Passionate criticism over Gibson's "The Passion"

Great Debates
41

That in no way meets the definition of hypocrisy. It might if I was stopping them from seeing the film, but I’m not. :stuck_out_tongue:
Roger Ebert isn’t complaining that he hasn’t seen the film. Neither is A.O. Scott. And they’re not going to say anything about it until they see it. Why? Because they’re actually film critics, not people with an axe to grind. I think the Anti-Defamation League is going to crucify him no matter what he does, so I see no motivation for him to play their game. They’ve got no right to see it, and there’s no reason they can’t wait. They just don’t want to. It’s not their style.

As far as I can tell, this is 100% the same as the controversy over Kevin Smith’s Dogma a couple of years ago. A number of Catholic advocacy groups went crazy over the film (sight unseen). As it turned out, they ended up giving the film free publicity, and ended up looking stupid when the film was not even remotely anti-Catholic. If anything, it was pro-Catholic, albeit not in a traditional sense, and all the Catholics I know like the film - they say being Catholic makes the movie funnier.

If you’re going to run an advocacy group, I’d like to think you have an obligation to use your clout responsibly and not criticize movies you haven’t even seen.

42

Sorry, I meant Gibson is the hypocrite, since he has the power to let those concerned see the movie.

Did Smith prevent the Catholics from seeing Dogma (which I loved also?) Life of Brian got criticized also.

I think the obligation of an advocacy group is to express concerns (and remember, they had a copy of the script, they weren’t making the problem up out of their heads.) They also should try to get more information. They are not obligated to be quiet because they are blocked from viewing the movie.

Gibson said there is nothing to be concerned about. Fine, but he’s acting like he has something to hide.

As for the reason for concern - do the words “Passion Play” mean anything to you?

BTW, Gibson is certainly within his rights to let whoever he wants see it or not see it before it opens. But he better be prepared to take a little flack for it.

43

I don’t think he pre-screened the film for advocacy groups, no. Someone tell me if I’m wrong. The problem, to me, is that these groups have been slamming Gibson about this film for months. The film wasn’t even done when they started griping. The fact that so many films - like the two you mention - raised such a fuss despite the untruth of the allegations against them is at the root of the problem to me. Various Jewish groups make noise like this whenever there’s a film about Hitler as well. Both Rise of Evil and Max, to name two recent examples, were met with protests - sight unseen - because people feared Hitler would be ‘humanized’ (since he wasn’t a human, after all) or portrayed as a sympathetic character. It’s annoying that these coalitions don’t seem to think people should evaluate these films themselves - they should just accept their word.

44

Not to nitpick, but Josephus also contains assertions of supermatural events. The first ten books of Antiquities is just a summary of the bible.

45

Here’s an interesting Q&A with Michael Medved, a Jewish movie critic who has seen the movie.

46

Well, ADL has also seen the movie, though.

47

Ok, good point, but once he gets past the Biblical stuff it’s a pretty straightforward history.

48

No, the ADL has not seen the movie.

As far as I can tell, this is what happened.

The movie’s producers arranged for a group of scholars to review the film’s script for things like historical accuracy. The scholars returned a 17page report, some of which included instances that they believed were historical errors with a bias towards implicating the Jews far more than they thought warranted. The entire process was supposed to be confidential.

A few days after the report was turned in, some conservative Catholics started complaining about how the film didn’t deserve criticism, and that it wasn’t anti-Semitic. Apparently, the report had been passed around and talked about from Gibson’s camp.

This mention of “anti-Semitic” perked up the ears of the ADL, and they started making noise about wanting to see the script and warning Gibson that they would boycott the film if it was.

Gibson’s camp and Icon then sent briefs to the scholars claiming, rather ridiculously, that they had “stolen” the script and that the report was an attempt at exortion.

This scared the ADL even more, and it started making even more noise.

So while the ADL doesn’t have much of a ground to stand on, it’s clear that Gibson’s camp played some role instigating them with their own hubbub over the scholar’s report. Their story about the stolen script and exortion, despite being refuted by the scholars (to get the script, they were in contact with Gibson’s translator and assistant who conveyed messages from Gibson to them and negotiated the release), has become gospel in the retelling of the story.

It could be all a tempest in a teapot, but it’s clear that rational people had concerns about what was in the script that they read: particularly in regards to the scenes which do not appear in the Gospels, but come from the visions of a 12th century nun. Gibson may well change things around, cut things out, etc. I doubt the final film will be in any way deliberately or clearly anti-Semitic. But that doesn’t mean that it was irrational for people to react to informed suggestions that it might be, back when it was supposedly very different.

49

Well, they have now:

"Mel Gibson’s new movie The Passion has been given the official thumbs down by America’s Anti-Defamation League. […] Foxman says, “We are deeply concerned that the film, if released in its present form, will fuel the hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard to repudiate.” Fellow ADL official Rabbi Eugene Korn, who also saw the movie, adds, “This is not a disagreement between the Jews and Mr. Gibson. Many theologically-informed Catholics and Protestants have expressed the same concerns regarding anti-Semitism and that this film may undermine Christian-Jewish dialogue and could turn back the clock on decades of positive progress in interfaith relations.” "

50

Sorry, just to be completist for non-link clickers, the story says “select religious leaders,” which I guess includes the ADL members quoted above and I don’t know who else, saw a screening of the film on Monday.

51

They don’t give any specifics, which is unhelpful. Who knows what they consider “anti-Semitic?”

52

I’m not sure it’ll please you, Apos, but finally we’re in 100% agreement about something. :wink:

Fortunately, Their website has a more in-depth analysis.. Their objections include:
[ul]
[li]The film portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish “mob” as forcing the decision to torture and execute Jesus, thus assuming responsibility for the crucifixion. [/li][li]The film relies on sinister medieval stereotypes, portraying Jews as blood-thirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of God who lack compassion and humanity. [/li][li]The film relies on historical errors, chief among them its depiction of the Jewish high priest controlling Pontius Pilate.[/li][li]The film uses an anti-Jewish account of a 19th century mystical anti-Semitic nun, distorts New Testament interpretation by selectively citing passages to weave a narrative that oversimplifies history, and is hostile to Jews and Judaism. [/li][li]The film portrays Jews who adhere to their Jewish faith as enemies of God and the locus of evil.[/ul] [/li]The site also has a brief response to Michael Medved.

53

In all of this mostly speculative debate about Mel Gibson supposedly producing an anti Semitic movie, one thing that has received little mention, is the fact that although it is recognised that many Christians are raised to hate Jews, so are many Jews are raised by their parents and community to loathe Christians. This is not in the least bit surprising when you consider the troubled and often bloody contact between followers of both these cults through the ages.

By their public utterances Foxman and Korn of the ADL would certainly fall within the category of Christian haters. The only new and amusing thing about it all is how open and above board they are about it all.

As far as I’m aware, they haven’t disputed Gibson’s contention that the movie follows the Gospel versions as closely as possible, so their implicit gripe would be with the Gospels themselves.

As for the supposedly independent (or ADL sponsored?) panel comprising Jews and Catholics, the Catholic representatives have no standing to represent the Catholic Church or to speak on its behalf as far as providing an opinion on “The Passion” or any other movie is concerned.

54

I have found this whole debate fascinating (and thanks all for the responses–good insights). I was raised (and I still am) strongly Christian, though not Catholic. Never once in my life have I ever hated, or been taught to hate, Jews. Let’s assume right now that the Jews were responsibile for killing Christ. That was 2000 years ago! How can you hold present-day Jews responsible for something that happened so long ago? Well, apparently Hitler did, and I’m sure there are other idiots, but it’s just all silly in my book.

Whether or not you agree as to who is responsible for Christ’s death (Jews or Romans or both), I can’t believe present anti-Jewish sentiment can still be attributed to that event. It is for some people, but I still can’t understand it.

I think the ADL would have been better served to never take up the issue. The Passion was probably not going to be seen by that large a number of people–now it just might be. But even if the film was strongly anti-Jewish (which I doubt it is), I don’t think it would actually influence people to feel the same. At the end of the day, it’s a movie, and I’ve never heard of a movie having that large an impact on the public conscience. (Someone tell me if I’m wrong on that one.)

55

Maybe it should be remembered that passion plays have historically incited pogroms against Jews. It’s understandable why the ADL would be nervous, especially if Gibson is doing a pre-Vatican II style passion with some of the old smears.

56

The two groups controlled the temple at the time, which was of course the center of Jewish culture and faith. While they were certainly not ‘good buddies’, and were more often at each others throats, both groups tended to have fairly elitist attitudes towards those not in their own sect and acted accordingly.

Or at leat that was the way it was taught to me. Since I wasn’t there I guess that could be completely incorrect.

57

Cite? All I know is that I grew up in a heavily Jewish neighborhood, and I never heard once heard anything anti-Christian, let alone anything indicating a loathing of Christians.

Now, if you consider saying that pogroms and expulsions are bad things as anti-Christian, then I guess you have a point. I rather consider that anti-hater, not anti-Christian.

I also seem to recall that the bloody contacts haven’t been initiated by Jews - unless you want to count the Warsaw Ghetto uprising as an example.

Apos already mentioned where the historical accuracies in this movie come from. Actually, since there is no evidence outside of the Bible that these events happened, it’s kind of odd to talk about historical accuracy at all. Still, I think few historians would consider the visions of a nun as a legitimate primary source.

Egyptian TV has a mini-series built around the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Do you think objecting to that is Islam-hating? Just curious.

58

I find these kinds of statments ridiculous! What they should say is “People who belive as strongly as I do will hate this film” I doubt any, much less this one, film will change the mind of any everyday Jew or Catholic. Like some Catholic will see this film and go kill a Jew over it.

59

I think this is one of the things in the 12th century nuns’ vision that the scholars objected to.

I don’t think anyone is worried about Catholics proper: Catholicism today is one of the most anti-Semitism sensitive groups out there after the ADL.

No more elitist than the laws set down by God require (particularly the purity laws), and if anything, they were reformers of those laws.

The problem is that there are two takes on the Pharisees. There is the New Testament portrayal, and then there is what we know about them from historical sources. What’s odd is that the many of the criticisms that Jesus is portrayed as leveling against the Pharisees are the sorts of ideas that other sources suggest came FROM the Pharisees.

The Pharisees were political revolutionaries: they wanted the Romans out. But when the chance to revolt came, the result was Roman victory and the traumatic destruction of the Temple. The Pharisees were pretty unpopular after that, and this is right around when we expect that the first Gospel, Mark, was written. Mark’s theological interest seems to be trying to make sense of the destruction of the Temple: showing that this event was destined because the Jews were to blame for failing to live up to God’s promise. Like the fig tree with no fruit, the Temple-state had withered and died, and Jesus explained why. The negative and strange portrayal of the Pharisees makes more sense in this context: the Romans were in control and would not tolerate being spoken ill of. Hence the remarkably kind treatment of the Romans in the Gospels (despite all other suggesting that the Roman occupations was decidedly nasty, and Pilate was something of a monster, the Romans seem almost like benevolent rulers, some quite receptive to Jesus’ message), and the demonization of the Pharisees.

Only a theory, but suffice to say the mystery of who the Pharisees really were is nowhere near as open and shut as the Gospel portrayal.

60

Did the Catholics request to see Dogma, and get turned down? When Life of Brian came out, I was living in Louisiana, and it was basically banned at the instigation of the Catholic church. The DA took a trip to Atlanta to see it, and then unbanned it. (Louisiana DA are big on taking trips to see movies and plays.) This was long after the movie came out.

Now that the ADL has seen it, at last, and is still concerned, is the problem that they are not allowed to be worried? The statement seems very moderate, and is certainly not criticizing either Christianity or any particular church. They are also not claiming that the movie is going to cause riots. I also did not see anyplace where they asked for the film to be banned, or recommended that no one see it.

And good for Gibson for finally letting interested parties see the movie. He has a right to make it, the ADL has a right to criticize it, and that’s it.