-
For Christians the death of their Savior is a unique and unprecedented tragedy (as many here have said about Jews and there sufferings – and putting aside the paradoxical issue of how full salvation would have come about, from a Christian viewpoint, without the resurrecton). To criticize the Gospels (or a Gospel-based account) of this unique tragedy for focusing on the Christian aspects without giving equal time to the Jewish viewpoint is sort of like criticizing the Gospel for not giving equal time to the possibility that Ba’al might be the true god, or criticizing a synagogue’s Day Of Remembrance ceremony for not mentioning the 15 year old Russian conscripts who froze to death at Stalingrad; sure, it would be nice and even handed, but even handed isn’t (as various people have noted) customary or required when someone is mourning their own particular tragedy. Gibson’s movie is either a frank religious polemic or a romance, or both, and will be taken for what it is (I don’t know that Gibson or anyone is looking to have a Passion Education curriculum or public monument established by the government; if they were, more scrutiny to the (ultimately bootless) question of whether they chose the right sources or right wording, or right shades of historical meaning, would be, I think, of more relevance).
-
I’m reasonably certain that more people died and will die from watching Jackass than will from TPOTC. Johnny Knoxville hasn’t been subjected to the third degree Gibson has. A lot of affirmatively harmful, socially obnoxious, historically ridiculous, religiously offensive and injurious, cinematically bankrupt, crap has rolled out of Hollywood with its perpetrators not being expected to offer detailed apologia or precisely-worded explanations of their sources, interpretations, motivations, and whether they have been sufficiently “responsible” to avert the possible ill consequences of their movies. How well do you think J. Knoxville would articulate his defense against the Darwinian domino chain of teenage self-injury he set off? Could Martin Scorsese explain why we now have to tolerate a generation of rappers and B-boys who inflict on society their cartoonish versions of life as a mafia don? Can, God help us, Robin Williams justify the wretched scribblings of countless teenage poets inflicted on us by Dead Poet’s Society, and where do we go to get Leo DeCaprio’s apology to the thousands of guys dumped by girls because they weren’t enough like Jack in Titanic? If there were a real possibility of pogroms being sparked in the streets of America by TPOTC, then I might have more consideration for the inevitable reply – “But this is a different and unique evil!” But there won’t be any pogroms, and so I do feel a bit of sympathy (well, as much as I feel for any millionaire actor) when Gibson, because his politics are assumed to be on the wrong side, is held to an exacting standard of theology, diction, historicity, etc. while those on the proper side of the aisle can indulge their ahistorical plot devices, romantic conceits, and even brain dead political ideologies and be thought at worst harmless (Baldwins), at best, a serious political figure (Streisand or Dennis Miller).
-
It always struck me as a poor idea to be lighting into the Vatican or the Swiss for inadequate affirmative action during the War. The thesis that a small beleaguered nation, surrounded by a powerful and malignant empire, was responsible, by omission, or tolerance of, or alleged acquiescence with, the crimes actively committed not by them, but by that empire, seemed all-too-readily to militate logically in favor of others inferring that increased, not diminished, culpability should accrue to those who found Jesus an embarrassing or heretical or dangerous influence for their beleaguered people among the Romans (which tneme appears in parts of the Gospels outside of the trial before Pilate). None of us have seen TPOTC, but I will be curious to see if anyone, after seeing it, makes the connection that Gibson’s (for now suppositious) guilt-by-implication/guilt-by-inaction “smear” is, in our day, unfortunately all too familiar a Monday morning quarterbacking phenomenon.
Eva,
If it can be a comfort to you, I completely understand and support your reasoning.
I have a question for those who bring the father of this actor in the discussion:
What has a son to do with the ideas of his father? Is a child in your society considered to be some sort of clone of one of his parents?
I didn’t know the technology of cloning was able to produce a viable child yet.
How old is this actor that he can be considered to be a clone of his father?
How is it possible that this succes in cloning humans was concealed for us for such a long time.
Salaam. A
Dseid, I may or may not be obstinate, but that is a whole different discussion.
Yes, additional contextual information has been added to the situation as we have gone along. I may very well reevaluate my position re: Mel Gibson in light of it, to the extent that I even find it necessary to have an opinion about Mel Gibson. Before I got around to doing that, though, I just wanted to make sure it was entirely clear that my initial evaluation of a single, out-of-context sentence was not still at issue. It’s taken me faaaaar longer than I expected to accomplish even that. And in the meantime, I have a lot of other things going on, not the least of which is this pile of work on my desk that I should really get back to.
Honestly, I never felt it necessary to develop a political opinion regarding Mel Gibson’s political opinion, or any other celebrity’s political opinion for that matter. I don’t even watch his movies unless they’re free on TV and nothing else is on (action movies are not my thing in any case), so why should I have devoted so much energy to developing an opinion about what he thinks? There are a lot of things that are higher on my priority list than one mediocre actor’s opinion.
There’s plenty you’ve avoided responding to, starting with this one:
"You have not directly answered this question: “By continuing to remember their sacrifices and struggle against slavery (as in activities commemorating Black History Month, for example), are African-Americans “depleting the sympathy bank” for worldwide victims of slavery today?”
Again, provide a yes or no. Followed by whatever explanation you may choose.
The last part is kind of silly, since by a) distorting my views, and b) resorting to insult you have forfeited any right to claim the role of Ms. Manners.
You know, Aldebaran has a real good point about this being about a dumb movie, and all.
If this film gets to be big box office boffo, current rumor has it that Mel’s next project will be a movie about the Crusades.
So even if Mel produces a movie about the Crusades in which the Crusaders are devout and heroic, and the Arabs are portrayed as bloodthirsty heathens, I’m sure Aldebaran will be the first to tell us to calm down, it’s only a movie, and any irrational anti-Muslim hatred it spawns would be no big thing. I mean, anything short of a massacre is not worth worrying about, right?
"I just wanted to make sure it was entirely clear that my initial evaluation of a single, out-of-context sentence was not still at issue.’
Oh, and concerning the Gibson response to an unambiguous question, please clarify just what was taken “out-of-context”.
Thanks.
If I ever come to see such a movie, the only thing it shall provoke is my laughing.
People world wide are used since decades to smile and laugh with the “historicy” of “historical” movies Made in USA.
That is because educated people know the difference between a stupid movie and historical facts.
Even those who aren’t educated in historical facts but are in possession of a reasonable normal working brain, know and see that a movie is only a movie = entertainment = not reality or attempt to portray reality = fiction.
If that actor makes a movie about the crusades as you describe him and then starts claiming he portrays the historical records known about these events, the whole world shall laugh with him.
I have somehow the idea that he isn’t quite that stupid. But one never knows.
I also have some idea, dont know why, that you are still waiting for the Giant Spiders pictured in Arachnophobia to invade your home.
Maybe in the meantime, to make it more real, you can make an appointment with Smeagol. When does he need to come by and bring you some nicccee fishesss you lovess to eatttt?
Salaam. A
This is what I mean about Gibson being held to an inquisitorial standard no one in the movie business, and probably none of us in real life, could meet. In real life, we’re allowed to: (a) add context; (b) answer a different question than the one that was asked, if we can show why it’s more illuminating (“Yes, but . . .”); (c) amplify; (d) fumble.
It’s only in a judicial cross-examination setting, or in particularly bitter political debates, that the whole bullying “Just answer my question yes or no” approach sees widespread use (and even then, it’s considered poor form by many judges, etc.).
E.g.:
Q: “Mr. President, are you in favor of cutting taxes for the rich?”
A: “I’m in favor of cutting taxes for people at all income levels to improve . . . .”
Q: “Mr. President, why can’t you just answer my question yes or no?”
A: "My program would cut taxes for the wealthy as well as the striving middle . . . "
Q: “Mr. President, it’s a simple question – yes or no. What secret agenda are you trying to hide with your obfuscatory language?”
e.g.:
Your wife: “Do you ever find other women attractive?”
You: “Well, I would never act on that.”
W: “But do you find them attractive?”
Y: “Yes, but it’s you that I am committed to . . .”
W: “So you are trying to hide something! You want to sleep with other women!”
e.g.:
Plaintiff: “Mr. Defendant, were you aware of your product’s tendency toward Catastrophic Sudden Explosion Syndrome?”
D: “We were aware that some of the batches had a problem with rapid combustion. There were some other problems too, but those were mainly pollution-related. We also had a number of complaints about people getting dizzy from the fumes and . . .”
P: “Just answer my question yes or no. Were you aware of the CSES problem with your product? How hard can it be to give me a simple answer?”
D: “Well, I’m being honest with you – there were a number of problems we encountered, of varying severity, and frankly combustion problems were in some cases less risky than the vapor inhalation risk because . . .”
P: “I don’t understand your problem with a simple question if you’re being so honest. Yes or no – CSES was a recognized problem?”
D: “Well, the difficulty I’m having is that, CSES, that’s a term I’ve never heard before this lawsuit, I know the plaintiffs’ expert is using it, and they have a theory about it, but all I can tell you about combustion problems is . . .”
I’ve used this type of rhetoric myself: “Yes, no, or I don’t recall; there really isn’t another answer, and I didn’t ask you about anything beyond that answer.” It’s not terribly fair even in a true adversarial situation, and less so in the context of a movie review/social debate.
Put more succinctly:
Gibson’s movie doesn’t say or raise a dam’ thing about the suffering of the Jews in WWII. But some people believed there was a direct, and historically-important, link between the subject matter of his movie, and WWII, and felt it was important enough to inject the issue into discussion of his movie.
and . . .
Noonan’s question didn’t say or raise a dam’ thing about Russians or gypsies or whatever suffering in WWII. But Gibson believed there was a direct, and historically-important, link between the sufferings of Jews under Nazis and the sufferings of others under Nazis, and felt it was important enough to inject the issue into discussion of his movie.
Why is one ‘digression’ from “just sticking to the issue in question” more or less acceptable than another?
All your other examples are of questions that are accusatory in tone and pose risks if answered simply.
What horrible consequence could ensue from answering, “Yes, of course the Holocaust happened.”?
If anyone wants to ask me if women have the right to vote, if George Washington crossed the Delaware or if Tiger Woods plays a good game of golf, I can answer “Yes” without feeling that the questions are mean and inquisitorial.
And again, what is there that suggests Gibson’s response was taken out of context.? There is no evidence that he was speaking about his movie, a history course he took in school or what he and his buddies talk about when they’re out drinking. He was asked a question, he answered it, and unless there is evidence that some wonderfully exculpatory part of his response was excised from the interview, there’s no reason to say his remarks have been “taken out of context”.
So much argument!
All of you are going to feel silly, if it turns out (as I sort of suspect) that this whole “anti-Semitism” angle was deliberately cooked up/exacerbated by the movie’s publicists, in order to drum up interest and publicity. It certainly is having that effect.
For me, I am already dissapointed just by viewing the promo pics - the man is nailed through his hands, not his wrists. I was hoping for better, given that they went through the trouble of having the actors learn Aramaic.
The only “context” that concerns me here is not the Noonan interview text but the context of Gibson (a) probably already feeling beleaguered at the consistent accusations/demands of his critics; and (b) possibly having a historical opinion that he wanted to get across (so I’ll stay out of the other “context” debate you and Eva are having).
So, to make my examples a bit more context-specific:
You’re Hootie Inghram and you’re under siege for the membership policies of Augusta National. Now, to top it off, Annika Sorenstam wants to play in the tournament at Augusta, and you and the PGA are being sued, heckled, accused of sexism by women’s groups, boycotted, etc. A reporter asks you: “So, is Annika a good golfer?” You rightly note that some of my hypothetical questions were loaded; and so is the Annika one, and so is the Holocaust question, from Gibson’s standpoint. Hootie can’t just say yes and leave it at that; his critics will take it as an admission that he’s irrationally excluding her, or is a hypocrite, or had previously been denying that she was a good golfer. Of course he’s going to answer (perhaps with no little bitterness): “She’s one of the best women golfers, and could beat many a male club pro on her best days. Now, there are hundreds of men’s tour players who are probably better than she, and she really doesn’t belong in our tournament, and it could be a disruptive sideshow in my view because . . .” You may disagree with Hootie’s viewpoints, but is it irrational or obfuscatory, in the circumstances, for him to want to explain where he stands.
My belief (Part I): Gibson is on the defensive, and giving a yes answer to a clearly inquisitorial/confrontational question (and it is confrontational; how many of us are quizzed in the media on a daily basis over whether historical events did or didn’t occur?) can be taken as implying either that (a) the inquisition is valid or (b) you are admitting something that you’d previously denied. That’s just contrary human nature.
Part II: Gibson (whether before or after the last few months of relentless criticism for his alleged complicity in anti-semitism) probably also does have an opinion he wants to get across regarding WWII. Specifically, he may believe that the sufferings of other groups have been obscured by the public attention paid to the Shoah; he may believe that the word “Holocaust” implies an exclusivity of suffering to one group and needs to be broadened; he may believe that “Holocaust” has come to carry unfair connotations of “genocide that Pope Pius collaborated with;” and I don’t think more than one or two of the posters so far would argue that these opinions, right or wrong, are prima facie, and necessarily, impermissible or per se anti-semitic. So yeah, he spun the question so as to give the “correct” answer and also slip in his additional take on the situation; but if he’s admitting the Nazis killed lots of Jews, it seems kind of harsh to slam him for getting a plug in for his (correct) belief that they did horrible things to other people too. My point is that any question about the Holocaust is potentially loaded, in the same way that asking for a straight yes or no answer to a question referring to the “War Between The States” or the “Royal Province Of Ulster” or “Bloody Sunday” or “the Boer atrocities” could be seen as loaded, depending on the sensibilities of the person being asked.
Of course it has that effect. That is why I frequently asked here to explain how it is possible that people start crying “antis-semitism” longer before a stupid movie is released and then also manage to be taken serious.
There are a few answers possible, among which the one you suggest.
Well, I didn’t see anything about it and am not interested.
Now that I read you post… I change my mind because this movie definitely seems to have potential to deliver funny entertainment.
Nailed by his hands hm… ?
OK. Thank you for proving already my point about the “historicy” of “historical” movies Made in USA.
They speak Aramaic?
Seen the hand-nailing I am a bit curious now to witness that experiment.
Maybe they release an extended version where you see Jesus on the cross with the nails tearing his hands in pieces and then he falls off… His feet resist for a few seconds the temptation to follow the hands but then he comes a bit teared up and bloody down on the rock and you hear thunder and see lightening and the Temple shakes in the background.
Above that all you hear his calm voice : “father, forgive them because they don’t know what they are doing”.
In Aramaic Made in USA.
Now that I picture this scene in my mind… Maybe this is the version we Muslims believe in.
I didn’t realize this earlier but now with this Historical Movie Made in USA the Light has come to me.
Jesus didn’t die on that cross because they even didn’t know how to nail him on the thing properly.
I’m off now to bring this stunning new insight in our teachings to my former teachers at Al Azhar. They always proclaimed…mmm… slightly raged… about me being gifted with critical debating potential.
Salaam. A
The alternate view, more than fully outlined previously in this thread, is that Gibson was tossed a softball question, in the manner of something that had to be gotten out of the way in view of the controversy swirling over Dad and the fallout over the movie. Rather than allaying any suspicions about his motivations, he succeeded in amplifying them.
There may be some element of dread in being asked about historic events by media types, but only in terms of displaying your ignorance (quick, Howard, where does the Book of Job belong in the Bible?).
I don’t disagree it was (in context) a softball – but keep in mind that that context is one in which (by implication) the softball is giving him an “easy” chance of clearing himself of the stigma of “Holocaust denial.” “Dread” of being caught out factually ignorant is one explanation for “not giving a straight yes or no answer,” but so is irritation at the question being asked in the first place, or the implication that this is a catechetical question to which there is only one right, prescribed answer, with no deviation or alteration permitted:
“Mr. Jack, you believe in the one, true, living, triune, uncreated, almighty God, without whom there is no salvation, don’t you?”
“Yes.”
“Mr. Huerta, you have some black friends, don’t you?”
“Yes, many. I love black people.”
I doubt either of us would answer the question thusly because the asking of the question puts us on the defensive. Thus, I’d almost certainly say, instead:
“Some of my friends are black, some aren’t, as is true of my enemies as well; and even as to ethnic groups in which I don’t have any friends, I do have colleagues with whom I’ve worked perfectly equably. I’m not sure I see the point of your question, though; are you implying that not happening to have black friends would render me unfit for [fill in the office/job], or that having them ipso facto renders me good?” And, I suspect, you would decline to answer the hypothetical question I asked you, even if you are a monotheist, because it’s laden with a lot of baggage and assumptions.
In some ways, not answering a softball question shows more character than playing along with the “Mr. Burns, why do you think so many people love you?” complaisant interviewer. Yes, especially coming from Peggy Noonan, the chance for Gibson to “acquit” himself of “Holocaust denial” by giving the “right” (i.e., unelaborated, catechetical) answer, was about as soft a ‘confrontation’ on this subject as Gibson could have hoped for. But maybe his non-catechetical answer was borne out of impatience or orneriness or resentment at there being a single canonical “Holocaust position” to which he had to parrot adherence in a prescribed form, or being asked by anyone (even as sympathetic an interviewer as Noonan) to “acquit” himself of a crime he didn’t feel remotely guilty of.
The confusion between the translation from the original Greek (hands as opposed to the more likely meaning wrists) is old Aldebaran, very, very old. The fact that traditionalist might hold to that interpretation is hardly surprising, nor is it completely unlikely that they would reply that he was nailed and held up by rope.
I can understand why they did it - to conform to later Christian art - but why go through the trouble of making the actors learn Aramaic, and then use an obviously later interpolation as inspiration?
Well, given that one of the “historical” sources used as the basis for the movie were the visions of a 13th century nun who was fond of poking holes in here hands and claiming that they were stigmata, they would really have to go with the hands angle or else make that nun look a bit foolish.
No idea, maybe to tie into the idea of stigmata? I just enjoy disabusing Aldebaran of his critical debating skills. It’s a personal weakness, I’m working on it.
Besides, they forgot the fact that the Romans and locals would have likely been speaking Greek not Latin, so firm historical details aren’t the point. The point seems to be to give the gospel accounts a “Saving Private Ryan” feel. To paint the passion with such detail that the experience becomes real to viewers. Small details like nailing of hands rather than wrists, “Jews” condemning Jesus rather than a small number of Jewish people assembled by Pilate, add a layer of context that would dilute the main point. Humanity was separate from god; god became human to suffer humiliation and pain at the hands of his creation to provide redemption. Nuance is only going to get in the way of that.
Not hardly. Let us rephrase.
“Mr. Jack, you believe in the one, true, living, triune, uncreated, almighty God, without whom there is no salvation, don’t you?”
‘No’.*
*with the right to consider an alternate answer if the questioner(s) are wearing hoods and black robes and carrying whips.
Good point – it’s meant either to inspire (convert?) or to entertain, not to condemn. Are there movies that have made (Christian) clerics, or government officials, or whatever, excessively unsympathetic, for dramatic purposes? Sure. Did Jesus tell parables about various characters who stood as archetypes for some human quality (good or bad)? Sure. When kids play cowboys and Indians or cops and robbers, do the Indians and robbers get the short end of the stick? Definitely.
The traditional Passion narrative has a fair amount of nuance and subtle insight into human nature, and how people act under extreme pressure, even when just regarded as a story, and not as history. Pilate is intentionally not portrayed as a monster, but as a detached bureaucrat willing to let evil happen so as not to rock the boat. Peter (who is to be the first Pope, for goodness sake) acts cravenly and literally denies his Savior when things take a turn for the bad. One of the thieves accepts Jesus, the other doesn’t. Why? That’s just human nature. The Roman soldiers are “just following orders” when they’re cruelly carrying out the crucifixion. The Jewish mob I see as fulfilling a narrative role somewhere between that of Peter and the Roman soldiers – they are “perfidious” in the literary sense (OED) of “breaking faith or violating confidence” with their fellow Jew; but we’re given the context to understand that from the situation they were in, this “mistake” or “betrayal” (from the Christian perspective) took place under some duress and fear caused by their precarious situation, as did Peter’s, so that (like Peter) they are not, solely because of this human weakness or “perfidy,” forever banished, or even denied a potentially great station in the order of things (like Peter) (assuming they eventually renounce the “perfidy,” which would mean converting; and one may object to converting while still recognizing that this is a more sympathetic view of perfidy than damning an entire race for all eternity).
So the Passion story is viewable either a sort of Greek tragedy, with various groups taking on various narrative roles, or (to a believer) is a factual and doxological narrative, based on the best evidence we have (which is admittedly sketchy) of what happened at the seminal moment of the Christian religion. Either way, I think that arguing with the “accuracy” or “fairness” of either a literary or religious work is sort of missing the point.