Ah, Miller - can’t resist me, can you? Well, let me elaborate - I have heard the movie is graphic and bloody. I’m agnostic, and as such find all this publicity quite annoying. I’m still waiting for your valuable/enlightening contrubution, cowboy.
As was yours. :rolleyes: At least address the OP when you spew.
I haven’t had the chance to see the movie yet myself, but if some people really take their cues on who to hate from a fucking movie, I’d rather stay away from them.
FWIW, I don’t recall a lot of hate for current Southerners (black or white) when Rosewood came out.
Graphic and bloody?
I am so there, baby!
My dear, you are eminently resistable. As for my contribution to the topic, I direct you and the equally unobservant Horseflesh to post #13. Apparently, not only do you not need to see a movie to have an opinion on it, you don’t need to read a thread to have an opinion on that, either.
CheekyMonkey613? Thanks for providing that address in the OP so I can let Gibson et al. know how good the film was!!!
Cheeky, I don’t care what your reasons for doing this are, that is some stylish shit!
Why is it a “necessity”? Y’think that The Lord of the Rings is historically accurate?
To the Jews, the New Testament is fiction. So to them, The Passion should also be looked at as fiction. Sure, there’re dumbfucks that take it for literal word, but hey, it’s not like the movie is what made their opinion.
Frankly, I think the loudest protestors just want to suck up some of the fame and infamy that this movie is generating… grab the hem of the movie’s coat, to use a terrible pun.
Of course, there’s a sizable difference between a completely fictional story and historical fiction. It’s one thing to suggest the Uruk-Hai, who to my knowledge don’t exist, are evil, and quite another to suggest the Jews, who to my knowledge do exist, are evil. Not that I would know if this is portrayed in the movie, as I haven’t seen it and don’t intend to see it, but having seen Jesus Christ Superstar this past weekend, I got a definite ‘Jews = bad’ vibe, and I can see how that could be shown in The Passion as well. I can accept the Pharisees may have been a major force behind Jesus’s early demise, but I can’t rationally equate them with current day Jews, who thus far have not urged the crucifixion of any Messiahs.
And as for the OP–yes, it’s usually unwise to rant about something you haven’t seen firsthand. You may dislike the subject, you may even hate what you’ve heard Mel Gibson’s done in the movie, but unless you can back up your ire with examples of what offends you, most people aren’t going to take you too seriously.
I have nothing against protesting something that offends you. However, I think that if you’re going to protest a movie, it behooves you to actually see the content for yourself. So why not go see the movie, and if you still find it offensive, ask for your money back? I’m sure the theater will give you a refund if you make a big enough fuss, pointing out how morally repugnant the movie’s message was to you.
Whoever is looking for justification for being an antisemite can find it in a nursery rhyme. The people whom the Passion blames for the violence are politicians — leaders of religion and government. Only an idiot can come away with the opinion that Jews as a whole are responsible for killing Jesus. All the Marys, all the apostles, most of the disciples, and even Jesus Himself were Jews. “Let His blood be on our hands” means on the hands of those people in the crowd who called for his execution. Making it mean something more than that is a gross violation of Ockham’s Razor.
By the way, I saw it yesterday.
Fair enough. It’s a tricky subject to be sure.
The horses have been kind to me of late, where can I contribute? I think you can find my Email address.
I understand everyone who is saying I should see the movie first. In most other contexts, I would have said the same to the OP. But at the end of the day, here’s the question:
How am I supposed to SEE the movie without supporting it? I can’t.
That being said, I have to rely on secondary observations. It’s not the best case scenario when making decisions for myself, but in this case it is. At 6pm tonight, Father John Walsh who is the priest at St. Jean de Brebeuf Parish in Montreal, will be speaking about the movie on CJAD800, which you can listen to on the internet also. I respect him deeply and am looking forward to his thoughts as well.
Already In Use already answered this question for you:
I saw the movie yesterday, and while I would have a few bones to pick with it, anti-semitism isn’t one of them. The people in power who condemned Christ to death were actively evil. They happened to be Jewish. Does this mean that Jews are or were evil? No. As a matter of fact, in several places in the film, some of the lower-echelon Jews spoke up on behalf of Christ, and tried to be kind to Him in His agony.
Two statements to consider: “The people who condemned Christ and put Him to death were Jewish” and “Jews killed Christ”. The statements may look the same on the surface, but there is a vital distinction to be made. The people who aren’t making this distinction, despite it having been pointed out to them again and again, are being wilfully dense, or else they’ve already decided how they feel, without ever having seen the film. Come to think of it, that still boils down to “willfully dense”.
While I appreciate this tip, I’ve also worked in two major cinema chains. People do have the right to ask for their money back, within the first 15 minutes of the movie. You might be able to push it to 20 minutes or a half hour. But you certainly won’t be refunded after the movie is finished. Just doesn’t happen.
I remember when Jodie Foster’s movie, The Accused, came out. There was a gang rape scene well into the movie. People came out on a rampage, demanding their money back. Unfortunately, I was the one who had to tell them that it was impossible for me to reimburse them. I did make an exception to the rule when a girl came out, and told me something like, “I just watched a gang-rape, being a recent victim of rape myself, and you’re not going to give me my money back?” (tears streaming down her face) and her boyfriend looking more pitiful and helpless than she did. So I did. And believe me, when the credit stubs were received at Head Office, heads rolled including mine.
I would certainly have no credibility saying, “But I’m offended! But I didn’t know! I didn’t know it would BE like this!”
That being said, I respect your reasons to find my stance unintelligent. And I’m still making it. I guess that’s what makes the world interesting.
Trying to decide which Passion thread to contribute to… my wife and I saw the film last night, along with a good friend of mine.
I am a Roman Catholic.
BUt there was a time when I considered converting to Judaism. I made it an area of some study, and I daresay I am more familiar with the Law than your average Reform Jew. I still belong to a halach discussion listserv, and can argue a pilpul with the best of them.
But of course I am not Jewish.
I left the movie not finding anti-semitism present at all. At best, I think the movie was anti-establishment, something that a 2000-year-old Michael Moore might have cheered. Almost all the authority figures were corrupt, and the only ones that weren’t were Jews. The few Jewish leaders with the integrity to protest the midnight arrest and proceedings were escorted from the chamber, while the corrupt leadership did their dirty work and made sure the chamber was packed with sycophants. They took him to the Roman leadership, depicted as weak and careless - more willing to have a man shredded nearly to death than stand up for what was right. The Roman foot-soldiers, almost to a man, were brutish thugsenjoying their opportunity to inflict torture. The only figures in the movie that did anything decent were Jewish. Nor were they all nascent Christians - I exclude Jesus’ followers from the list, and focus on the protesters among Caiphas’ crowd, the people that were trying to serve integrity and law if not specifically Jesus, and Simon of Cyrene, pressed into reluctant service to help carry the cross. The movie was a powerful screed, I thought, about the corruptibility of power towards those who possess it: Pilate was more concerned with keeping his place and rule unbothered than human lives; Caiphas more concerned with suppressing a challenge to his hold on religious power than a human life, the Roman soldiers more concerned with not getting their hands dirty than with the rights of an innocent bystander. All of those men were utterly contemptible in the movie, but I certainly did not read any general feeling of ill-will towards all Romans or all Jews. Indeed, you can make a better case towards the movie hating the Romans, since not one sympathetic Roman character was shown.
All three of us sobbed during the movie. It was an emotional experience.
Just for the record, CheekyMonkey613 is Canadian.
Haven’t seen the movie yet. I’m going to take the Weisenthal Center’s word on this movie and assume that Gibson depicts Jews in a very negative light. Okay. B.F.D.
Because we all know that the crucifixion happened two thousand years ago, right?
Would any person in their right mind condemn ANYone for something his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather did?
No. And the anti-semitic idjits hated Jews well before Mel Gibson’s movie came along. “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” (Paul Simon)
If I were a Jewish rabbi in Denver, I’d put up a sign in answer to the “Jews killed Jesus” sign. It would read, “Get over it.”
Here is further evidence that we need a “round of applause” smiley. 