Thank you for the correction. It *has * been almost a year since last Palm Sunday! I should have checked before I made that claim.
Now, to me, that reads as an attempt to make the movie even less anti-Semetic. Instead of attributing the death of Jesus to “the Jews,” I thought the movie made it pretty clear that it was mostly due to the machinations of one man: Caiphas. Without Caiphas there (mis)leading the crowd, it would be easier to view that scene as condemning all Jews.
I also agree with Avalonian about the effectiveness of cutting from Jesus’s torment to Jesus’s preaching about forgiveness. I think those particular cuts were the entire point behind making the movie: to emphasize the price Jesus was willing to pay for his philosophy, and the extent to which he meant it.
It was, after all, the religious leaders (read: politicians) whom Jesus dressed down with the famous Hypocrites! speech. You know, whited sepulchers and all that. He never dissed anyone for being Jewish. Or Gentile. Or even Samaritan.
Hmm, so we’re back to zero examples of anti-semitic stuff Gibson added on his own.
I don’t think there’s any debate here. Sounds like the film is no more or less anti-semitic than the source material from the New Testament.
I’ll accept your criticism, Bricker, because you’re stating it in far more rational and understandable language than others. Perhaps I haven’t clearly stated why the hoopla surrounding this movie disturbs me:
- I was raised in a strict fundamentalist religion, and have had this story shoved down my throat entirely too often.
- I detest movie gore, and from what I understand, this movie takes it to the limit.
Several other posters have commented as to how Mel didn’t bring anything new to the story, and if so, that doesn’t necessarily make it less disturbing, IMHO – you think a refreshed desire to re-examine the event (if it even happened) someone makes this a better world? Hell, for all we know it will set off more terrorist activities. It’s hard to dispute that violence/religion go hand in hand.
As for Mel’s position on birth control, I don’t know why it’s not a relevant point. He clearly has his own ideas about not only the interpretation of the Bible, but the ability of women to make their own choice to not bring zillions of unwanted children into the world. I, for one, can’t ignore his political position when I make my own personal choice as to whether I will see his movie.
For all you know. Speaking on behalf of people who aren’t completely stupid, we’re all fairly certain that terrorism isn’t caused by going to the movies.
Aldebaran, if the Arab and/or Muslim population feels threatened, fine. I believe they have reasons for feeling such. I wont take back what I said however. Whether or not you believe it, Jews have a reason to be threatened. You saying otherwise, especially after you being a historian and all, leads me to believe that you’re a fucking idiot and/or biased. The problem is that people are affected by what they see. Once again, I’m not arguing about the intentions of the movie. I’m arguing that Jews have a reason to feel threatened. If you want scenes that are un-biblical in The Passion, then go here. I realize these may not affect most of the population, but again, I’m not really talking about the movie. I know many people have gotten something out of it, and I myself probably will. I’m talking about human nature. And you, dearest, are an excellent example of why people (Jews in the very least) should be worried. Movies are created to draw in crowds (money) - they are not windows to the past - and yes, people are affected by movies, and believe they are things to behold. I’ve heard people praise movies, meaningless movies. Is there something wrong with that? Absolutely! But to think that there’s nothing to “cry” about just because Jews haven’t been killed en masse in sixty years or so is unnaceptable.
If you don’t understand me, then don’t respond. Either way, I believe I’m done with you. I can see why you’re the most pitted person on this board.
Oh, and blow me.
Fair enough. Both of these are absolutely legitimate reasons to avoid the film, and fair criticisms to level.
I certainly agree that it’s your choice, but I think it’s fair to separate the art from the artist. You may choose to avoid “The Pianist,” based on your disdain for yet another look at the Jewish plight during World War II, or on your disdain for lining the pockets of a convicted child rapist - but the latter reason is not a comment on the artistic merit of the film. In the post that started this commentary, you buried the birth control criticism between a comment on the buzz surrounding the film and the violence in the film. Certainly that phrasing gave rise to the inference that, somehow, you considered the birth control issue a comment on the artistic merits of the movie, rather than switch to the moral depradations of the director. It was that switch which seemed unsupportable, and which I called you on.
- Rick
Gotcha, Rick. It was a bad decision to post to this thread, given my own experiences with religion. I wouldn’t have continued to do so, if certain posters hadn’t attempted to insult me. Carry on, then…
You know what, Miller? I have no fucking idea why you continue to insult me. Really. Just stop it.
I can only work with the material you give me. Stop posting like an idiot, and I’ll stop pointing out how idiotic your posts are.
That’s a cop out. That’s a classic case of empowering other people to influence your own decisions - and at the end of the day, only YOU are responsible for typing away at the keyboard.
Bottom line? Sometimes you just have to accept responsibility for overstepping the mark. My first post in this thread related to the Ugandan girl, and how I felt this thread was a storm in a teacup, all things considered. But Eve pointed out that all of us have the right to choose our own battles, and when I first read what she had to say I wanted to respond emotionally, but eventually I put my magnanimous hat on and conceded she had a fair point.
It’s time for you to do the same Blonde.