Ah! That explains the $13 movie tickets. That was the most shocking part of the OP. 
Sadly, I think that one thing that creates a lot of hate is people letting others do their thinking for them. The vast majority of white supremacists are like that — dolts who know nothing about history or its context, but instead soak up the thoughts of others whom they respect. There might be a lot less hate in the world if people had the courage and the good will to stand face to face with the object of their hatred, rather than viewing it only through the lenses of others.
You’re absolutely right. However, this brings up an important question. It seems quite obvious that whatever anti-semitism (or lack thereof) exists in the movie, your neo-Nazis and Klansmen, etc. will take this movie and run with it; they seek for any excuse to speak out against the people on their mudlist (which includes the Jews, amongst others).
The question is: Is a creator responsible for his/her work after it’s been created? In other words, is someone like Mel Gibson responsible for creating a work that can be so easily construed to promote things like anti-Semitism?
My answer is yes, they are. Here’s another example of what happens when a movie is made on a “historical” premise and is used to incite anti-Semitism: Jud Suss, created by Hitler’s PR man, Goebbels. He created the movie with the obvious intent to incite anti-Semitic sentiments amongst the German people. However, in the political doublespeak of the Nazi regime, Goebbels said it was just a historical documentary. (Though of course, we all know his propaganda films were created for much more than that).
This is not to imply that I think that Mel Gibson is trying to propagandize against the Jews (despite his father being a Holocaust-denier, etc.). However, I think he is responsible for the reactions that people have from the movie. He knew his film was very controversial, and yet decided to make, at best, minor changes to the movie. While I applaud his strength and willingness to make a film he feels strongly about, I think he should also be willing to accept the consequences.
The post-modernist thinker discusses the “death of the author” and I do not I agree with that notion, not entirely, at least. The author creates his/her work with a certain intention, and there are a certain other reactions that can be closely connected to that original work.
Of course, I could be wrong, it’s just my opinion (/Dennis Miller)
You know, in all or nearly all of the threads about this film, someone mentions “embellishments” made by Gibson (like the quote in the OP), or that he used writings other than the bible to supplement the film (from 2 nuns), and use this as justification to accuse him of anti-semitism.
But nobody ever gives an example of what Gibson added that can be considered anti-semitic. They give examples like Pilate being effeminate, but he was a Roman, right?
Please, people. Give an example of something that Gibson added that can be considered anti-semetic, or shut the fuck up. Or accuse the writers of the Bible alone.
I read Heil’s editorial and letter to Gibson from the link. The editorial mentions some anti-semitic things on the nuns wrote, but doesn’t say that these items were in the film!
Please, just an example of something anti-semitic Gibson that wasn’t in the bible, or admit he just adapted a book and accuse the source material alone.
After readin on the boards here some descriptions of the contenance of this stupid movie, I’m thinking about starting a thread with the scream
Gibson’s Passion is instigating Roman and Italian Hate !!
I even have some personal interest in that: some of my family members of my mother’s side are Italian. One of them even origines from Rome…As his family lives there already since centuries (according to the family records).
If me inevitably having some drips of that blood in me is not a reason to feel threatened personally, then I don’t know what is.
Salaam. A
I find this quite interesting. They really wouldn’t refund a customer’s money if he or she were to take the complaint high enough up the chain of command? I mean, first of all, a cinema chain would rather lose the price of admission for one movie than lose one customer, or, perhaps more likely, one customer and several of that customer’s friends. Secondly, there’s a limit to how much time the average cheapskate will want to spend, say, talking to supervisors and calling or writing the chain’s regional headquarters, whereas a truly horrified moviegoer will do these things.
Then are the Beatles responsible for Charles Manson?
Granted, I have not seen The Passion, so it could very well be anti-Semitic, for all I know. But if it isn’t, why should Mel be responsible for people’s irrational reactions to his film?
Don’t forget that smoking is caused by lung cancer.
Italians are not Roman, and Jews are Jews. Most Italians are Catholic, and Jews are…Jews.
First, the “entire” Jewish community isn’t up in arms about this movie. I’m a member of the Jewish community, and I could care less. I haven’t seen the movie, I don’t intend to see it, and because I don’t intend to see it, I choose to withhold judgment.
Second, I have read published articles by SWC researchers blindly attacking such people as Harry S Truman as “anti-Semitic” over brief passages in diaries,which may or may not have been meant to slur individual Jews. However, given President Truman’s later recognition of the State of Israel within minutes of its establishment, and his naming Jews to Cabinet posts, I am inclined to think that he was not anti-Semitic at all. My point is that occasionally the “experts” get it wrong, and that there’s no substitute for forming one’s own opinion.
Robin
Yes, you can. You know that guy on the screen who hates those who steal candy bars? Piss him off.
I’m just saying…
Actually, its Herod (whom I understand was religiously but not ethnically Jewish) who is protrayed as somewhat effeminate, and this has led to further charges that the film is homophobic. There is at least some basis for this, as Mel has made homophobic statements in the past, but I didn’t see anything in the movie that made me think the character was supposed to be gay aside from the effeminate mannerisms. It’s not like hits on Christ or anything.
Quite frankly, anyone who thinks that the Herod in Gibson’s movie is gay really ought to see how campily Herod was portrayed in JC Superstar. They’d have committed heresy of some sort if they’d put a bush near Herod in that portrayal, cuz it’d have immediately got set on fire:D
Yes you can. This is what I do, for movies that I want to see but do not want to encourage Hollywood to make more of:
- Find a movie in your local theater that does deserve your money, and which is showing on a screen close to the one that the movie you want is showing on.
- Buy a ticket to that movie.
- Enter the wrong theater on purpose, sit down, and enjoy the show.
This isn’t really appropriate for movies that are still new/exciting enough to be selling out, but Passion should be past that point shortly, if it’s not already.
Taran … that’s gotta be the best solution I’ve seen yet. Smart cookie.
Just out of curiosity, what movie did you not want to support?
Most recent was The Hulk. I knew it would be pretty rotten, but seemed impossible that any movie could be as bad as I’d heard it was. Oops.
Let’s not forget that it was Harry Truman who desegregated the US military and was willing to tell racist jokes in private. Then there’s the Founding Fathers who fought for freedom whilst being slave owners…
The point being that no one is going to be perfect and people often do things that are (or at least seem) to be at odds with their higher aspirations. So perhaps some of Mel’s personal biases colored the film, but without having seen the film I can’t comment on that, and certainly I’ve seen nothing other than “It’s anti-semetic, so and so said it was!” to back up the claims.
IAC, I doubt that the movie will convert anyone to anti-semetism who wasn’t already leaning that way to begin with.
I’m rather peeved at all the hoopla surrounding this film. From what I’ve heard (no, I haven’t seen it, and won’t) the violence is beyond graphic. Moreover, I don’t agree with Mel’s position on religion or birth control. I’ll agree that he cleverly promoted this film, but I am astounded his film is worthy of big headlines. Hey, what if someone made a movie about poverty in South America, or AIDS in Africa?
What the hell does Mel Gibson’s opinion on birth control have to do with this movie?
The Italian tribes became over time full Roman citizenship.
I wont give you here the whole story since we aren’t in a “Roman history” thread.
Just a very short overview.
Although there were earlier attempts to replace the already (selective) existence of the so called “half citizenship” by full citizenship for Italic allies, the real discussion about this issue began with the persistent lobbying of Livius Drusus (plebeic aedilis in 94 BC, Tribune in in 91 BC). It is probably true that because of this he was murdered by his political opponents.
His death led to the failiure his proposal, which caused a general rebellion of the Italian allies (91-89BC, with following Civil War in Rome until 81BC). Selective full citzenship to Italians was granted and became over time extended to full citizenship.
By the time of Augustus (35BC) Rome was already considered as the “common homeland” of Italy (this term for referring to “all the Italic tribes” and their lands was invented by the tribes just before declaring war to Rome in 91 BC)
“Italia” became also in use as a synonyme for the might and of Rome (and its past).
So you see: if you consider Jews of today the same as Jews of 2000 years ago, then I really should worried about the impact of the Melson movie on the well being of my Italian relatives. And of course especially the Roman ones.
Salaam. A
This post is a collection of non-sequiters. Purely objectively, when was the last foreign-language, English-subtitled film to go this boffo at the box office? That alone justifies the current headlines. And the performance at the box office undoubtedly arose from the previous headlines characterizing the film as controversial, a situation any studio exec would love to be in.
And of what relevance is Mr. Gibson’s position on birth control?