local players, including Jesus, were Jews!

Sure, but the "good guys" essentially represent a rejection of Judiasm.

[Marley23]

From the July 2 news section of The Internet Movie Database (http://us.imdb.com/WN?20030702#1):

"Mel Gibson has performed a spectacular U-turn over his controversial movie about Jesus Christ's last hours - he's decided to include subtitles after all. Gibson shocked Hollywood after announcing The Passion, which stars Jim Caviezel as Jesus and Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene, would be shot in Aramaic language without the aid of subtitles - but now a Christian focus group invited to a screening of the film insists it has too many subtitles. One viewer tells American website The Scoop, "I don't know if Mel was ever serious about not having any subtitles. If he was, he has moved beyond that now. The version I saw actually had too many subtitles. We don't need distracting translations flashing on the screen when the Roman soldiers are saying obvious things like, 'Hey, you, move!' Mel noted that they were going to eliminate some of the subtitles in future edits." "

[Bricker]

Originally posted by Voyager
First of all, no one who I am aware of is trying to prevent the movie from being seen. The reason people are criticizing the movie without seeing it (based on a script that was leaked) is that Gibson is not allowing anyone who is not predisposed to be favorable to the movie to see it. So, unless you want the groups with concerns to be quiet until
St. Mel deigns to let them see it, they are doing their best.

BTW, the rumor is the script came from an insider who was concerned about what was going on.

What kind of logic is that? Where is it written that certain groups have a right to pre-screen a film and offer commentary on it?

They are not "doing their best" to be objective. They are, I suppose, "doing their best" to offer commentary without having seen the film, but I can see no compelling reason for them to do that.

[fatjack]

Anyone know when it's going to be released?

[Apos]

To clarify, I don't think anyone concerned about Anti-semitism is worried about sophisticated christians seeing this film and coming out of it riled up about the Jews. What concerns people is how it's going to play in those places that already hate the Jews. How are the Palestinians going to see this movie? People in Poland? Especially with the advance press of "the story the Jews don't want to be told" that Icon has basically invented with its extortion claim (a claim that, if the scholars are to be believed, is a fanciful ruse).

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I'd just like to point out that there is no historical evidence that any Jews were involved with the arrest or execution of Jesus (and the gospels do not count as historical evidence). Josephus and Tacitus both imply that Pilate was responsible. It was purel a Riman method of execution. Jesus had done nothing wrong under Jewish law, and the accounts of the trial before the Sanhedrin contain so many procedural and factual inaccuracies that they can't be taken seriously as historical.

I think that Gibson is attempting to render a faithful adaptation of scripture, but those scriptures contain some ancient polemics which would now seem antisemitic. I doubt that Gibson, himself, is doing anything intentionally antisemitic, but he would serve himself better by screening the film to an audience that doesn't consist of hand picked sycophants.

[Sam Stone]

Apos: was just going by a CNN report on the movie that I watched the other night. If the details I posted are wrong, mea culpa.

[Marley23]

The reason people are criticizing the movie without seeing it (based on a script that was leaked) is that Gibson is not allowing anyone who is not predisposed to be favorable to the movie to see it.
So why don't they just shut up until they see it? That's ridiculous! Be adults and judge the movie after you've seen it.
On top of which, I'd say the ADL is predisposed against the movie (and I think their comments in the article back me up there). Why would Mel screen it for them?

So, unless you want the groups with concerns to be quiet until St. Mel deigns to let them see it, they are doing their best.

"Doing their best" to what? For all I know, there are problems with the film's content, but it's irresponsible and stupid of them do act like this. And they do this sort of thing constantly. If I were doing a movie, I wouldn't let them see it either.

To clarify, I don't think anyone concerned about Anti-semitism is worried about sophisticated christians seeing this film and coming out of it riled up about the Jews. What concerns people is how it's going to play in those places that already hate the Jews. How are the Palestinians going to see this movie? People in Poland?
Wow, way to stereotype there, Apos. Seriously, the opinions of Palestinians regarding Jews aren't going to be changed by a movie.

[BobLibDem]

Originally posted by Apos
"Pilate talks to Caiphas in Latin, when it is far more likely that they'd converse in Greek": that sort of thing.

Interesting, and close to something I've always wondered about...

When Pilate and Jesus spoke, what language did they speak? Did Pilate know Hebrew and/or Aramaic? Did Jesus know Latin? Or did they have an interpreter? And what languages did Jesus know? Just Aramaic? Aramaic and Hebrew? Others?

Sorry for the hijack.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

When Romans were speaking to Jews they either spoke Greek or they used an interpreter. It is unclear how prevalent the Greek language was amongst the Jewish populace at the time. It has generally been thought that Greek would have only been spoken to any degree by the educated upper classes of the Jews, but not much or at all by the peasants. Some other recent scholarship argues for a more bilingual culture where pretty much everyone spoke Greek. It is not certain either way if Jesus spoke Greek and there are currently arguments for both views.

If Jesus knew Greek, then Pilate would have spoken to him in Greek. If Jesus did not know Greek then Pilate probably would have used an interpreter.

[MC Master of Ceremonies]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
I'd just like to point out that there is no historical evidence that any Jews were involved with the arrest or execution of Jesus (and the gospels do not count as historical evidence). Josephus and Tacitus both imply that Pilate was responsible. It was purel a Riman method of execution. Jesus had done nothing wrong under Jewish law, and the accounts of the trial before the Sanhedrin contain so many procedural and factual inaccuracies that they can't be taken seriously as historical.

I think that Gibson is attempting to render a faithful adaptation of scripture, but those scriptures contain some ancient polemics which would now seem antisemitic. I doubt that Gibson, himself, is doing anything intentionally antisemitic, but he would serve himself better by screening the film to an audience that doesn't consist of hand picked sycophants.

I disagree with you, the Gospels are historical evidence; just as Josephus and Tactitcus were presumely trying to write accurate accounts of events so were the authors of the gospels, all the authirs also suffer from some form of bias and other problems with accuracy. You can't dismiss documents as ahistroical because they're of a religious nature any more than you can except them as the gospel (excuse the pun) truth.

As for whther the films antisemitic, no-one can really say until they've seen it, and I certainly won't be wasting my money in that way!

[vivalostwages]

Originally posted by fatjack
Anyone know when it's going to be released?

Some time in 2004. I'm guessing around Easter.

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0335345

I saw the Internet trailer and it grossed me out so much that I don't think I could handle the whole movie.

[Dreaming of Maria Callas]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Josephus and Tacitus both imply that Pilate was responsible.

Josephus didn't say anything about Jesus. It's been common knowledge in classical rounds over at least the last fifty years that the portions of Josephus' works which deal with Jesus are later forgeries. I seriously question your qualifications if you would post such a statement here.

UnuMondo

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The gospels are liturgical and mythological in nature, not historical. The fact that (unlike Tacitus and Josephus) they contain assertions of supernatural events renders them unreliable as pure historical documents.

[Apos]

The likihood that Jesus would know Greek depends largely on periods of his life we aren't told much about. Certainly a carpenter wouldn't need to know Greek, but if he was as studied as he appears to be, it's certainly possible that he learned it.

However, it isn't Jesus that they are concened about, but the Israelite leadership and the occupation force Pilate oversaw (which was largely NOT composed of Romans proper). Greek something of the "English" of those multicultural times in diplomacy.

MC:
I disagree with you, the Gospels are historical evidence; just as Josephus and Tactitcus were presumely trying to write accurate accounts of events so were the authors of the gospels, all the authirs also suffer from some form of bias and other problems with accuracy.

We know very little about the motives of the Gospel writers, certainly not that accuracy was their main intent. In the case of the historians, however, we do have people that were trying to focus solely on accuracy. That doesn't make one more trustworthy than the other, but it is something of a different ballgame. A religious and political tract is not the same kind of source as the work of historian, even if the historian's work is more flawed.

[MC Master of Ceremonies]

No, Apos accuracy was there main intent, after all they were trying to write about the life of Christ and his teachings, etc. which is something they would of considered very imporant and not something to embellish (I'm not saying they didn't embellish, but they were writing what they believed to be the truth). The fact that someone is a historian means very little as some of the worst sources come from historians and quite often contain myths.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by UnuMondo
Josephus didn't say anything about Jesus. It's been common knowledge in classical rounds over at least the last fifty years that the portions of Josephus' works which deal with Jesus are later forgeries. I seriously question your qualifications if you would post such a statement here.

UnuMondo
You're only partially correct. It is generally believed that the passages from Josephus contain interpolations by Christian forgers (such as the claim that Jesus was the Messiah), but not that the entire passage is an invention. It's more like Josephus made a passing reference to Jesus and Christian forgers embellished it. It's not widely believed that the entire thing is a forgery, only the embellishments.

[Apos]

So why don't they just shut up until they see it? That's ridiculous! Be adults and judge the movie after you've seen it.

As far as I can tell, the movie's defenders are making a far bigger stink about the criticisms than the critics themselves were. The original criticisms were part of a private report that didn't even focus solely on potential anti-semitism and was _requested_ by the films producers. It was the films defenders that first broke the news that there were critics in the first place, pre-emptively to attack and discredit the report.

Certainly people should wait until they see it. But it is also possible for rational people to be very concerned about script, which by all accounts is very very close to what was, at the least, filmed.

Wow, way to stereotype there, Apos. Seriously, the opinions of Palestinians regarding Jews aren't going to be changed by a movie.

Can you point out the stereotype for me? Is it not true that there is a lot of anto-semitism in Palestine? In certain parts of Europe?
And can you seriously not imagine it inciting people in the Mid-east, or raising old wounds?

Personally, I doubt this film is going to be intentionally anti-semitic, and I don't think anything should be done even if it was. But critics have a right to worry about its potential effects. It's still an exciting project, whether or not it's very historical, and even because it's controversial.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I should also add that there exists a copy of ntiquities which contains an uninterpolated version of the passage in question which is entirely consistent with Josephus' vocabulary and worldview.

Further more, the other reference in Antiquities (which refers to the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus") shows no evidence of interpolation or tampering and is present and identical in all copies.

[Apos]

No, Apos accuracy was there main intent, after all they were trying to write about the life of Christ and his teachings, etc. which is something they would of considered very imporant and not something to embellish (I'm not saying they didn't embellish, but they were writing what they believed to be the truth)

You show remarkable insight into the hearts and minds of the Gospel authors. Perhaps you should consider a career as the next John Edwards?

There are several elements in the Gospel stories that make sense not as actual events, but as symbolic ones meant to convey a theological message. The cursing of the fig tree is a common example: taken literally, it makes Jesus look like a vindictive, irrational loony (he expects figs when the text clearly states that it is not the season for figs). But read with the idea that the tree is a metaphor for the fruit of David, it fits in perfectly with the rest of Mark's narrative, which itself seems very concerned with making a case as to why the Temple was destroyed and Judiasm had failed to live out God's promise.

There are also several events and statements that seem to involve the authors "fulfilling" what they thought were the requisite auxilliary prophecies for a messiah (since Jesus didn't fulfill the main ones in the eyes of most Jews). This includes the text, but no actual people, calling Jesus Emmanuel (a phrophecy that was likely not to have anything to do with Jesus), as well as having him having ride on two asses at once, which is an idea that appears to be from an error in the inferior translation Scripture the Gospel writers were likely to have used that rendered a poetic couplet about a single ass into two.

[Marley23]

Can you point out the stereotype for me? Is it not true that there is a lot of anto-semitism in Palestine? In certain parts of Europe?
There's anti-Semitism in America, too, you know. I felt the implication that "sophisticated Christians" who can be unbiased exist only in America (or not in places like Poland or the Middle East) was stereotyping.

And can you seriously not imagine it inciting people in the Mid-east, or raising old wounds?
No, I can't imagine that. There are enough fresh wounds over there that I'm not concerned about the old ones in the slightest. Israel and Palestine are pretty much at war, a movie isn't going to make a damn bit of difference. Also, the Palestinians are mostly Muslims, so I don't think they really have a horse in the "did the Jews kill Jesus?" race.

As far as I can tell, the movie's defenders are making a far bigger stink about the criticisms than the critics themselves were.
I'm sorry, but any criticism about the movie, sight unseen, is absurd. And they didn't just start criticizing it with this report, this controversy has existed for months. I'm responding not just to the report, but to the ADL's pattern of behavior with films like this. I'm not a "defender of the film" by any stretch, and based on what I know about it, I think it may well end up anti-Semitic in some ways. But to decide what it is without even seeing it is a joke.

accuracy was there main intent, after all they were trying to write about the life of Christ and his teachings, etc. which is something they would of considered very imporant and not something to embellish (I'm not saying they didn't embellish, but they were writing what they believed to be the truth).
[b]MC, the fact that they believed it to be the truth doesn't mean what they wrote was accurate. At a bare minimum (assuming Jesus lived when he was supposed to have lived), the books were written decades after his death.

The Straight Dope report about Biblical authorship (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html) places the earliest of the Gospels at about 65 AD, which would be at least 30 years post-J. That would raise reliability questions for me. Likewise, we don't even know who really wrote the things, and they've been translated and changed over hundreds of years. Even if your interpretation is correct, the feelings of the authors are far from the sole issue.

[Apos]

There's anti-Semitism in America, too, you know.

Yes, but hardly the same thing. You obviously having been keeping up with december's accounts of disturbing anti-semitism. in Europe. I'm not trying to speak about all Christians or all peoples, but rather regions in which this is still a serious social issue.

the Palestinians are mostly Muslims, so I don't think they really have a horse in the "did the Jews kill Jesus?" race.

You can't know much about Islam if you think that Jesus has nothing to do with their religion.

I'm sorry, but any criticism about the movie, sight unseen, is absurd.

Criticism of the script. The SCRIPT. And it was NOT sight unseen.

[CyberPundit]

Apos,
There are many Jews and Christians who hate Muslims. By your logic any film or book critical of some aspect of Muslim history is worrying because it will potentially incite hatred of Muslims. In fact almost everything incites one group of bigots or another. Inter-racial marriage incites some bigots. Darwinism incites some bigots. Etc. That is not a good reason to argue against these things.

As for the controversy I think it's rather ridiculous for critics to demand advance screenings of a controversial film and attack a filmmaker who doesn't oblige. The ADL can wait in the line like the rest of us when the movie is released. Is this supposed to apply to all potentially controversial films from now on?

About historical accuracy there is very little reliable information about the life and death of Jesus. So any film will depend largely on scripture. If scripture says that some Jewish leaders at the time wanted to see Jesus dead it seems reasonable to include that in the film. I don't see how it's bigoted against all Jews any more than , say, criticism of Sharon's government is bigoted against Jews.

[Apos]

By my logic, there is nothing inherently wrong about people being concerned about the potential impact of a film that tells a story with a long difficult history. I don't think the ADL has any right to see the film, but I do think you are simply being naive about the "logic" here.

[stick monkey]

Sure, but the "good guys" essentially represent a rejection of Judiasm.

I think for the most part that is wholly untrue. The 'good guys' I believe you are refferring to were the diciples, who while they rejected the then-current stranglehold the Pharasees and Saducees had on the religion/culture did not reject judaism. At worse they were heretics, in that they believed that the Moshiach was a living god, which can be debated how severe that herecy is, but that does not entale a rejection of judaism on the whole.n That didn't really start happening until Peter and Paul later started taking the religion to the Romans and Greeks.


"Mel Gibson has performed a spectacular U-turn over his controversial movie about Jesus Christ's last hours - he's decided to include subtitles after all.

Damn, I was hoping to get to see the movie in the theatre alone and get some use out of all those theology courses I took.

[CyberPundit]

Um naive in what way? Your argument appears to be we ought to be worried that the film might incite bigots. Like I said that there are a lot of things that incite bigots all over the world.

As for "long difficult history" that applies to all kind of religious propoganda down the centuries. It's like arguing that because anti-Muslim or anti-Catholic propoganda has incited bigots for centuries we should be "worried" about any criticism of Muslims or Catholics.

BTW I would like evidence that , say, "people in Poland" today "hate the Jews". When you trash entire nationalities who is being the bigot?

[Apos]

Your argument appears to be we ought to be worried that the film might incite bigots.

My argument is that people have a right to be worried, nor is it necessary irrational to be worried, not that you should be worried.

BTW I would like evidence that , say, "people in Poland" today "hate the Jews".

I didn't mean to imply that all people in Poland hate the jews. Not all Palestinians do either. But both areas have ongoing problems that, unlike in the U.S., are real social issues.

[Apos]

The 'good guys' I believe you are refferring to were the diciples, who while they rejected the then-current stranglehold the Pharasees and Saducees had on the religion/culture did not reject judaism.

What strangehold are you talking about, exactly? It's not like the Pharisees and Saducees were good buddies working together to enslave the Jews. The latter group was in with the Romans, the former were in favor of revolution. Jesus himself represents the supposed collapse of what had been the project of Judiasm for thousands of years (fulfilled in the destruction of the Temple) and rejection of their very concept of a revolutionary messiah for something very different.

[CyberPundit]

"My argument is that people have a right to be worried, nor is it necessary irrational to be worried, not that you should be worried."
I find this rather vague and again you could apply similar logic to a lot of things but let's drop it.

"But both areas have ongoing problems that, unlike in the U.S., are real social issues."
In what way does Poland have "ongoing problems" with Jews compared to the US?

BTW I agree with Sam Stone that this controversy will only serve to increase interest in the film. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be a surprise hit. I expect that evanglecal leaders will praise it heavily (they are already doing this) and many devout Christians will want to go see the film. Other people will want to see the film to see what the fuss is about. A film with this much publicity before even the release date has been decided is rare. There must be half a dozen threads in the SDMB about the film already.

[Voyager]

Originally posted by Bricker
What kind of logic is that? Where is it written that certain groups have a right to pre-screen a film and offer commentary on it?

They are not "doing their best" to be objective. They are, I suppose, "doing their best" to offer commentary without having seen the film, but I can see no compelling reason for them to do that.

If he was keeping it secret, and not showing it to anyone, fine. But, for this controversial movie, he's showing it all over to those who would support it. Now that's fine, but it is hypocritical to object to those criticizing it without seeing it when he won't let them see it.

Perhaps he has something to hide. Perhaps he's just trying to build up controversy to sell tickets. But it smells as far as I can see.

[Marley23]

But, for this controversial movie, he's showing it all over to those who would support it. Now that's fine, but it is hypocritical to object to those criticizing it without seeing it when he won't let them see it.
That in no way meets the definition of hypocrisy. It might if *I* was stopping them from seeing the film, but I'm not. :P
Roger Ebert isn't complaining that he hasn't seen the film. Neither is A.O. Scott. And they're not going to say anything about it until they see it. Why? Because they're actually film critics, not people with an axe to grind. I think the Anti-Defamation League is going to crucify him no matter what he does, so I see no motivation for him to play their game. They've got no right to see it, and there's no reason they can't wait. They just don't want to. It's not their style.

As far as I can tell, this is 100% the same as the controversy over Kevin Smith's Dogma a couple of years ago. A number of Catholic advocacy groups went crazy over the film (sight unseen). As it turned out, they ended up giving the film free publicity, and ended up looking stupid when the film was not even remotely anti-Catholic. If anything, it was pro-Catholic, albeit not in a traditional sense, and all the Catholics I know like the film - they say being Catholic makes the movie funnier.

If you're going to run an advocacy group, I'd like to think you have an obligation to use your clout responsibly and not criticize movies you haven't even seen.

[Voyager]

Originally posted by Marley23
That in no way meets the definition of hypocrisy. It might if *I* was stopping them from seeing the film, but I'm not. :P
Roger Ebert isn't complaining that he hasn't seen the film. Neither is A.O. Scott. And they're not going to say anything about it until they see it. Why? Because they're actually film critics, not people with an axe to grind. I think the Anti-Defamation League is going to crucify him no matter what he does, so I see no motivation for him to play their game. They've got no right to see it, and there's no reason they can't wait. They just don't want to. It's not their style.

If you're going to run an advocacy group, I'd like to think you have an obligation to use your clout responsibly and not criticize movies you haven't even seen.

Sorry, I meant Gibson is the hypocrite, since he has the power to let those concerned see the movie.

Did Smith prevent the Catholics from seeing Dogma (which I loved also?) Life of Brian got criticized also.

I think the obligation of an advocacy group is to express concerns (and remember, they had a copy of the script, they weren't making the problem up out of their heads.) They also should try to get more information. They are not obligated to be quiet because they are blocked from viewing the movie.

Gibson said there is nothing to be concerned about. Fine, but he's acting like he has something to hide.

As for the reason for concern - do the words "Passion Play" mean anything to you?

BTW, Gibson is certainly within his rights to let whoever he wants see it or not see it before it opens. But he better be prepared to take a little flack for it.

[Marley23]

Did Smith prevent the Catholics from seeing Dogma (which I loved also?) Life of Brian got criticized also.
I don't think he pre-screened the film for advocacy groups, no. Someone tell me if I'm wrong. The problem, to me, is that these groups have been slamming Gibson about this film for months. The film wasn't even done when they started griping. The fact that so many films - like the two you mention - raised such a fuss despite the untruth of the allegations against them is at the root of the problem to me. Various Jewish groups make noise like this whenever there's a film about Hitler as well. Both Rise of Evil and Max, to name two recent examples, were met with protests - sight unseen - because people feared Hitler would be 'humanized' (since he wasn't a human, after all) or portrayed as a sympathetic character. It's annoying that these coalitions don't seem to think people should evaluate these films themselves - they should just accept their word.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
The fact that (unlike Tacitus and Josephus) they contain assertions of supernatural events renders them unreliable as pure historical documents.

Not to nitpick, but Josephus also contains assertions of supermatural events. The first ten books of Antiquities is just a summary of the bible.

[Sam Stone]

Here's an interesting Q&A with Michael Medved (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21289-2003Aug5.html), a Jewish movie critic who has seen the movie.

[Captain Amazing]

Well, ADL has also seen the movie, though.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by Captain Amazing
Not to nitpick, but Josephus also contains assertions of supermatural events. The first ten books of Antiquities is just a summary of the bible.
Ok, good point, but once he gets past the Biblical stuff it's a pretty straightforward history.

[Apos]

No, the ADL has not seen the movie.

As far as I can tell, this is what happened.

The movie's producers arranged for a group of scholars to review the film's script for things like historical accuracy. The scholars returned a 17page report, some of which included instances that they believed were historical errors with a bias towards implicating the Jews far more than they thought warranted. The entire process was supposed to be confidential.

A few days after the report was turned in, some conservative Catholics started complaining about how the film didn't deserve criticism, and that it wasn't anti-Semitic. Apparently, the report had been passed around and talked about from Gibson's camp.

This mention of "anti-Semitic" perked up the ears of the ADL, and they started making noise about wanting to see the script and warning Gibson that they would boycott the film if it was.

Gibson's camp and Icon then sent briefs to the scholars claiming, rather ridiculously, that they had "stolen" the script and that the report was an attempt at exortion.

This scared the ADL even more, and it started making even more noise.

So while the ADL doesn't have much of a ground to stand on, it's clear that Gibson's camp played some role instigating them with their own hubbub over the scholar's report. Their story about the stolen script and exortion, despite being refuted by the scholars (to get the script, they were in contact with Gibson's translator and assistant who conveyed messages from Gibson to them and negotiated the release), has become gospel in the retelling of the story.

It could be all a tempest in a teapot, but it's clear that rational people had concerns about what was in the script that they read: particularly in regards to the scenes which do not appear in the Gospels, but come from the visions of a 12th century nun. Gibson may well change things around, cut things out, etc. I doubt the final film will be in any way deliberately or clearly anti-Semitic. But that doesn't mean that it was irrational for people to react to informed suggestions that it might be, back when it was supposedly very different.

[Marley23]

No, the ADL has not seen the movie.

Well, they have now: (http://us.imdb.com/PeopleNews/)

"Mel Gibson's new movie The Passion has been given the official thumbs down by America's Anti-Defamation League. [...] Foxman says, "We are deeply concerned that the film, if released in its present form, will fuel the hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard to repudiate." Fellow ADL official Rabbi Eugene Korn, who also saw the movie, adds, "This is not a disagreement between the Jews and Mr. Gibson. Many theologically-informed Catholics and Protestants have expressed the same concerns regarding anti-Semitism and that this film may undermine Christian-Jewish dialogue and could turn back the clock on decades of positive progress in interfaith relations." "

[Marley23]

Sorry, just to be completist for non-link clickers, the story says "select religious leaders," which I guess includes the ADL members quoted above and I don't know who else, saw a screening of the film on Monday.

[Apos]

They don't give any specifics, which is unhelpful. Who knows what they consider "anti-Semitic?"

[Marley23]

They don't give any specifics, which is unhelpful.
I'm not sure it'll please you, Apos, but finally we're in 100% agreement about something. ;)

Fortunately, Their website has a more in-depth analysis. (http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4291_12.htm). Their objections 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.


The site also has a brief response to Michael Medved. (http://www.adl.org/media_watch/letter_usa_today7.asp)

[Alan Owes Bess]

In all of this mostly speculative debate about Mel Gibson supposedly producing an anti Semitic movie, one thing that has received little mention, is the fact that although it is recognised that many Christians are raised to hate Jews, so are many Jews are raised by their parents and community to loathe Christians. This is not in the least bit surprising when you consider the troubled and often bloody contact between followers of both these cults through the ages.

By their public utterances Foxman and Korn of the ADL would certainly fall within the category of Christian haters. The only new and amusing thing about it all is how open and above board they are about it all.

As far as I'm aware, they haven't disputed Gibson's contention that the movie follows the Gospel versions as closely as possible, so their implicit gripe would be with the Gospels themselves.

As for the supposedly independent (or ADL sponsored?) panel comprising Jews and Catholics, the Catholic representatives have no standing to represent the Catholic Church or to speak on its behalf as far as providing an opinion on "The Passion" or any other movie is concerned.

[SpaceForRent]

I have found this whole debate fascinating (and thanks all for the responses--good insights). I was raised (and I still am) strongly Christian, though not Catholic. Never once in my life have I ever hated, or been taught to hate, Jews. Let's assume right now that the Jews were responsibile for killing Christ. That was 2000 years ago! How can you hold present-day Jews responsible for something that happened so long ago? Well, apparently Hitler did, and I'm sure there are other idiots, but it's just all silly in my book.

Whether or not you agree as to who is responsible for Christ's death (Jews or Romans or both), I can't believe present anti-Jewish sentiment can still be attributed to that event. It is for some people, but I still can't understand it.

I think the ADL would have been better served to never take up the issue. The Passion was probably not going to be seen by that large a number of people--now it just might be. But even if the film was strongly anti-Jewish (which I doubt it is), I don't think it would actually influence people to feel the same. At the end of the day, it's a movie, and I've never heard of a movie having that large an impact on the public conscience. (Someone tell me if I'm wrong on that one.)

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Maybe it should be remembered that passion plays have historically incited pogroms against Jews. It's understandable why the ADL would be nervous, especially if Gibson is doing a pre-Vatican II style passion with some of the old smears.

[stick monkey]

What strangehold are you talking about, exactly?

The two groups controlled the temple at the time, which was of course the center of Jewish culture and faith. While they were certainly not 'good buddies', and were more often at each others throats, both groups tended to have fairly elitist attitudes towards those not in their own sect and acted accordingly.

Or at leat that was the way it was taught to me. Since I wasn't there I guess that could be completely incorrect.

[Voyager]

Originally posted by Alan Owes Bess
In all of this mostly speculative debate about Mel Gibson supposedly producing an anti Semitic movie, one thing that has received little mention, is the fact that although it is recognised that many Christians are raised to hate Jews, so are many Jews are raised by their parents and community to loathe Christians. This is not in the least bit surprising when you consider the troubled and often bloody contact between followers of both these cults through the ages.

By their public utterances Foxman and Korn of the ADL would certainly fall within the category of Christian haters. The only new and amusing thing about it all is how open and above board they are about it all.

As far as I'm aware, they haven't disputed Gibson's contention that the movie follows the Gospel versions as closely as possible, so their implicit gripe would be with the Gospels themselves.


Cite? All I know is that I grew up in a heavily Jewish neighborhood, and I never heard once heard anything anti-Christian, let alone anything indicating a loathing of Christians.

Now, if you consider saying that pogroms and expulsions are bad things as anti-Christian, then I guess you have a point. I rather consider that anti-hater, not anti-Christian.

I also seem to recall that the bloody contacts haven't been initiated by Jews - unless you want to count the Warsaw Ghetto uprising as an example.

Apos already mentioned where the historical accuracies in this movie come from. Actually, since there is no evidence outside of the Bible that these events happened, it's kind of odd to talk about historical accuracy at all. Still, I think few historians would consider the visions of a nun as a legitimate primary source.

Egyptian TV has a mini-series built around the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Do you think objecting to that is Islam-hating? Just curious.

[Dob]

Mel Gibson's new movie The Passion has been given the official thumbs down by America's Anti-Defamation League. [...] Foxman says, "We are deeply concerned that the film, if released in its present form, will fuel the hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard to repudiate." Fellow ADL official Rabbi Eugene Korn, who also saw the movie, adds, "This is not a disagreement between the Jews and Mr. Gibson. Many theologically-informed Catholics and Protestants have expressed the same concerns regarding anti-Semitism and that this film may undermine Christian-Jewish dialogue and could turn back the clock on decades of positive progress in interfaith relations."

I find these kinds of statments ridiculous! What they should say is "People who belive as strongly as I do will hate this film" I doubt any, much less this one, film will change the mind of any everyday Jew or Catholic. Like some Catholic will see this film and go kill a Jew over it.

[Apos]

chief among them its depiction of the Jewish high priest controlling Pontius Pilate.

I think this is one of the things in the 12th century nuns' vision that the scholars objected to.

I doubt any, much less this one, film will change the mind of any everyday Jew or Catholic. Like some Catholic will see this film and go kill a Jew over it.

I don't think anyone is worried about Catholics proper: Catholicism today is one of the most anti-Semitism sensitive groups out there after the ADL.

While they were certainly not 'good buddies', and were more often at each others throats, both groups tended to have fairly elitist attitudes towards those not in their own sect and acted accordingly. Or at least that was the way it was taught to me.

No more elitist than the laws set down by God require (particularly the purity laws), and if anything, they were reformers of those laws.

The problem is that there are two takes on the Pharisees. There is the New Testament portrayal, and then there is what we know about them from historical sources. What's odd is that the many of the criticisms that Jesus is portrayed as leveling against the Pharisees are the sorts of ideas that other sources suggest came FROM the Pharisees.

The Pharisees were political revolutionaries: they wanted the Romans out. But when the chance to revolt came, the result was Roman victory and the traumatic destruction of the Temple. The Pharisees were pretty unpopular after that, and this is right around when we expect that the first Gospel, Mark, was written. Mark's theological interest seems to be trying to make sense of the destruction of the Temple: showing that this event was destined because the Jews were to blame for failing to live up to God's promise. Like the fig tree with no fruit, the Temple-state had withered and died, and Jesus explained why. The negative and strange portrayal of the Pharisees makes more sense in this context: the Romans were in control and would not tolerate being spoken ill of. Hence the remarkably kind treatment of the Romans in the Gospels (despite all other suggesting that the Roman occupations was decidedly nasty, and Pilate was something of a monster, the Romans seem almost like benevolent rulers, some quite receptive to Jesus' message), and the demonization of the Pharisees.

Only a theory, but suffice to say the mystery of who the Pharisees really were is nowhere near as open and shut as the Gospel portrayal.

[Voyager]

Originally posted by Marley23
I don't think he pre-screened the film for advocacy groups, no. Someone tell me if I'm wrong. The problem, to me, is that these groups have been slamming Gibson about this film for months. The film wasn't even done when they started griping. The fact that so many films - like the two you mention - raised such a fuss despite the untruth of the allegations against them is at the root of the problem to me. Various Jewish groups make noise like this whenever there's a film about Hitler as well. Both Rise of Evil and Max, to name two recent examples, were met with protests - sight unseen - because people feared Hitler would be 'humanized' (since he wasn't a human, after all) or portrayed as a sympathetic character. It's annoying that these coalitions don't seem to think people should evaluate these films themselves - they should just accept their word.

Did the Catholics request to see Dogma, and get turned down? When Life of Brian came out, I was living in Louisiana, and it was basically banned at the instigation of the Catholic church. The DA took a trip to Atlanta to see it, and then unbanned it. (Louisiana DA are big on taking trips to see movies and plays.) This was long after the movie came out.

Now that the ADL has seen it, at last, and is still concerned, is the problem that they are not allowed to be worried? The statement seems very moderate, and is certainly not criticizing either Christianity or any particular church. They are also not claiming that the movie is going to cause riots. I also did not see anyplace where they asked for the film to be banned, or recommended that no one see it.

And good for Gibson for finally letting interested parties see the movie. He has a right to make it, the ADL has a right to criticize it, and that's it.

[RickJay]

Originally posted by Marley23
The film relies on sinister medieval stereotypes, portraying Jews as blood-thirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of God who lack compassion and humanity.
Except, one would presume, for THE JEW WHO'S BEING CRUCIFIED.

[Marley23]

Except, one would presume, for THE JEW WHO'S BEING CRUCIFIED.
And the Jews who followed him, yes, but one would also presume that they're considered more Christian than Jew (since according to Jewish leaders they were heretics).

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by RickJay
Except, one would presume, for THE JEW WHO'S BEING CRUCIFIED.

Except, historically in these passion plays, Jesus's Jewishness is downplayed. "The Jews" are the bad guys, the instigators, the guys who say about Jesus, "May his blood be on us, and our children, and our children's children."

Maybe Gibson's movie isn't like that. I hope it isn't, but historically, plays dealing with Jesus's crucifixion make Jews the heavies.

[David Simmons]

Having read most of the post here and followed this story in the news to some extent I'm beginning to have a few doubts on the ability of the religious community to "bring us together."

This is a movie for Crissake!

[Boo Boo Foo]

Bah... the film's a load of shit...

Everyone knows Jesus was just a socialist, left-wing hippy who happened to have invented beat poetry.

He was missing all those years coz he was strung out in an opium den in India. He probably wrote the lyrics to Dark Side of the Moon while he was there too.

He might have failed the Messiah test, but he DEFINITELY would have failed a drug test - no doubts. And he woulda grinned too.

But what would I know? 25 years I've been in a hole in the desert, not saying a word to anyone - and then BAM! All of you lot come along and spoil my peace.

[Alan Owes Bess]

Voyager,

You ask for a cite? from stuff that is currently being discussed and published?

How about stuff from this thread, from Marley23:

"Mel Gibson's new movie The Passion has been given the official thumbs down by America's Anti-Defamation League. [...] Foxman says, "We are deeply concerned that the film, if released in its present form, will fuel the hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard to repudiate." Fellow ADL official Rabbi Eugene Korn, who also saw the movie, adds, "This is not a disagreement between the Jews and Mr. Gibson. Many theologically-informed Catholics and Protestants have expressed the same concerns regarding anti-Semitism and that this film may undermine Christian-Jewish dialogue and could turn back the clock on decades of positive progress in interfaith relations."

Try parsing the extract for yourself. It is pure demagoguery. Full of weasel words, unsubstantiated assertions, appeals to unspecified authorities, special pleading and straw man arguments.

If the accusations are false, what does that make Mr. Foxman and Rabbi Korn?

Likewise, I can find nothing in the historical record to substantiate the strange assertion made by the ADL spokepersons that, historically, passion plays have frequently inspired pogroms and the like.

Historically, pogroms and other murderous raids conducted against Jews (or Albigenses, Hussites, assorted heretics etc.) have always been conducted under the auspices of the Civil/Military power of the particular region and usually for some sort of material gain. Bear in mind that the Civil/Military power is jealous of its power and does not want mobs running loose as they may challenge the authority of their own power. You will note that he has not actually cited an example to back up this assertion.

As for the theory that pogroms happened spontaneously as a result of Christians watching a passion play at Christmas with its familiar and mundane plot, I find that quite unconvincing and it will take much more than an unsubstanted assertion by an ADL spokesman to convince me that this was a typical reaction to a passion play.

Some people have disputed my use of the terms "hate" and "loathe" when describing the bigoted upbringing of many Jews and Christians. I agree. Perhaps the words were too strong. I was thinking more in terms of the casual use of terms such as the use of "Yid", "Kike", or "Goykopf" in conversations between family and community members.

Casual, rather than deadly bigotry. The problem usually arises when such habits of mind become too entrenched and over developed.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Likewise, I can find nothing in the historical record to substantiate the strange assertion made by the ADL spokepersons that, historically, passion plays have frequently inspired pogroms and the like.
You need to look (http://www3.sympatico.ca/glancy.nelson/cj-holy-week-and-the-jews.html) a little (http://www.icjs.org/info/notespassnar.html) harder (http://atheism.about.com/library/books/religion/bl_books_Oberammergau.htm?terms=go) then.

I haven't seen Gibson's film and I don't know if it's anti-semitic, but to deny the violence that Passion Plays have historically incited against Jews bespeaks an ignorance on your part. Fortunately this is the board for dispelling that ignorance.

Do you believe that the holocaust happened or is that just made up too?

[Voyager]

Originally posted by Alan Owes Bess
Voyager,

You ask for a cite? from stuff that is currently being discussed and published?

How about stuff from this thread, from Marley23:



Try parsing the extract for yourself. It is pure demagoguery. Full of weasel words, unsubstantiated assertions, appeals to unspecified authorities, special pleading and straw man arguments.



Well, well, well. First of all, you contradict yourself. A piece of demagoguery can hardly be full of weasel words. Did Stalin say Trotsky might be a traitor, or WAS a stooge of the capitalists?
Your thinking is a bit fuzzy here.

Now, let's dissect the quote.



" [...] Foxman says, "We are deeply concerned that the film, if released in its present form, will fuel the hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard
to repudiate."

They're deeply concerned. Are they not allowed to be? Perhaps not if there has been nothing in the past 2,000 years or so that would cause concern. Think there hasn't been? You might try addressing DtheC's post.


Fellow ADL official Rabbi Eugene Korn, who also saw the movie, adds, "This is not a disagreement between the Jews and Mr. Gibson. Many theologically-informed Catholics and Protestants have expressed the same concerns regarding anti-Semitism and that this film may undermine Christian-Jewish dialogue and could turn back the clock on decades of positive progress in interfaith relations."

How evil can you get! They're not calling Gibson names, or accusing him of anything - they're just expressing concerns about his work. And how anti-Christian it is to make common cause with Protestants and main-line Catholics. And we all know that good inter-faith relations is the number one priority of those who hate other religions, right?


If the accusations are false, what does that make Mr. Foxman and Rabbi Korn?


Which accusations are false? What are the accusations? That they are concerned that the movie might hurt interfaith dialog? Not much of an accusation, in my book.


Likewise, I can find nothing in the historical record to substantiate the strange assertion made by the ADL spokepersons that, historically, passion plays have frequently inspired pogroms and the like.


Thanks to Diogenes for covering this one.


As for the theory that pogroms happened spontaneously as a result of Christians watching a passion play at Christmas with its familiar and mundane plot, I find that quite unconvincing and it will take much more than an unsubstanted assertion by an ADL spokesman to convince me that this was a typical reaction to a passion play.


And where did they say these things? Do you deny that passion plays today are different than those of years past? Why do you think they saw fit to change the tone? Did you somehow think the accusation was that any Christian seeing the movie would turn into a raving maniac?


Some people have disputed my use of the terms "hate" and "loathe" when describing the bigoted upbringing of many Jews and Christians. I agree. Perhaps the words were too strong. I was thinking more in terms of the casual use of terms such as the use of "Yid", "Kike", or "Goykopf" in conversations between family and community members.


Well, I personally have never heard the word "goykopf" used. Goy means gentile, I have never heard it used as a slur the way the other terms you gave are. I don't know of any Jews bigoted towards Christians. Growing up in New York, I never met nor saw any indication of Christians bigoted towards Jews. This is not to say this never happened, in the '30s my great aunt had to lie about her religion to get a job.

The statement is expressing concern that this movie might be stirring up animosities that have been reduced through the good offices of both sides. If someone proposed to do a remake of Birth of a Nation, would you think objections to this would be wrong?

[Alan Owes Bess]

Diogenes the Cynic,

You ask me:

Do I believe that the Holocaust happened or is that just made up too?

My answer is: I think of the figure 11 Million, plus or minus 5%.

Since one gratuitous insult deserves another, I believe you have only ever thought of 6 million.

[Alan Owes Bess]

Diogenes the Cynic,

Those are most impressive links you provided. One small area in Bavaria, Circa 1382 (or whatever) supports everything that Foxman and Korn claim is evil about Christians in general?

Here's another take, for what it's worth:

Here (http://www.brokennewz.com/entertainment/melgibsonpassion.asp)

Yes, I know, it's only in jest.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by Alan Owes Bess
Diogenes the Cynic,

Those are most impressive links you provided. One small area in Bavaria, Circa 1382 (or whatever) supports everything that Foxman and Korn claim is evil about Christians in general?

They're not saying Christians in general are evil. They're just saying that passion plays have a history of promoting anti-Semitism, and they do.

[Alan Owes Bess]

[Captain Amazing,[/b]

Maybe "Passion Plays" do (or did) cause massive pogroms as the spokepersons of the ADL would have us believe, for dubious reasons of their own.

I doubt it, and it interests me little. The examples cited on this thread are restricted to small areas and time spans in Europe of 600 years ago. I doubt that passion plays have ever ranked very highly in the thoughts of Jewish community leaders through the ages.

I find people who insist that people raised as Jews are free of bigotry to be quite absurd. I have met many religious bigots in my lifetime, Christians, Jews, Muslims and Atheists.

In the final analysis, it proves nothing except that a person's beliefs are shaped to an enormous extent by the particular family that they happen to have been born into and, inevitably, in the particular area of land that they were born in.

[Captain Amazing]

No one is saying that Jews can't be bigoted, or dislike Christians. However, opposition to this movie isn't neccessarily a sign of anti-Christian bigotry. Mr. Foxman and Rabbi Korn are saying, after having seen the movie, that it is anti-Semitic, and it's their job to fight anti-Semitism.

Now, they could be wrong. I haven't seen the movie, and I don't intend to see the movie, so I don't know if it is anti-Semitic or not. However, even if it's not, nothing they've said is anti-Christian.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by Alan Owes Bess
Diogenes the Cynic,

You ask me:



My answer is: I think of the figure 11 Million, plus or minus 5%.

Since one gratuitous insult deserves another, I believe you have only ever thought of 6 million.
You believe wrong.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by Alan Owes Bess
Diogenes the Cynic,

Those are most impressive links you provided. One small area in Bavaria, Circa 1382 (or whatever) supports everything that Foxman and Korn claim is evil about Christians in general?

Here's another take, for what it's worth:

Here (http://www.brokennewz.com/entertainment/melgibsonpassion.asp)

Yes, I know, it's only in jest.
Did you read all the links? The Bavarian village you speak of is only about the origin of Passion Plays and the violence that accompanied them all over medievel Europe for centuries. There is no "maybe" about it. Jewish ghettos were routinely sacked after Passion Plays which literally demonized Jews and blamed them for the crucifixion.

[kelly5078]

I feel compelled to go at this from another angle. Probably angled enough to be off topic, but what the heck.

1) What if Jesus had not been killed? Where would the Christian religion be? Christian dogma requires the sacrificial death of Jesus, or it doesn't make sense. Death by heart attack wouldn't work.

2) It seems that Jesus, according to the Gospels, was aware of his fate ahead of time. Did he not indicate that Judas would betray him? And was that a prophecy, or an assignment? Jesus was a deity, after all, or THE deity, not just a prophet.

3) It's well known that the temple priests were puppets of the Romans at the time of Jesus. At the same time, they were trying to preserve Israel, and were aware that the future of the country was on a knife edge. So what else could they do? And would it have mattered in the end. Moreover, if there was a "mob" involved (although I doubt the Romans held much with mobs; it would have been an orderly gathering, I think), they must have shared the latter concern.

My point is that the Passion has been done to death, so to speak. It appears, from what I've read, that Gibson has principally added gore to the spectacle, along with some medieval commentary. Wouldn't it be refreshing if a film dealt with something a little deeper than simply following the Gospels.

[SpaceForRent]

1) What if Jesus had not been killed? Where would the Christian religion be? Christian dogma requires the sacrificial death of Jesus, or it doesn't make sense. Death by heart attack wouldn't work.

Well, if Jesus wasn't killed, that implies he would not have been the Messiah. If that were the case, we'd all still be Jews, waiting for the Messiah. When you cut right through everything, that's really the only different between Christians and Jews--one group believes Jesus was the Messiah, the other doesn't and is still waiting. True, it's a significant difference, but still...

2) It seems that Jesus, according to the Gospels, was aware of his fate ahead of time. Did he not indicate that Judas would betray him? And was that a prophecy, or an assignment? Jesus was a deity, after all, or THE deity, not just a prophet.

I would say it was prophecy that Judas would betray him, not assignment.

3) It's well known that the temple priests were puppets of the Romans at the time of Jesus. At the same time, they were trying to preserve Israel, and were aware that the future of the country was on a knife edge. So what else could they do? And would it have mattered in the end. Moreover, if there was a "mob" involved (although I doubt the Romans held much with mobs; it would have been an orderly gathering, I think), they must have shared the latter concern.

What else could they do? Probably a number of things. When it comes down to it, everyone involved made their own decisions.

My point is that the Passion has been done to death, so to speak. It appears, from what I've read, that Gibson has principally added gore to the spectacle, along with some medieval commentary.

I'll grant that the Passion has been done quite a bit. I think Mel just wanted to make what he felt was a true rendition. Whether it's been done before...that's fairly irrelevant, at least as far as Mel and crew are concerned. I'm always interested in seeing a new vision of it.

Wouldn't it be refreshing if a film dealt with something a little deeper than simply following the Gospels.

Well, nothing is really known outside of the gospels, right? So a filmmaker would have to delve into a lot of fiction to do so (granted, some people think the Bible is fiction--that's another debate). If someone wants to try to do the Passion with any accuracy, they really only have the Gospels to work on.

Anyway, those are my thoughts at the moment. Good questions, though! And since I'm the OP, I don't mind the minor hijack at all. :)

[MC Master of Ceremonies]

As I said before until you've seem the movie you can't really say if it's antisemtic or not, but if you've wasted your money on it your probably a cunt.

[SpaceForRent]

MC Master of Ceremonies,

Unfortunately, we all had to waste our time reading that. At least your crude, brainless answer was short.

[MC Master of Ceremonies]

Originally posted by SpaceForRent
MC Master of Ceremonies,

Unfortunately, we all had to waste our time reading that. At least your crude, brainless answer was short.
Yeah, at least that's true:smack:

[MC Master of Ceremonies]

I'm sorry, I'm a little bit blasted right now but Mel Gibson's a tosser anywhoo, so that this movie is a pile of steaming shit is given.

[MEBuckner]

Moderator's Note: MC Master of Ceremonies, knock it off. If you're "a little bit blasted", go do something else. You're still responsible for whatever you post here, whether you're stone sober, a little bit tipsy, or think that every post on the boards is a "double post".

[kelly5078]

To try to get back on track...
When I first read that the ADL was calling Gibson's movie antisemitic, I was upset. Knowing a bit about Hutton, I jumped to the conclusion that Mel was trying to win one for the old man. That might still be the case, but I was a bit hasty, so I'll wait for the movie. I don't think I reacted so much at the possible effects of the movie; I think I was more just disappointed with Gibson. It was much like I felt when the ex Cat Stevens failed to repudiate the fatwah against Rushdie. Again, though, I was jumping to conclusions. I can't say Gibson has given me much cause to think he's irresponsible, except perhaps for taking that role in "Signs."

Meanwhile, I've come to think that the ADL should have let this one go. I seriously doubt that even a blatantly antisemitic movie would have much effect on anyone in the U.S. If we could survive Henry Ford in a much more bigoted time, a subtitled movie shouldn't be too dangerous.

I can't think of an instance of antisemitism which endangered more than a handful of Jews that wasn't somehow government sponsored (and I would consider the Vatican at the time of the crusades a government). I don't think show business has much of an effect, except as a propaganda instrument to support the prevailing political climate.

[MC Master of Ceremonies]

Yes, I'm sorry MEBuckner, you're are perfectly correct ; I should not of posted those last two posts.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Well, if Jesus wasn't killed, that implies he would not have been the Messiah. If that were the case, we'd all still be Jews, waiting for the Messiah. When you cut right through everything, that's really the only different between Christians and Jews--one group believes Jesus was the Messiah, the other doesn't and is still waiting. True, it's a significant difference, but still...
Actually, according to Jewish doctrine, the crucifixion proves that Jesus wasn't the Messiah. the Jewish Messiah is not a martyr, nor a spiritual saviour, nor God. If a presumptive Messiah is killed before he accomplishes the things that the Messiah is supposed to accomplish (which Jesus did not according to Jewish expectations) then he can't be the Messiah.

BTW, I doubt most of us would be Jews. We'd probably be following some descendant variation of European paganism (elements of which are actually present in Christianity) or possibly Islam. Judaism is not an evangelistic religion and there is no reason to believe that Europe would have adopted it as it did with Christianity.

[SpaceForRent]

Actually, according to Jewish doctrine, the crucifixion proves that Jesus wasn't the Messiah. the Jewish Messiah is not a martyr, nor a spiritual saviour, nor God. If a presumptive Messiah is killed before he accomplishes the things that the Messiah is supposed to accomplish (which Jesus did not according to Jewish expectations) then he can't be the Messiah.

Hmm, I did not know that! I learned my one thing for the day. Thanks. :)

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

I can understand that there is a wide gulf between the New Testament accounts of Jesus' final days and the historical record of the time. What I can't figure out is why that is the slightest bit relevant to the issue at hand.

My understanding is that Gibson is trying to make a film that is faithful to the Gospel accounts, contrary historical evidence be damned. And the charge of anti-semitism seems entirely premised on the fact that Gibson's film follows those accounts very closely.

Thus, the ADL and other critics of the film are of necessity not only saying that the film is anti-semitic, but also that the Gospels themselves are anti-semitic. That, of course, is not something the ADL is willing to say openly, but it does appear to be a logical consequence of their position on this film.

Many churches have readings of the passion story around Easter, including the priests' dealings with Pilate and the mob choosing Barrabas over Jesus. Does the ADL consider them to be riling up anti-semitism?

[SpaceForRent]

Thus, the ADL and other critics of the film are of necessity not only saying that the film is anti-semitic, but also that the Gospels themselves are anti-semitic.

I think that's exactly it. And not only the ADL, but the various Christian groups speaking out against the film. I guess it's hip these days for Christian scholars to say the Bible is mostly myth and not actual historical accounts.

By the way, what historical evidence exists that runs contrary to the gospels. Is it a trustworthy source?

[kelly5078]

It's a bit of an over-extension, to say that critics are saying the Gospels are anti-semitic. They are critical of certain factions within Judaism at the time, and against the temple priesthood, who were corrupt puppets of the Romans. But it would take an astoundingly ignorant person to not know that ALL the major players except Pilate are Jews.

If one puts it in the form of a syllogism, you get
1) All literature in any way critical of Jews is antisemitic
2) The Gospels are critical of aspects of Judaism and Jewish life
3) The Gospels are antisemitic

The weak point is the first premise. Ever read Ha'aretz or the Jerusalem Post?

I don't think there are any sources that run entirely contrary to the Gospels with respect to the general political climate at the time. At least, they don't disagree with the Gospels any more than the Gospels disagree amongst themselves. Certain parts are considered ahistorical, particularly those surrounding the nativity. And almost anything can be considered questionable, depending on one's point of view. But direct refutation of the events we're concerned with would be hard to come by. The Gospels are THE surviving source.