Passion was a piece of art

Cafe Society
1

I am posting this new thread even though I am sure that the number of threads on this subject is more numerous than I’ve seen, simply because I would like to state my reaction to the film without seeing what others on the board have said first.

First, I find it unfortunate that people wish to silence Gibson. I’ve heard the ADL is bringing a lawsuit against him for what he has said. I think this is also unfortunate, I believe that words should be fought with words, and I do not believe that the jewish community’s voice has not been heard of this subject. Therefore a lawsuit is frivolous and oppressive.

I did not find the film to be anti-semitic in the slightest. I feel that the Pharisees could have been replaced by modern Ayatollah’s in Iran, Modern Rabbis in Israel or Modern Cardinals in Rome just as easily. The story was about a man fighting a religious hierarchy very simply, challenging the ideals that have made many men such as the High Priest in this instance very powerful. Jewish history shows a long line of High Priests being false during the time of Rome, and this story showed no exception, it showed the High Priest paying allegiance to Caesar, and even challenging Pilate’s loyalty to Caesar. When a tradtion talks about tying a rope to it’s own High Priest’s leg to drag him from the temple because he is not worthy to speak to God because of his falsehood, how is portraying it in a movie about Christ in any way anti-semitic? The Catholic church railed against Stigmata for the same reason that Jews are railing against Passion.

I saw the movie on it’s own merit, I did not go see a “Mel Gibson” movie. I went to see a movie about Christ, and as such it was a very moving film to me. It put a lot of things into perspective for me, and I felt that it was a much more personal telling of the story than I expected it to be. So Mel Gibson may be anti-semitic, he may be a holocaust denier, but that has nothing to do with me or my experience with the movie.

I saw a movie about a man seeking enlightenment. The attainment of enlightenment requires one to move through all the dark parts of themselves to illuminate them. The quest for enlightenment knows that it will move away from societal conventions and that the rules applied to the one seeking it can oftentimes deviate so greatly from those of his society that he can be ostracized, or even crucified.

To make the argument that this film is anti-semitic, I think one must address the idea that perhaps Christianity as a whole is anti-semitic. Something that I do not believe. I think that the view of Christianity is quite skewed in the modern era. Christ was a jew, he was not working against jews, he was working against the authority in power, this was the jewish religious authority gaining secular authority from the Roman government. So rather than attacking the movie as being “anti-semitic” perhaps this would be a good time to address the rift between Christianity and Judaism.

Jesus was a revolutionary, a point touched upon in the movie, but not really shown. “I come not to bring peace but the sword” was not shown leaving Christ’s lips, and the story that Christ told in the presence of the religious authority was quite different from the story he told in front of Pilate when he was being questioned. The movie addressed Christ as a man, and tried to describe the interpretation of who he was. So any offensive terms that might have left Christ’s mouth would be better served questioned in terms of the character’s portrayal, rather than finding the film an affront to Judaism as a whole.

The movie showed Christ’s enemies. It showed Christ’s allies, it showed his betrayers in Judas and Peter, it showed those that loved him, and it showed innocent bystanders disgusted by the persecution at the hands of the Roman soldiers as they whipped an already scourged man as he carried a heavy wooden cross up the hill. It did not make any one group look good OR bad. It didn’t even make Christ look good or bad as I saw it. It simply made Christ look powerful, which as the story has made it this far through history with such an emotional impact, he clearly was, whether or not he actually existed is immaterial to such an impact as I see it.

I am saddened by the fact that I feel that I have to defend my personal reaction to such a film that portrays the faith in which I grew up against people who want to claim it’s anti-semitic. If you want to claim that Christianity as a whole is anti-semitic then that’s another argument. There was even a line where Christ says straight out that no one is killing him, he is giving himself up for his people. I always felt that people who claim Jews are Christ killers have no faith in their own belief, because to say that ANYONE was capable of killing Christ means that he was not this enlightened God-King that he is portrayed as.

Christianity is a deeply ingrained component of my own personal spiritual faith. Whether one refers to it as mythology or history to me is immaterial. It happened in such remote antiquity that it’s effects are no more than a myth anyhow, as is all history. I believe that using ancient history to justify one’s actions in a modern setting is just trying to excuse behavior based upon their emotional reaction. I do not believe in Good or Evil, Right or Wrong. If someone tells me that they killed someone and they speak of it in emotional terms as to why they felt it was necessary, I am a lot more likely to be able to commisserate than if someone couches it in terms of some historical oppression of their people or some such. I personally am quite emotionally impacted by this particular story, and I think about it all day every day pretty much, but I do recognize that if I want to see any changes made to human history, and if I do believe in the story and what the parable says to me, I must recognize that there is no one to blame for what happened. What happened is what happened, those events are over, new events are occuring, and my reaction is to the new events even though we are living in a time of empire again where the authority over the state of Israel is again propagated by the monolithic foreign empire and I must open my eyes to what others are perceiving of modern events not some bias presented in Sunday school of events that none of us experienced firsthand. To put it succinctly, I cannot live in the past if evolution of any kind is that which I seek.

I can identify so greatly with this movie, because I have been told that I was insane, that I was arrogant, that I was a blasphemer for many things I have said, and I expect this trend to continue. I feel that if someone addressed the Catholic church using Christ’s exact words, their response would be the same, and they would treat this person who did such, in the exact manner in which the high priest and his cronies treated Christ in the movie.

In short I saw it more as an affront to hypocritical spiritual authority gained from support of a secular institution than I saw it as an affront to any particular people. Christ was starting a revolution, and he caused a massive rift in the politics of the time that we still feel today, he WAS a jew, not a Christian, the religious entity known as Christianity did not even exist until after his death. He was challenging the jewish authority, and questioning it on many deep levels, so one must accept that when he was doing this he WAS IN FACT a jew, as the cry of anti-semitism implies that the person doing the persecution of jews is not themself a jew. So this is a story of one jew questioning other jews, and that is how I take it and as I’ve said, those jews could be substituted generically with any religious authority and the content of the story would be unhindered.

I take everything as a matter of aesthetics, and I feel that this movie was accomplished masterfully on that level. As I said in the title, it was a piece of artwork, and should be regarded as such.

Erek

There is no G-d but Shiva and Mohammed is his prophet in Jesus name ohm.

2

I also saw the movie this weekend, and was similarly moved.

But I just don’t see how someone who has read the gospels can look at this movie and not say that, in any small way, it is not anti-semetic. The fact is, there is an ENORMOUS emphasis placed on Ciaphus, and he plays a *much * greater role in the movie than in the Bible.

As a Catholic, we enact the Passion each year on Palm Sunday. Throughout my life, the most powerful part is the crowd calling for Barrabas, and to crucify Christ. The decision is made spontaneously by the crowd (of Jews). As a Catholic, calling out, “Crucify him!” in Mass, that guilt of condemnation is placed on us.

In the movie, it is not the crowd that incites that, it is Ciaphus. And his added presence continues throughout the entire film. In my opinion, that is an unjust portrayal, and is flatly contrary to the source material.

You can argue, “but they were ALL Jews!” all you want. But I would wager that most Christians identify with the crowd rather than with the Jewish High Council.

Fantastic movie. Fantastic performances. Fantastic portrayals. Questionable deviations from the source.

Also, Mel Gibson is not a holocaust denier. His father is. The ADL has not brought a lawsuit against Gibson.

3

Mel Gibson’s motto: “Do what I say, not what I do.”

While downplaying JesusHe emphasizes the participation of the Jews in the Christ’s fate, feeding a longstanding animosity toward the Jews of today due to the “sins” of their fathers, the Jews of Christ’s time. He washes his hands of the consequences of such a portrayal, basically saying, “Hey, the actual word antisemitism never appears in the movie, so therefore it’s not antisemitic.” His denials are transparent and disingenuous.

OTOH, he warns reporters not to ask him about his father’s wackoidness, implying thereby that the sins of the father should not be visited upon later generations.

Hypocritical asshole.

4

:rolleyes: You’re one of the many “critics” who haven’t seen the film, right? Pardon me while I ignore your ill-informed opinion. See the movie before you open your gob about it… pretty simple rule to follow, especially for a guy who defends Paul Verhoeven films so vehemently.

Well, yes… but you don’t have to admit it here. I wasn’t going to say anything if you weren’t.

5

Must perview. Should be:

6

Politics always work the same way. Everyone likes to twist other people’s words to suit their own ends. I have not read any of Gibson’s interviews, I really don’t care either way, so I am unqualified to argue about them. In short I could care less.

I saw the movie, and as I said implying that it is anti-semitic, I think it would be more appropriate to address the rift between Christianity and Judaism, rather than saying it was anti-semitic. The crowd that calls for the release of Barabbas was a lynch mob, of course they were against Christ.

I saw so many analogs to Braveheart. I didn’t see much stink made about the anti-Briitsh portrayal in Braveheart which I think was greater than the anti-jewish sentiment in this movie. THere were lots of jews shown being compassionate to Christ in the movie, and I think that is glossed over. Yes the Pharisees looked bad, yes the lynch mob looked bad, but so what? They DID in fact lynch him.

When Judas is laying down, the little children come up to try and help him, they were being very compassionate until he started acting crazy to them at which point he had hallucinations about them and they became demon children. Those children were jews. The Roman soldiers were portrayed as blood thirsty monsters.

I do not think Christ was downplayed in the slightest. I loved the portrayal of Satan.

Christ was fighting a hypocritical religious hierarchy, something I can completely identify with, except that I am against all hypocritical hierarchies, not just Judaism. I watched the movie and just identified them with profiteering clerics, as opposed to specifically jewish clerics. I’ve seen that level of bigotry in modern times from various different faiths and I think if Christ were born into any of them, the story would be the same.

Erek

7

I have every intention of seeing, so that I can discuss it in more detail. Until then, I have very carefully limited my discussion to things that Mel Gibson has said himself, indisputable facts such as Mel’s expunging of the “curse” from the English subtitles but not from the film itself, and the fact of the history of antisemitism and its relationship to that phrase in one of the four gospels.

The only scenes from the film that I refer to are those that have been mentioned almost universally in the many, many reviews and discussions of this movie.

There are many, many more things I expect to dislike about this film, but I don’t bring those up because I have yet to see if my expectations are realistic.

The only point I made above is about the societal and historical implications of the phrase from Matthew, and how its inclusion doesn’t jibe with Gibson’s wish to be considered separately from his father.

Not being a Christian, that line from Matthew holds no meaning for me. It has, however, been used for centuries as an excuse for antisemitism and genocide, so its mere inclusion is, at best, a cavalier disregard of the history of antisemitism, and, at worst, blatantly antisemitic. The fact that Gibson was driven to expunge it from the subtitles by the criticism of others does not help his case. The fact that he left it one the dialogue track for, one presumes, eventual inclusion in all foreign-language subtitles, helps his case far less.

To comment on that one particular point does not require a viewing of the entire film.

8

Actually, I would say it does, especially on the level you’ve chosen to criticize it at. The film has nothing to do with Gibson’s relationship with his father, and your insistence on conflating the two issues suggests that you have no interest in watching the movie with an open mind. You “presume” (your word) a great deal about Gibson’s intent here, but honestly, I don’t think you have any idea what you’re talking about.

If you’re going to open yourself to the film even a little, I encourage you to see it. But if you’re going with “many more things you expect to dislike about this film” already in mind, then don’t waste your time or money. You’re not going to get it.

Your type of criticism is the worst kind – uninformed criticism.

9

Absolutely. But in the movie, it’s not the crowd that calls for the release of Barabbas - it’s Caiphas. The crowd only follows suit after their church leader plants that seed. I find that to be INCREDIBLY disingenious, don’t you?

10

That’s not “my kind of criticism,” Av. I have never before commented negatively on a film I have not yet seen. I broke my rule this time, but carefully limited my comments to the political fallout from the film, and have only referred to indisputable facts. My interpretation is of course open to debate, but I knew I was stepping out onto thin ice in saying anything, so I was very, very careful in what I *did * say.

And have negative expectations of a film is certainly not unique to me. I’m sure there are directors whose work you do not like, and whose movies you would see only reluctantly. Even before this movie, Mel Gibson was one of those directors, for me. Man Without a Face and Braveheart were such gloppy smears of sentimental crap that I don’t think I’d ever again have wasted my time with another of his films. (I avoid Ron Howard films for the same reason.) But the societal impact and political fallout of this film have intrigued me, so I intend to see it. I do, though, from experience, have certain negative expectations about ANY film that Mel Gibson has directed, and even more shaky expectations after hearing what Gibson has said in reaction to the film’s controversy. (Snort: he said god made his bed. Snort.)

Up to now, I’d thought of Mel Gibson as a moderately talented actor with a great ass and looks deteriorating from hot hunk of flesh (circa Tim) to craggy-faced homeliness (circa now); a sentimental hack of a director; and a blithering homophobe. So the negative expectations were there long before the Pash saw light.

11

The problem is not who is blamed, but the fact that the crucifixion is portrayed as a tragedy/suffering, and as such someone has to be blamed whether it be a group or ‘all mankind’.
And that is not what the symbol of the crucifixion is about. The symbol of the crucifixion is about ressurection.
To focus on the suffering is to invite the blame game. Mel misguidedly invited the anti-semitic criticism. That he does not recognize this is the folly of his fundamentalism.

12

Not careful enough… see, the breakdown here is what you are calling “indisputable facts,” I call “uninformed opinion and presumption.” I’m disputing your “facts,” ergo they are not indisputable.

See the movie, and try to forget about your foregone conclusions about it. THen come back and say what you think… until then, your “facts” remain quite disputable, and quite uninformed.

beajerry, the story is about suffering, yes… however, I didn’t take from the movie that anyone had to be “blamed” for it at all. I took it as a lesson about the philosophy Jesus espoused and the price he paid for it. He was willing, like Gandhi, to suffer and die for what he believed in. I don’t think there was any finger-pointing as a subtext of the film, it was pretty straightforward and uncomplicated in its portrayal. Gibson clearly admires Jesus for what he suffered and what he believed in, and that came through loud and clear. “The Blame Game”? Not so much…

13

Sorry dude. You can’t just ANNOUNCE my facts are disputable; you have to, um, dispute them. Absent that, your above post isn’t much but “LalalalaIcantHearYouLalalala”

14

and “foregone conclusions”? Why must you change what I say before you can object to it? “negative expectations based on past experience” are not the same thing as “foregone conclusions,” especially since I acknowledged that my expectations might very well be proven wrong by the movie.

Hmm. Fingers in your ears, twisting my words–not much incentive to waste any more time on you, Av.

15

Funny, I was thinking the same thing.

Until you see the film in question, there really isn’t much to talk about here. You said that the film “downplays” Jesus’ complicity in his death, and also “downplays” the Romans’ involvement. Not having seen the film, you nevertheless say these things are “indisputable.”

Based on my viewing of the film over the weekend, I dispute these “facts.” I say that the the film proves you wrong. Since you haven’t seen it, there really isn’t much left to talk about here, is there?

I think it’s pretty clear who has at least some idea of what’s being discussed here, and who does not. You might want to try pulling your head out before you state your position based on such “facts,” just for future reference.

16

Imagine my disappointment that I won’t be treated to yet more weak defense of your ignorance. :rolleyes:

17

As pointed out in another thread, this assumption was off-base - Caiphas DOES in fact plant that seed in Matthew 27:20. Damn, now I may have to see the film again (probably after Easter).

18

Haven’t seen the movie, eh?

It ends with the resurrection. Which, I might add, is not techinically part of what is traditionally known as The Passion. Wouldn’t you expect a movie entitled “The Passion of the Christ” to focus on, I dunno, his suffering and death? I do. If he had entitled it “The Death and Ressurection of the Christ” you would be correct about Gibson’s incorrect emphasis.

19

According to more than one secondary source, the film downplays–if not outright ignores–the FACT that Jesus’s entire following was Jewish, and leaves the impression that all Jews wanted him dead. I’m prepared to stand corrected on this, but either they’re in the movie or they’re not. “Roman involvement” was a bit oversimplified. But almost every review I’ve read says that Pilate is portrayed as a feeling, sympathetic soul who is loath to crucify Jesus. Now, I’m prepared to stand corrected on this too. But if Pilate’s portrayal is as the consensus seems to think it is, then Gibson twisted the historical consensus in order to move some “blame” from Pilate’s shoulders to the Jews’.

Those two instances are the closest I come to positing an interpretation before I’ve seen the movie, but again I limited myself to those because they were very nearly universal consensus in all the material I’ve read.

You don’t address any of my other points, which are less debatable, I think; and you don’t acknowledge my right not to like Gibson as a director, Pash or no Pash. Do you concede that it’s possible, from experience of an artist’s prior work, to have trepidations about seeing a particular movie or a hear a particular album? Do you give Britney or Eminem or Marilyn Manson or whoever you don’t like brand new benefit of the doubt with each new album? Do you not have negative expectations of any such album, or is your mind a *tabula rasa * for each new experience of an artist who has disappointed you in the past?

20

Why are you asking me to concede something I never disagreed with in the first place? No need to argue about this point. I myself found several technical flaws with The Passion that detracted somewhat from it, as I’ve discussed in other threads. I still thought it was a pretty good movie.

Look, I’m sorry if it seems like I’m picking on you, but your attitude about this film typifies one I’ve seen a great deal, since even before it came out. People seem more than willing to judge this movie well before they see it, based on something they heard or read, or based on Mel Gibson’s father’s attitudes, or even for reasons they can’t articulate. It’s irrational, and it’s lazy reasoning.

… and which, by themselves, make up the lesser half of your argument. Without borrowing from others’ interpreations of the evenst portrayed in the film, your other points are meaningless. But yes, they are more easily provable, if that makes you feel better about it.

Then you really haven’t been reading very much, have you? Here on the SDMB alone, there are numerous threads about The Passion which have displayed a variety of opinions and interpretations on those aspects of the film, and many others. I encourage you to read them; you might get a better picture of the movie, if you insist on forming one before you actually see it.

Your interpretations of the two instances you cite actually prove the point I’ve been making ever since I saw it: The people who most vehemently criticize the themes and ideology of The Passion are those who haven’t seen it.