That last sentence should read “Please, just provide an example of something anti-semitic Gibson added that wasn’t in the bible…”
Sorry for any confusion.
It must be great to find a group you think is worthy of doing your decision-making for you. Those Muslims were so lucky they had an Ayatolllah to tell them that Salman Rushdie needed to die.
Why even bother seeing the fucking movie now? Like there’s a chance in hell you’d possibly be objective at this stage.
Right you are. Tell you what - you and Miller can kiss my sweet Texas ass. I am not that interested in the subject matter, and grow weary of fending off hostile posters, such as the two of you. At some point, you might want to consider developing some other hobby, because you’re clearly taking this movie way too seriously.
Which is why you keep posting in here about it, right? Because you have so little interest in the subject matter?
I’m not sure what you mean by boffo, so this response might be completely irrelevant, but Crouching Tiger did decently well at the box office:) I personally didn’t really enjoy it, but then I approached it from a different angle from most other people’s.
By the way, Blonde, don’t you just love the delicious irony of declaring two other posters hostile, but not before inviting them to kiss your ass? I know I do!
Aldebaran, I see your point. The latter part of my argument still holds. Italians are still, mostly, Catholic. Jews are Jews. Many Jews have been called Christ killers, and it was the last thing they heard. I’ve been called it because I look Semitic; I’ve had rocks thrown at me because of it as well. The stoning happened in New York, and I’m Christian.
For you to say that Jews have nothing to worry about isn’t acceptable. Those who are concerned have very legitimate reasons for being concerned. You saying otherwise makes you look ignorant, and I know you aren’t. Go here for time lines of Jewish persecution.
So, a person who believes that theft and deceit is the “best solution” is moralizing about a film? You must be making the Simon Wiesenthal Centre proud.
That, Lib, and at the same time he decries Mel Gibson for his anti-semitism, which must be rooted in some form of ignorance, he himself has yet to actually see the film and is basing much of his opinion on what someone else, however credible, has said, which is also ignorance. If I were going to go to the trouble of actually mailing a company about something, I’d want to be able to say “Yeah, I saw your movie, and it was a piece of shit and horribly anti-semitic” rather than the impotent “No, I didn’t. I base my opinion on what someone else said.”
Evidently the only thing credibility and cheekymonkey have in common is C, E and Y. All we’re missing is the H for yech.
Here’s a story I just found on the website for my “local” NBC station. More hype. Thought you’d all find it interesting to see what twist the debate will be taking though. Woman dies while watching “The Passion”
I’ve found that most of the “hatred” The Passion has inspired has been of this sort: hatred of those who have not seen the film against Mel Gibson or what he stands for. It’s irrational and uninformed but very powerful. I know one girl who has incredibly strong feelings of anger that the film is even being shown at all, and she can’t even articulate why.
Though I am an atheist myself, I find that I can’t fathom the depth of hatred some people have for a movie… and one they haven’t even seen yet. The only movies I hate are movies I’ve actually seen. I really don’t understand how someone could hate something so deeply, without ever even coming to understand it.
Interesting, anyway.
What is also interesting is that, in my experience, it is often the other way around. These same people who are condemning the film without having seen it routinely condemn people who condemn controversial films without having seen them. The Last Temptation of Christ comes immediately to mind.
When you post on the SDMB and make assertions without any basis in fact, you’ll get called on them, regardless of how sweet your Texas ass may be. If you posted an opinion that the castaways on Gilligan’s Island were stupid because they kept letting Gilligan foul up rescue attempts, I’m sure I would have pointed out that this was the theme of the show; without it, there would have been no show. This observation does not mean I’m taking Gilligan’s Island too seriously – it means I am commenting on your evident failure to understand a basic premise of sitcom story-telling.
So, too, with this movie. You have somehow conflated Mr. Gibson’s position on birth control with substantive criticism of his latest movie. By pointing out this non-sequiter, I’m merely demanding of you a certain basic level of rigorous thinking. It has nothing to do with taking the movie seriously: it has to do with taking critical thinking skills seriously.
Which, I might add, I do.
- Rick
The Italians I know other then the family of my mother’s side are not religious at all.
I’m sure Muslims can tell you exactly the same story, and also much much worse. Maybe those people actually thought you “looked Middle Eastern” (think: Atab and Muslim)
What is for me not acceptable is crying “anti-Semitism” at any given occasion while there is nothing remotely worth crying for. What in my opinon is absolutely unacceptable and ridiculous is crying the same because of a ridiculous idiotic movie and this even weeks before this movie is even released.
It is because I am informed that I make these statements about this idiotic movie in the first place.
As historian I consider myself to be informed about historical events/developments that touch my studyfields, be it close or be it only further related. A stupid movie in all it artificial fiction has nothing to do with historical developments that led the occuring of certain historical events. Nor is -in the mind of normal thinking people- it even remotely able to remotely come close to have to power for instigating a repeatment of such events.
If Jews in the USA can even find one single reason to feel themselves threatened by a stupid movie, then in my opinion US’ers in general must ask themselves what on earth is wrong in their society.
A society where a stupid movie can be seen as having such an impact on people’s minds that no matter who can be “threatened” by what it shows, has lost every thouch with reality = people in such a society can’t distinct fiction from reality anymore. They are mediazed and absorbed by fiction and publicity to such an extend that their brains stopped reasoning.
I just watched the serial named “24” yesterday.
I see there Arabs portrayed as terrorists smuggling an atomic bomb in LA and 3 “Middle Eastern” nations "helped them doing it.
So in your scenario I must now start screaming and claim that I feel threatened with once again a wave of Islamophobia/ Arabophobia/ M.E phobia? I can’t go to the USA anymore without a whole army functioning as bodyguards?
Thank you, but no thank you… I let those idiots write the scenarios they want to film and bring out what they want to produce. They play on the general feelings of their target public with the aim to make money.
Which is what Gibson also did.
The difference here is: Gibson filmed something that is described in a book that for Christians tells the truth.
Do you believe that Jews must say that the Bible can’t be printed, read, distributed anymore because tehy feel “threatened” by its “anti-smeitism”?
Do you believe that the Passions of Bach and the Messiah of Händel should be forbidden because of “anti semitism”?
In that case: A friend of one of my relatives is as soloïst touring with Collegium Vocale (Belgium) under the lead of Philippe Herreweghe.
They have on March,5 a concert with the Matthäus Passion in New York (Lincoln Center, Alice Tully Hall).
Please (anyone) let me know how many “anti Semitism” screams against this performance were organized and printed? Thank you.
(By the way: for the Bach fans in N.Y: I can fully recommend this concert).
Salaam. A
I am astonished that there can be several threads debating this issue, many or all at several pages, yet nobody can come up a single example of something anti-semitic Gibson added that wasn’t in his source material.
I don’t see how there’s any room for debate until such an example is given. The film’s no more anti-semitic than the Bible, if Gibson didn’t add anything.
Revtim, I’ve mentioned several additions in various other threads, but I’ll sum up here since you’re curious.
Compared to the gospels, Caiphas has an *extremely * prominent role in the movies. Where in the gospels the crowd is calling for Barabbas, it is Caiphas who instigates the cry. Where the crowd spontaneously calls for Christ’s cruxifiction, it is Caiphas who initially demands it. Certainly, the crowd is jewish as well. But having the church leader prominently displayed as the leader of the crowd gives a more “official” stance to it. Caiphas makes another appearance at the cruxifiction, and it is to him that Christ’s “forgive them, Father, they know not what they do” is directed.
As a Catholic, we perform (as a congregation) the Passion every Palm Sunday. It is the congregation’s role to call out, “Barabbas!” and “Crucify him!”. These are roles that I greatly identify with, it is our sins and our choice that killed Christ. But to have a Jewish leader lead that assault, IMO, smacks of revisionism that leans towards anti-semitism.
Do I believe the portrayal as a whole is anti-semetic? No. Do I understand the problems the ADL and other groups would have? Absolutely.
Thanks Munch. Are you aware of any other things Gibson added?
To all arguing that Gibson made an anti-semitic film - is what Munch stated the basis for your belief?
Gibson also added the character of Satan, who appears in the Garden of Gethsemene to taunt and seduce Christ. Certainly, it was adapted from Christ’s 40 days in the desert, and not too much of a stretch. Satan later appears at the flogging.
I’m not quite sure what was going at Herod’s place, but that passage is fairly non-descript in the Bible. My impression was that, in the movie, Herod surrounded himself with various excesses and appetites - both culinary and sexual. Many that surrounded him could have been interpreted to be homosexual, but nothing was explicitly stated/shown.
Judas (who was excellently portrayed) was bothered by demons after his betrayal. An interesting take, but certainly an addition.
The most unfortunate thing is that the most powerful sequences and statements that Gibson was making are going to be ignored by viewers (most likely). Particularly, cutting from a scene of Christ being brutally tortured to a flashback of him teaching, “love thy enemy”; cutting from Peter’s betrayal to Christ teaching, “there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends”; etc. The potential power behind those messages is just going to be lost because Mel decided to put in absolutely unneccessary additions that do nothing but take away from the message.
Actually, while I was aware of the changes/additions, I found the scenes you describe to be among the most powerful in the film. The “love thy enemy” part was the only one to actually bring me to tears, because of the contrast between what Jesus is saying and what is being done to him. Heady stuff.
As I said, I noticed the changes – Satan seemed like an unnecessary addition, and the Herod thing didn’t bother me. Caiphas’ actions in the crowd were different, but consistent with the character. I didn’t take it the way you did, as a criticism of all Jews. I took it as a clearer depiction of that particular Jew. But the changes didn’t detract from the message, for me. Not even a little bit.
Check Matt. 27:20:
I don’t think this is something that Gibson added on his own.
No, no. I didn’t take it as a criticism of all Jews. I agree that it was an accurate depiction of Caiphas’ personality - but saw how the addition of him in these scenes could certainly be interpreted negatively, especially if you’re Jewish. I personally don’t think his addition was deliberately added to condemn the Jews - but merely to identify the crowd as Jewish (as opposed to a bunch of Romans or something).
Very interesting observation, and very accurate.