I disagree. I’d say that he softened it quite a bit as compared to the Biblical text. The Jews’ part in Christ’s death was less explicit than the case made in the Bible. To ignore that aspect of the story completely (as you seem to wish) would be to tell a different story. Gibson’s stated intention was to make a film based in the Gospel he believes in. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree it is “the truth” or not, that’s part of the source material Gibson was working with.
I personally am not a believer, but even I can see that Gibson was simply staying faithful to the source material. Hell, even a child’s book about Jesus’ life includes aspects of the same issue you have with it.
All I’m saying is, if this film were trying to perpetuate the blood libel against the Jews, I don’t think they’d have made such a point of pointing out that Jesus was, himself, Jewish. I don’t think they would have had another character call him “Rabbi” in the first ten minutes of the movie. If Gibson intended this film as some sort of anti Jewish propaganda, don’t you think they’d have buried that part as much as the material allowed?
And I’m sure Caiphais would have acted to condemn anyone who threatened the religious power structure in Jerusalem in 33 AD, wether or not he was the Son of God. Why are we expected to assume that this one evil Jew is meant to be representative of all Jews, and not assume that the score of sadistic Romans we see aren’t meant to be representative of all Italians?
Sure, the world history of anti-Semitism is terrible, as is the history of using the Christian gospels as a basis for that persecution. But the fact is, this movie doesn’t do that, and isn’t about that. Criticizing this movie because other people have used the same material as justification for their intolerance is no fairer than criticizing all Christians because they read the same holy book as Fred Phelps.
I think you’re mistaken, there. Propaganda, by definition, has to be black and white. It’s material whose sole purpose is the spread of an idea or organization. If it can be interpreted as either being for or against that idea, than it’s not particularly good propaganda, is it?
Can you cite scenes or dialogue from the movie to support this accusation? I saw the film, too, and I didn’t see anything that I felt could be reasonably interpreted in that light, but I’m interested to know if I missed something.
Because people, Jews and gentile alike, are nasty, brutal, and generally fucking evil. Which is, IMO, the point of the movie.
I highly doubt this movie changed anyone’s opinion about anti-Semitism, one way or the other. I doubt it changed anyone’s opinion on abortion, or on gay marriage, or on if a Star Destroyer could beat the Enterprise, or any of another issues that weren’t in any way addressed by the movie. The movie was neither anti-Semitic or pro-Semitic. It just happened to have a bunch of Semitic people in it.
And, again, I don’t see this movie as saying “the Jews” did anything. The fact that there are some Jews in the movie who do evil things simply cannot be taken as representative as Jews as a whole. if you break down the movie by what each character did, and what race he was, the Jews come out looking like saints. (Er, so to speak…) Of all the Jews in the movie with speaking roles, there are precisely two that could be accurately described as “evil”: Caiphais and Judas. Of all the Romans in the movie with speaking parts, there are three, maybe four who aren’t presented as being brutal to the point of psychopathy. I simply do not understand how anyone could watch this movie and think that it portrays Jews as worse than Italians.
He already has softened it, by not including any material in his movie that could reasonably be interepreted as supporting it. Why does he have a responsibility to do more than that? Since when is it Mel Gibson’s job to end racial hatred?
Is anybody else wondering how this is supposed to answer the question it was written in response to?
Your comment is - to say the least - vague, Miller. The reasons people say ‘the Jews killed Christ’ are quite specific by comparison. It’s rooted in xenophobia, scapegoating, and the source material.
Well, it was a pretty vague question, Marley. Why do people hate Jews? Why do people hate anyone? Why is there such a thing as racial hatred? You could write a sociological dissertation on it, but the short answer is, “Because people suck.”
That might be an answer for why there is hatred and prejudice in general, but it’s not an answer for why specific groups of people hate specific other groups of people.
I disagree. I think it does indeed answer that question, as much as it can possibly be answered. There’s plenty of justifications for race hatred. There’s only one reason for it.
What are you saying is inconsistent here, Avalonian?
Miller addressed a specific question (why do people hate Jews?) by giving a vague non-answer (people suck) when thinking about it does at least reveal some basic reasons. That’s what I commented on. The question was ‘why do people hate Jews,’ and I didn’t understand why he turned the question into ‘why does anybody hate anybody?’ It’s not the same thing. “Why did Charlotte kill Marat” is rather different from “why do people kill people,” isn’t it?
I’m puzzled as to why you found ‘what are the reasons people hate Jews?’ and ‘what justifications do people give for hating Jews?’ such totally disparate questions. And I think you misused the term anyway. “The Jews killed Christ” is a justification; xenophobia, scapegoating and scripture (like I said) are reasons. “People suck” is neither, it’s just glib.
In the case of Jesus’s crucifixion, maybe there isn’t any difference.
Jesus died, I think, because of
lazy thinking
mediocre politics
a need to save yer own ass
For those same reasons, sometimes people have to work all weekend. Sometimes whole nations get attacked.
Maybe this story does try to answer the question of why people are forced to hate each other… and sometimes kill each other.
To get back to the OP, yeah, I saw the movie this afternoon. I can’t decide whether it is an ultrarealistic rendering of the crucifixion, in the long artistic tradition of painting Christ on Golgotha… or a gratuitously bloody slasher flick.
…which was pretty clearly rhetorical in the first place…
I resent the characterization of my reply as being either vague or non-responsive. Just because I didn’t give the answer you wanted to hear doesn’t mean my answer is any less valid.
Then why don’t you respond to the original question with these reasons, if they’re so fucking important, instead of climbing up my ass about it? I gave my answer to the question, and I’m standing by it. You don’t think it was good enough, you provide a better one.
Because it’s the same damn question. You want to answer it with the comprehensive history of anti-Semitism, knock yourself out. I gave the best answer I could. Apparently, you didn’t like it. Well, tough titty for you, you’re not getting a different one out of me.
In any event, it is safe to say that this movie did initiate a great deal of controversy. Has anyone read or heard Mel defend or repudiate his parents’ extreme anti-semetic views.?
I thought it was his dad who was stirring up the trouble; his mom died some years ago. Anyhow…in a recent interview with Diane Sawyer, he would not get into Dad-bashing territory no matter what the old man has said or written. He said he’s close to his dad, loves him, and it was pretty obvious that he wouldn’t say anything against the man, no matter what kind of Holocaust-denying screeds the latter might produce.
Thats one of the reasons that I am suspicious of Gibson’s motives. A man can love his dad; a man can be close to his father…but he can still disagree or repudiate a philosophy expressed by him that is odious… That is to say: if Mel Gibson really doesn’t agree with dad. Think about it.
I dunno about that. I mean, I really don’t know: my dad isn’t a notorious bigot, so I don’t know how I’d act if he were. I can’t picture my dad as a holocaust denier or anti-Semite, because as soon as I try, the person I’m picturing isn’t my dad any more, if that makes any sense. My dad wouldn’t disown me for airing private disagreements in public, although I know he wouldn’t like it. But if he were a bigot, would he be as forgiving? Would I be willing to possibly permanently damage my relationship with my father just as some sort of show of loyalty to the cause of not being a bigot? Especially when he’s elderly and very likely might not outlive his grudge against me? I think I’d rather keep my mouth shut and keep my dad.
Atheist checking in here. I actually had this is another thread, but it seems more appropriate here:
I just saw the movie and I have to come clean. This movie stirred much stronger emotions in me than I though possible. I can honestly say I feel sorry for Jesus.
BUT… not in the way you’d expect. I feel anger at God for putting that poor guy through that. The scourging, the beatings, the whipping, the nailing, and the scourging (I have to mention it twice). It was horrible. Of course I remember the Christian doctrine: it was a sacrifice for us, and it was actually our sins that put them there. To which I say BS!
We are talking about the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent Lord of all creation here. In all his infinite power and wisdom, WHY did he decide the only way to solve the sin issue was to torture and slaughter Jesus in front of his own mother?
“Making God Almighty act like a passionate man, that killed his son when he could not revenge himself in any other way. The idea I had that God was too good to do such an action, and also too almighty to be under any necessity of doing it” – Thomas Paine
It would be like my dad telling me these guys are going to kill your brothers unless I give then $100 and let them beat you up a bit. I’d be like, no Dad, you have more. Give them a $1000 and we can negotiate the beating.
As an atheist, I know it is just a story, and, if anything, I am more relieved. I figured I’d walk away feeling “Oh well, as God, Jesus knew he had it coming, it would only last a few hours, he would be back up in no time, etc”. But I’m quite shocked at how I reacted emotionally. Even if I were to one day believe again in a higher power, Yahweh would be the last one my list.
“Considering the picture that is drawn for us of the Supreme Being, the most righteous soul must be tempted to wish that he did not exist.” –Denis Diderot
We saw it yesterday. Excellent directing. Beautiful cinematography. Fine acting by a great cast. As a Christian, I understand that this was not something that God put a third party through — Christ IS God, and as such volunteered to undergo this suffering. The notion that suffering and struggle are bad in se is rather modern. Historically, when they have resulted in growth, they have been seen as noble. For the temple to be rebuilt (edification), it first had to be torn down (suffering). No great mystery here. My only disappointment with the film was its use of subtitles. I wonder whether the studio and other producers might have insisted, after a couple of test screenings, that Gibson put them in. I’d prefer to see it without them.
Incidentally, regarding the blood-on-our-hands controversy. It was blood on the hands of the crowd present, and certainly not blood on the hands of all Jews. After all, His mother, the other Marys, His disciples, and He Himself all were Jews. In fact, nearly all the earliest Christians were Jews. People who are stirred to antisemitism by this film would be stirred to antisemitism by Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or anything else you put in front of them. People often find whatever they seek.
I thought Mel Gibson was sadistic long before his latest movie. He strikes me as a very angry man. If you look at some scenes in his Lethal Weapon series they are pointlessly cruel. There is a scene in one of them (can’t remember which one) where Mel’s and Glover’s character get demoted to uniformed cops for a while and they immediately go up to a rookie cop who’s working traffic and are just completely cruel for absolutely no reason. I can’t remember the details–maybe someone else can fill in more–but it struck me as the most unnecessarily meanspirited seen I’ve ever seen in a movie. Everything he does has a subtext of anger to it.