…but Germans still love David Hassellhoff.
What if those are mutually impossible things to achieve??
“Historically accurate” is an impossibility in itself as anyone with ANY sense will realise - we can’t accurately describe what happened to some people 100 years ago, let alone 2000.
Still, it’s nice to know that they are convinced their beliefs are more ‘historically accurate’ than those of other people - confirms my personal beliefs about them in fact…
JP
About “them”? Meaning about Jews in general or about the ADL in particular?
I don’t see anything in your pull quote indicating that they think their beliefs are more historically accurate than anyone else. What I take from that is that they belive there to be errors in historical fact, separate from issues of “theological soundness” (beliefs), which can and should be remedied.
Well, isn’t that basically what is described in the Bible? I’m certain that’s how it was taught to me when I was growing up, and that wasn’t so long ago, and it was certainly not an arch-conservative church I was attending at that age. I’m no longer a Christian, and I’ll leave the historical accuracy of that anthology to recurring spats in GD.
Since we’re here in CS, let’s stick to the film. Wouldn’t you expect a Christian filmmaker to use the Bible as his primary source in making a film about Jesus? What’s wrong with that? It’s his film, it’s his vision, he can use the sources of knowledge that he trusts. If the ADL wants to point out historical inaccuracies, let them. I think it’s absolutely ridiculous for Rabbis to make it their business to critique Christian theology, so IMHO they should stick to the “historical inaccuracies” angle. I say go ahead and point them out and let people make an informed decision about whether to see the film, but demanding that the film be changed is unwanted meddling.
Frankly, I never had any problem distinguishing a 2000 year old Jewish street mob from the Jews I meet today. I didn’t start hating British people after seeing The Patriot, I don’t see why anyone would go, “hey, maybe I should start hating Jews” after seeing this. This is how we all learned the Jesus story, so the film is nothing new, and therefore cannot increase anti-Semitism.
um, Jesus is jewish, so wouldn’t this movie also lead to Jews crucifying fellow Jews, since everyone is a robot that just parrots what they see in the movies.
I’d have to see the movie before I could comment on the ADL’s take on it. Similar things get said anytime someone makes a religious-themed movie, wether it’s The Last Temptation of Christ or The Life of Brian. Still, at least they’re saying this based on having seen a screening, unlike most of the people who attacked, say, Dogma.
Otto: I just take offence to the whole idea that one group of people (the ADL in this case) can be offended by someone else’s view of ‘history’.
If they’d left ‘historically accurate’ out of it - I’d not have even commented…
JP
<< Well, isn’t that basically what is described in the Bible? >>
Well, no. Whatever you might have been taught in Sunday School, the different versions presented in the different books of the New Testament all tell different stories. Most scholars today say that the different versions vary based on which audience was being preached to. The New Testament is the primary (indeed, the only) source, and it is not a court record, nor a legal document, nor an historic account. It is a series of preachings, designed to convert people to the new religion.
See Straight Dope Staff Report: Who killed Jesus? for a discussion of what most modern scholars believe.
<< “Historically accurate” is an impossibility in itself as anyone with ANY sense will realise - we can’t accurately describe what happened to some people 100 years ago, let alone 2000. >>
No, but we can know some things that are historically INaccurate. For instance, we know fairly well how Roman courts worked, and we know fairly well how Jewish courts of that time worked. So perhaps the ADL might have better worded its complaint as wanting a movie that is “not historically inaccurate”.
Can I just dislike Gibson with or without any PASSION?
C K that response works for me… and somewhat what I was thinking… but more eloquent.
Well, historically, passion plays have been anti-semetic, and anto-semetic violence has erupted around passion plays. So, when it comes out that Gibson is making a passion movie, the ADL is probably nervous that it might turn out to be anti-semetic, like a lot of its theatrical ancestors.
Dammit…the man needs to just get back to what the world really needs
MORE MAD MAX!!!
Actually, controversy aside, I think it will be something that will need to be seen before someone should make up their mind. They are basing off one guys opinion and quite frankly, in religion, people ideas of what they saw vary far and wide.
What if they simply admitted that “The Passion” is fiction? That’d get a lot of those Jewish advocacy groups off their ass, I bet.
Possibilities of historical inaccuracy and anti-Semitism aside, I am looking forward to seeing a flick where everyone speaks Latin and Aramaic.
He’s actually making another Mad Max movie, though strangely it’s to be filmed entirely in koine Greek and the Nineveh dialect of 6th century BCE Assyrian without subtitles.
I’m not very concerned with the historical accuracy angle. Who knows what’s historically accurate?
Also, I’m obviously only going on what I’ve read about the movie, since few have seen it.
As someone whose wife grew up being called a “Christ killer,” I can tell you that the kind of pap that Mel’s peddling is pure nastiness. Thousands have died because of these ideas.
Gibson’s father is a religious nut job, who has obviously passed his beliefs on to his son. And yes, those beliefs include anti-semitism, as well as holocaust denial. Check out http://66.165.133.65/politics/religion/gibson.asp. You can link from there to a NY Times article (which you’d of course have to purchase).
There’s an agenda going on here, folks. The celeb is trying to win one for the old man. Meanwhile, we’re the losers, Jews and gentiles alike.
I’m not very concerned with the historical accuracy angle. Who knows what’s historically accurate?
Also, I’m obviously only going on what I’ve read about the movie, since few have seen it.
As someone whose wife grew up being called a “Christ killer,” I can tell you that the kind of pap that Mel’s peddling is pure nastiness. Thousands have died because of these ideas.
Gibson’s father is a religious nut job, who has obviously passed his beliefs on to his son. And yes, those beliefs include anti-semitism, as well as holocaust denial. Check out http://66.165.133.65/politics/religion/gibson.asp. You can link from there to a NY Times article (which you’d of course have to purchase).
There’s an agenda going on here, folks. The celeb is trying to win one for the old man. Meanwhile, we’re the losers, Jews and gentiles alike.
Please forgive double posts if they occur. This site gives my network fits.
Um, kelly5078, maybe you should wait until you have actually SEEN the movie to comment on it?
And yeah, Hutton Gibson is a real jerk. However, Mel himself has not stated that he agrees with his father, and until he does, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, regardless of how much I actually dislike him.
I haven’t seen the movie either, but it strikes me as extremely unlikely that it’s as anti-semitic as some of it’s pre-emptive detractors would have us believe. Come on, even if you don’t like Mel Gibson, the man is not a moron. Making a blatantly anti-semetic diatribe in movie form would be career suicide. There are a lot of Jews in powerful positions in Hollywood, and just about everyone else there is extremely, vocally liberal. Those he didn’t insult directly would be insulted on behalf of their Jewish friends and co-workers. Marlon fucking Brando couldn’t get away with one mildly anti-semetic comment in his Larry King interview: you think Gibson would even try to get away with an entire, feature-length anti-semetic movie? Not a chance.
re this quote from Miller, above …“There are a lot of Jews in powerful positions in Hollywood, and just about everyone else there is extremely, vocally liberal. …”
Uh, you don’t have to be “liberal” to think anti-Semitism is wrong.
and no, Jews don’t run Hollywood any more than they run world banking.
so I hope I’m misunderstanding you.
and back to the original topic - Jews have good reason to be seemingly over sensitive on this topic. Many Jews over many centuries were killed in part because they were considered Christ killers. This, at least, is historically accurate.
Oops, didn’t mean to imply that conservatives are more likely to condone anti-semitism. That was poorly worded. As for Jews “running” Hollywood, that’s not what I said. I said that a lot of the big power brokers in Hollywood are Jewish, and (naturally enough) most Jews are not inclined to work with anti-semites if they can help it.