You can not be serious. Are we to understand that you fail to grasp the abilty of film to impact people emotionally? Media is unable to influence people’s perception of issues? Well then, for you’re amusement Triumph of the will.
I see… So it’s OK to be obsessed with a * book * such as the Koran, the Bible, or even the Satanic Verses (as if those were the Real World), but not a movie? Are you somehow unaware that a movie has the power to deliver a compelling message to tens of millions of viewers?
Can you explain what reality you live in?
I have not yet seen this movie (I’m trying to see it tonight), but I’m going to venture a WAG here.
The Passion of the Christ is no more anti-semitic than Gibson’s American Revolution movie from a few years ago, The Patriot, was anti-British. I’m sure some people said it was, but that doesn’t make them right.
I think poor Alde is upset mostly because this movie’s gotten so much more attention than Life of Brian. 
And face it, there’s been excessive hype. I wanna see a film with a real Easter message. Maybe something starring Charlize Theron as a giant mutated killer bunny rabbit on steroids.
Guys, guys, guys. Why do you even bother responding to Aldebaran? The guy is just jerking our collective chains. I can’t think of another poster more deserving of the silent treatment.
Anyway: I find it amusing that so many people have such strong convictions over a film that 99% of us haven’t seen yet.
Still, my take on the ‘violence’ of the film is, well - that’s the point. As one reviewer said: when we say that JC suffered and died for our sins, this is what we’re talking about.
I’m spiritual, but not religious. But wouldn’t it be easier to stray from the path if it was convenient to sugercoat the suffering and brutality involved? I would think that Gibson’s whole point was to force people to re-think their committment to their religion and their god if they were forced to faced with the unpleasant ‘truth’: if the crucifixion did happen, it was almost certainly far more gory, violent, and brutal in real life than is portrayed in Sunday school.
His abilities as a director aside, I have more respect for him after reading his quotes about his research for the movie. He says that ultimately, one expert’s opinions would cancel out another expert’s opinions; he had to fall back on his own beliefs and judgements. Isn’t that the more honest approach? And the more realistic approach? I mean, we have ‘experts’ debating and disagreeing with every angle of the JFK murder - and this was something that happened just over 40 years ago, with hundreds of witnesses on the ground, and video evidence. Lord knows experts disagree on all aspects of what the Bible says, is trying to say, or actually means.
I thought the Patriot was anti-British. It featured a British commander as vicious and murderous to loyalists in a way that, generally, only native Americans were to loyalists. Loyalists, in fact, barely existed in this movie world, despite the fact that almost as many Americans fought against the Revolution as for it. Certainly it was a sort of heroic revisionism of Americans with the British as evil oppressors in a way that I find hard to sqaure with the actual history of the times.
But that simply fit the need of a Hollywood action film and Gibson’s take on them in general. There HAS to be a sinister bad guy with no complexity. There has to be a comical fag. The only difference in the Passion is who these people are, and, because this movie is much truer to Gibson’s religion, that there is no revenging comeuppance at the end. Which is what makes the Passion different and quite interesting, from the perspective of Gibson’s career, even if he did find some honor bound reason to toss the standard nancy boy into the story.
Just a couple of thoughts:
- This isnt the first movie about the life and death of Jesus. Did the other movies insight anti-semitism as Mel’s movie is said will do?
- There are many movies made that portray certain people in a bad light. As mentioned earlier the Patriot… How about Saving Private Ryan… did that rouse up feelings of hatred at Germans? Or Pearl Harbor and the Japanese… Or any number of movies like that?
Do you actually think that the people who are so fanatical in their self-described love of Jesus that they would attack Jews on this basis have forgotten that the Jews supposedly were responsible for his death until reminded of it by this movie?
“Oh, yeah, that’s right - the Jews killed Him! Let’s get 'em!”
I don’t think so. I’d be the last person in the world to deny movies’ ability to sway emotions, but this one isn’t conveying any new information, and isn’t likely to create any new anti-Semites.
I am indeed serious.
People who get that “emotionally” involved with whatever movie production in a way that it affects their ability to use their brain on a normal way must urgently get an appointment with a psychiatrist.
You are not going to compare the USA of today and this stupid Gibson movie with something completely different as the Germany of Hitler’s time and the Nazi propaganda and its impact,do you?
You can not be serious.
If you are then that says a lot of how you think about the mental sanity of the average US’ers.
Did you ever see the movie Roma by Fellini?
If yes, would you say that (brilliant as it is in its satire and criticism) this gives the pure reality of pre-WWII Italy, its citizens, its Clergy, its noblety, the Pope?
Normal people see a movie and know they see a movie. One can find it a good movie or a bad one or something in between, but it is still nothing else then a movie = pure fiction.
Abnormal people see a movie and can’t make the distinction between fiction and reality.
Salaam. A
Does the material from Emmerich have any bearing on the anti-semitism charges?
Check 'em out:
http://www.emmerich1.com/DOLOROUS_PASSION_OF_OUR_LORD_JESUS_CHRIST.htm
Rather torturous read, if you ask me. It takes a lot of slogging to get to the meat of the story, as it were. The suffering of Jesus is certainly made out to be cruel beyond belief. “Enemies” of Christ, such as Caiaphas, Annas, Herod, and the like, are characterized as murderous, wicked schemers.
The main points agree with the NT, as far as I can see, though it takes her about 100 times as much prose to express herself as the Evangelists. She needed an editor.
This is not a biography…it only covers the last 12 hours of “his” life.
I just don’t understand wht Gibson had to make it so violent that it received an R rating.
It boils down to this, anyone who could possibly walk away with feelings of anti-semitism towards modern Jewish People are not only ignorant, but already anti-semitic. Only a moron walked away from Schindler’s List hating modern Germans. Or what kind of idiot left any movie about the Civil War hating Southerners. Any Christian who knows anything about their religion, knows that Jesus’ death fulfilled a prophecy that HAD to be fulfilled. Without it, Jesus would not have been The Savior. So how could they blame The Jews or The Romans or Judas or anybody for that matter. The only way is if they are ignorant and already harboring hatred. (I typed this fast, so my spelling might make ME look like an idiot)
What irritates me is the hypocrisy in the protests. Rabbi Schmully Boteach wrote a column where he basically stated that any work of art based upon the synoptic Gospels (for some reason he gives John a pass) is inherently anti-semitic. They not only want secularism in government (a reasonable desire) but even secularism in private entertainment.
But we don’t here the screaming Rabbis addressing quotes like this one from the infamous Jewish sage Maimonides’ Letter to Yemen:
“Jesus of Nazareth, impelled people to believe that he was a prophet sent by God to clarify perplexities in the Torah, and that he was the Messiah that was predicted by each and every seer. He interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment, to the abolition of all its commandments and to the violation of its prohibitions.
The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him.”
On the one hand, they want works based upon the Gospels to be considered tantamount to a hate-crime while ignoring quotes from people they like that are much more inflamatory, IMHO.
I frankly think that it is more likely that some of the ‘protesters’ have probably inspired more anti-semitism through their arrogance than Mel Gibson ever will.
Gibson’s problem is that no one else wrote the bible either. That is, there isn’t one crucifixion story but four. Each Gospel ( even the Synoptic Gospels ) tells a different tale. If Gibson really did try to just show that day as written he would end up with a mishmash of repetitive yet contradictory scenes. Gibson can’t claim he just followed the text because that would have been silly. In order to create a coherent tale from that mess he had to pick and choose which leaves him open to charges of bias.
Now if one single person had written all of the Gospels they presumably would have edited the inconsistancies out. Instead it is left to Gibson to do so and his choices are open to question. Even if he chose to strictly adhere to one particular Gospel it could still be argued that he deliberately chose the tale that would allow him to show the Jews in the worst possible light. I’m not accusiing Gibson of anything, mind. I’m just pointing this out. I haven’t even seen the flick yet.
Well, yes- the NT does put part of the blame for the cruxificion on the High Preist. And each Gospel tells the story in a little different way. But I don’t see why that makes this movie, or the NT “anti-semitic”. He WAS partly responsible, and a strong case could be made for him being primarily responsible.
Now, during Prohibition there was a large gang that did acts of violence, smuggling, etc. No not the Mafia- the Purple Gang (it figures in Jailhouse Rock, the song)= which happened to be Jewish. They have made hundreds of Italian Gangster movies- so if they did one about the Purple Gang- and showed then to be thugs, hoods & criminals- would that be “anti-semitic”?
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion- entirely false- now THAT is “anti-semitic”. This movie is not.
I again assert that the movie is antisemitic. I mean, how could it not be? The Gospel Evangelists took great pains to lay as much blame as possible on the Jewish authorities, embelishing with the ridiculous stuff about Pilate’s plea for clemency, the washing of hands, and the trading of Barabbas to add insult to injury. The Jews most certainly are being made the convenient scapegoat here. Anyone who wants to seriously deny this has blinded themselves to the facts and the history of the region during the time of Jesus, and the early Christian Church. The story, as told in the NT, is absurd. The Romans didn’t operate this way. Pilate was cruel and prone to using violence to put down sedition. He was removed from his position because of his excessively heavy hand, and we are asked to believe he would take pity on a rebel like Jesus? Or trade thieves? At the behest of an angry mob? This would have been remarkable behavior. Funny how nobody else felt it was worth recording. Jesus’ trial bears no resemblance to what is known of Jewish and Roman legal proceedings of the day. It simply isn’t an historically accurate account.
I repeat: THIS IS NOT NEWS.
Christianity is founded on what is, in part, an antisemitic screed. There’s no getting around it. Either you deny Christians this part of their faith, or you put up with it. I cannot see how the ADL et al. can come out so vociferously against this movie whilst asserting they respect the freedom to practice and express one’s faith. I think, in this case, the two messages are mutually exclusive, and always will be. Either Christians are antisemites, or they renounce and discard this portion of their tradition. I see no alternative. And it’s been this way for centuries. Why this movie in particular incites so much unease and anger, when the tradition is a good 2000 years old is something I don’t understand. It is a filmic dramatization of the Gospel story that, from all acounts, gives a relatively scripturally faithful enactment of the Passion. If Jews are made out to be villians, that’s faithful. That’s how they’re supposed to look.
It’s things like this that got me out of the religion game for good. There’s no really tenable middle ground, and no hope for true reconciliation without that unattainable middle ground. People either have to deal with these differences with stoic silence, or come out and say what they really mean: Your faith is wrong.
How can anyone blame the Jews when Jesus’s Daddy was pulling all the puppet strings anyway?
“Free Will” I guess? But what kind of God would set up his own Chosen People for centuries of bigotry?
I guess the same one that kills kittens–but helps jocks score touchdowns–and then sits idly by as several million Jews go to the “showers”.
He also seems to make little or no effort at keeping the world’s “great” religions from each others’ throats.
There is a positive side to all this of course, some U.S. Christians are already so busy loathing Muslims they probably don’t have an ounce of hate left in them to spare for the Jews.
Ergo, little anti-semitism in the wake of TPOTC. Nice job, God.
I don’t “believe” in a god per se. I have no idea. I’m inclined to think that if “God” is half as great as people think he/she/it is, the sorry state of human affairs can only be explained by human idiocy. Call it free will, whatever, it’s our problem, in origin and in whatever resolution we settle on.
The sad truth is, we have a hodge-podge of mutually-exclusive, centuries-old mythic traditions that people cling to like their very lives depended on it. Given that the tenets of one faith often contradict another, yet both lay claim to “the Truth”, there’s no really good solution. Occasionally the tension this inevitably causes flares up, and people do stupid things like blame the problem on a movie. It’s not the God Damned Movie. It’s the nature of human faith itself. Calling Mel’s movie antisemitic is irrelevant. If it’s a reflection of the faith, then the faith has that problem, and folks may as well cut to the chase.
Maybe (though it seems too much to hope), people will finally wake up and say “This is absurd. Fact is, none of us really know what the hell we’re talking about. Maybe sometimes we think we do, but in reality we can’t be sure. So we have no real basis for argument, and it’s silly to fight over this. Let’s learn to be critical thinkers and use sceptical inquiry to inform our game plan for life, try to be ethical, and, when it comes to the afterlife, let’s cross that bridge when we come to it. How could any reasonable god fault us for that?”
This is how I see. As has been pointed out elsewhere, it’s not as though WWII films are constantly berated as anti-German.
I also don’t see the Italians jumping up and down about the harsh portrayal of the Romans.
For as much as I remember about my Bible and Divinity lessons at school, I don’t remember us every drawing parallels between people in the Bible and people today. Those people were just too long ago - they just don’t link up (for me at least) with “modern day Jews” - who are like a whole different culture and people. Ditto when I think of Christians, my mind doesn’t automatically go back to the Disciples.
But the (modern day) Jewish people jumping up and down crying anti-semitism are going to CREATE that parallel for people stupid enough to be bigoted and anti-semitic. People that otherwise would have just seen the film as a long-ago, historic thing, and thought no more about it.