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:
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.
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*
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.” "
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.
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).
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.
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?
“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.
Wow, way to stereotype there, Apos. Seriously, the opinions of Palestinians regarding Jews aren’t going to be changed by a movie.
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?
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.
