posted
Note: I edited the title since this thread has gotten pretty firmly stuck in the anti-semitism rut. I'm sorry if this is even more of a re-post than I intended it to be, but as someone who didn't see The Passion the first time around but who was encouraged to by a lot of people, I was weighing my interest in this.
I mean, I'll probably wind up seeing it to go along with my husband. I realize the same people who thought I was judgemental for not seeing it when it was rate R will think I'm a sellout for seeing it in the edited version.
Maybe they should dub it into English while they are at it. I wonder if dyslexics find the subtitled format difficult to follow. My husband is a tad on the ADD side and doesn't prefer movies with subtitles.
But apart from the R rating, I was reticent to see the film because I had previously thought Mel Gibson was agnostic. The claims of anti-semitism were quite strong just prior to it first coming out. Probably most importantly, I doubted the capacity of the film to capture my own feelings about the suffering and death of Jesus.
But I can see value in sharing an experience others have found inspiring and in supporting filmmakers recognizing that they can attract more people by scaling back the violence. Some make call it dumbing down. I guess the opening weekend will tell.
posted
Hmm, that's interesting. We chose not to see it because of the excessive violence. It still sounds fairly violent to me, but I suppose the story is a violent one. Hmmm. *considers*
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was violent, it was good. I, myself, understand stuff better when I SEE it, so this movie worked wonders for me. Now when I study about Jesus and the way he died, I can actually imagine how terrible it was for him. I admit, though, I cried in theaters. Luckily there were a lot of grandmas in there, and they cried with me.
posted
I'm Jewish, I watched it, I thought Pilate got off really well while anti-Semitism could have been sparked if so much attention hadn't been drawn to the subject before the movie was released, and I thought it was unnecessarily violent. I swear I understood that he was beaten like no has ever been beaten before half way through the beating, I didn't need it to go on as long as it, it got to the point where the gore was boring.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always thought the crucifixion event was supposed to be a humiliating event for Christ.
With that in mind, the Passion wasn't too violent, it wasn't violent enough.
Yeah yeah, he got beaten up.
Real violence? They should have showed a soldier or jew pissing on him (or something equally transgressive). That would have been real violence, not the totally generic and cardboard whippings that we saw.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm Jewish, I watched it, I thought Pilate got off really well
I think the thing that many people missed was the fact that Pilate was portrayed (both in the bible and in the movie) as a man who had someone who he believed was innocent of any crime tortured and then crucified because he felt that it was the politically sound thing to do. Personally, I don't think that is the sign of a person who is getting off very well.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My impression from the movie was that there was nothing that Pilate could do because the Jews were so determined to kill Jesus. Even when he wanted him to go free, the Jews still insisted that he be killed. Within the realm of the movie Pilate managed to both technically and officially move any blame of Jesus's death from himself to the Jews. In the movie the Jews were violent so he had to do everything he could to prevent a revolt.
Maybe Gibson's point was mob violence was at fault, or maybe he was pointing the finger at the Jews. Either way, I'm not convinced we wouldn't have seen anti-Semitic violence if such a big fuss hadn't been made before the movie was released.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
nfl, why do you think there would have been a risk of anti-Semitic violence? Jesus was Jewish. What really disturbs me is that I am not sure I disagree with you...
Edit: Although I do not think Gibson had any anti-Semitic thoughts. As Jesus lived in Israel, Jesus' main antagonists pretty much had to be Jewish.
posted
I don't see how Jesus being put to death by Jews can be construed as anti-semitic. The film goes out of its way to show that many Jews (indeed, since the rigged trial was held at night, probably most Jews who cared one way or the other) opposed the radical, corrupt and power-obsessed faction who wanted him put to death. I get the impression that those flinging accusations of anti-semitism at the film are doing it to hide their own deeply anti-christian bigotism.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Danzig, billions of Christians have managed to forget Jesus's only religion in their quest for Jewish blood, that neither makes it logical nor unlikely to happen again in the future. Since the Romans were the ones who actually put Jesus to death you would think that his main antagonists could be Christians. In the end Jews make much more convenient scapegoats than Roman occupiers.
dh, the film went out of its way to contrue the opponents of Jesus's crucifixion as a minority. The "radical, corupt, and power-obesessed faction" were the Jewish high priets. Thats like calling the Republican party a "radical, corupt, and power-obsessed faction" of the American government.
Portraying Jesus being put to death isn't itself anti-Semitic, but when the viewer (and almost every Christian from 1 AD to 1945) sees that "Jews killed our Lord" then they blame Jews for killing him. When they blame Jews for killing their savior the end result is quotes like this
quote: First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them.
That might sound like Hitler, but it was Martin Luther; founder of the Protestant movement. So how could such an educated and modernly respected man be so hateful of Jesus's closest living kin? He, like most Christians at the time blamed the Jews for Jesus's death.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: In the end Jews make much more convenient scapegoats than Roman occupiers.
Yeah, too many Christians don't understand their doctrine well enough to appreciate the irony of this sentence. Which is really too bad. (the irony being that the scapegoat of the Mosaic law is symbolic of the Messiah). I know the idea of a sacrificed messiah is a whole other can of worms that Jews and Christians don't agree on...
I remember a debate my oldest siblings were having (in their teens) on whether the Romans or the Jews killed Jesus. The trump was "Jesus only died because he decided to, and he was a Jew so it was a Jew who killed Jesus."
Anyway, I do think the anti-Semitic concerns were timely, perhaps not so much because of the movie itself but because there is, as nfl says, always a bit of anti-Semitism floating around. There has been more since September 11th, which is really unfortunate.
Also, I was invited to a passion play at a friend's church a couple of years ago. I didn't go in for the simulated blood. I believe Jesus really bled, but I knew that wasn't what I was seeing so it sort of broke my suspension of disbelief.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It might have been the Romans who put Jesus to death, but it was the Jews who said "Go for it" and pointed the Romans in the right direction. I believe the New Testament, and those who say the Jews didn't put Jesus to death are really arguing with the NT and thus Christianity.
That said, I agree that too many Christians don't understand their own theology as taught by the Jesus they claim died for them. He would never, I believe, sanction anti-Semetism.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well its the belief that the Jews said, "Go for it" that's lead to the deaths of countless millions. Hence, having that sentiment portrayed on screen is likely to revive those not so forgotten feelings of hatred.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, nfl, it is the failure of Christians having any grasp of their own doctrine that has resulted in the deaths of millions of Jews over the millenia. Don't go blaming the victims. It is fairly certain that none of the actual Jews that endorsed his execution were ever retaliated against. To lump all who share one aspect of their identity with those people is simple prejudice. I mean, they were all men, too. The men killed Jesus!
P.S. I don't know why I spell prejudice with two d's.
posted
I wish "well, duh" was the proper answer to that statement, but it isn't. I agree that history has shown that "Go for it" has been the EXCUSE to kill millions of Jews. However, I don't believe that it is the reason so many were killed. Such a statement doesn't explain, for instance, the vast hatred of Muslims toward the Jews. Reasons are many and varied; usually finding them a convenient scapegoat for uniting people in a bad cause.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Then what is it? As long as you say "the Jews" killed Jesus, as opposed to "a mob" or "some priests," you're blaming an entire group of people past and present for action worthy of mass murder.
In case you haven't noticed, the "vast hatred" of Muslims toward Jews is relatively recent and due to Zionism. If Jews never wanted a homeland the Muslims and Arabs would have been perfectly happy to leave them alone.
The Romans didn't target Jews specifically. They targeted whoever happened to be in their colonies, so of course when it came to Israel/Palestine they targeted the Jews, especially when the zealots rose up in revolt. There are reasons why Jews become the scapegoat as opposed to other groups, they only are convenient because they're "Christ killers," "money grubbers," and "controllers of the media."
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm.. maybe they will cut the whiping down to a more acurate 40 lashes this time instead of 140. I still think they should never have put the subtitles in.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
holes, nice painting huge groups of people with a single brush. Thanks.
I apologize for linking to this thread, and I don't want to start this whole kerfuffle up again -- it made me physically ill the last time. But I do feel it necessary to link to this.
It is highly doubted whether the Romans would truly allow anyone in their realm to appeal against their decision for crucifixtion.
It was the Romans who saw Jesus a rebel, it was the Romans who crucified him. The Romans didn't care about the Jews or what they thought. If the priests didn't like Jesus or feared that his actions would lead to violent collective punishments on the entire Jewish community (something that happened around ~30 years later when the Jews rebelled the Romans), and therefore enabled his arrest, the blame still lays on the Romans.
However, I don't see anyone with torches and pitchforks coming to slaughter the Italians.
The truth is, the Christians (I'm not exactly sure how Paulus called them at the time), besides believing in ideologies that I sincerely respect, wanted more supporters - so they removed the "difficult" parts of conversion: circumsition and conserving sabboth. Moreover, they couldn't convert any Romans if the Romans were blamed for killing the messiah, so heck - why not blame the Jews?
The movie was violent and gross, and dreadfully antisemetic. Not only was history distorted, but most characters that aren't Jesus's supporters or the Romans, in the movie are grotesque and filthy. I am not aware of any part in the New Testament mentioning a similar discription.
Sincerely yours, A proud Jew, Zionist, Israeli, Scoutgirl.
Posts: 803 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The truth is, the Christians (I'm not exactly sure how Paulus called them at the time), besides believing in ideologies that I sincerely respect, wanted more supporters - so they removed the "difficult" parts of conversion: circumsition and conserving sabboth. Moreover, they couldn't convert any Romans if the Romans were blamed for killing the messiah, so heck - why not blame the Jews?
I take it you are not a believer in Christianity. I must admit that is the first time I have heard the "convenient" argument for revelation within ancient Scripture.
quote:If the priests didn't like Jesus or feared that his actions would lead to violent collective punishments on the entire Jewish community (something that happened around ~30 years later when the Jews rebelled the Romans), and therefore enabled his arrest, the blame still lays on the Romans.
Yes, but it still leaves them an accessory to Murder.
posted
I am getting increasingly tempted to delete this thread. Accessory to murder? What do you mean by "them"? but it was NOT because they were Jewish. It was because they were politicians. And it was those individuals and the people they had influence over, which does not encompass all Judaism.
posted
I mean "priests" as the poster I am responding to did. I am not arguing for anti-semitism, but of what the New Testament writers said. I believe them!
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beanny, is "Zionist" considered a positive term within the Jewish community? I honestly don't know, but in the mainstream media it is often equated with being exclusionary at best. I could see it meaning "I'm pro-Israel and not apologetic about it." I just wondered what it means to you. I guess I won't delete the thread, but I will change the title.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, mothertree, the reason I don't post my arguments in the other related thread is 1) it is way too long and old 2) my main argument is not about "The Passion," as much as the New Testament. Those who argue for the anti-semetism of the movie usually do so by denying either the truth of or the meaning behind the events as recorded in the New Testament accounts.
quote:The truth is, the Christians (I'm not exactly sure how Paulus called them at the time), besides believing in ideologies that I sincerely respect, wanted more supporters - so they removed the "difficult" parts of conversion: circumsition and conserving sabboth. Moreover, they couldn't convert any Romans if the Romans were blamed for killing the messiah, so heck - why not blame the Jews?
This is "the truth"? According to whom? Got any sources on this, or is this your own personal speculation?
posted
The question of whether believing something other than or more than Judaism constitutes Anti-semitism is a valid one. If one says " the Jews killed Jesus, that is anti-semitism. I think in those terms, the powers responsible were both Roman and Jewish. If the film makes it seem more the Jews fault than the Romans, I think it could be considered anti-Semitic. But whether it does that seems to be subjective. How are the trials before the Sanhedrin depicted?
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zionism simply means wanting to return to and make a Jewish state in Israel. I don't know many Jews who don't consider themselves Zionists, but the media has managed to pick up on Palestinian and Arab claims that Zionism equates to something evil. I've heard anti-Jewish Arabs claim they don't hate Jews, they just hate Zionists. The media has managed to so hit up on this idea that even in the back of my unconscious mind Zionism sounds like a bad word.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pix, that's an acceptable viewpoint, but many Christians reading the New Testament and probably many movie goers could easily have ignored that and seen only who was "truly" to blame for Jesus's death.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
NFL: Yes, there are many people who don't understand the key event of their own religion and I feel like a heel for having to point it out. Especially since I haven't been a Christian for like 15 years.
But we call it Good Friday for a reason. If all that happened was a bad thing, it would be called Dark Friday or Evil Friday. Everyone played their part that day as assigned by God. Can doing God's Will be evil?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pix, the fact that God is prepared to make use of the evil acts of free-willed creatures to make good does not mean the acts themselves are not evil.
Isn't there a scripture that makes this clear about Judas?
posted
Dagonee, I was thinking that same thing. I know of very few Christians that believe that God MADE those people act that way. Rather, he USED those people knowing what they would do. He couldn't stop them from choosing to act and think as individuals, but he could use that to His advantage.
You can say that Jesus allowed himself to be killed as God allowed it, but you can't say that God killed him. I suppose its like commiting suicide by police if we are using definition equivalancies.
posted
Zionism is, at core, a philosophy of self-determination. It goes something like this "Every other people around us has the right to live in a nation where they can be sure of being represented by the government. Why not Jews? We're a people too, and like all people, entitled to our own government."
Zionism has been twisted, primarily by the paletinians, to have connotations of racism. Zionism is no more racist then the idea that Nepal should be an independant nation.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The Passion" is Mel Gibson�s attempt to immortalize his name, read any of the 4 biblical accounts of the story and you'll find that Satan is never mentioned, the Jewish priest takes responsibility for Christ�s death (he does this in the movie, but Mel didn't put it in the sub tittles for fear of being accused of being like his father) over all Mel Gibson took a sacred story and made a billion or so people feel that they needed to see it in order to call themselves Christians. Further more, all of the controversy over it was started by his own production company in order to promote the film and to help people remember that Mel Gibson is not only a great actor, but a good director too, too bad he is a terrible human being who has no problem twisting a religious story to sell tickets.
Needless to say, I think if he re-releases it, it's for money, not religion.
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are people so comfortable slinging such accusations around? Did you get hold of a copy of Gibson's journal? Find the secret meeting minutes on "how to drum up controversy"?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: read any of the 4 biblical accounts of the story and you'll find that Satan is never mentioned
He supplemented the story of the Crucifixion with Christian and Catholic folklore (fighting Satan in the garden, 12 stations of the Cross, the woman wiping his face, the jew carrying the cross, etc). He didn't exactly make it up. edit: Dag probably knows more about this than I.
quote: the Jewish priest takes responsibility for Christ�s death (he does this in the movie, but Mel didn't put it in the sub tittles for fear of being accused of being like his father)
Wouldn't that make a sincere effort on his part NOT to be anti-semitic?
quote: over all Mel Gibson took a sacred story and made a billion or so people feel that they needed to see it in order to call themselves Christians
When someone makes a sincere work, why is it surprising when people looking for a sincere work gravitate toward it? I think you're confusing causality with coincidence. I read alot about the controversy and the stuff from Gibson's side before seeing it, and not once did I see Gibson even implying that. Now, yes, people have since said that "Anyone who loves Jesus" should see it, but frankly, I think they're psycho.
quote: Further more, all of the controversy over it was started by his own production company in order to promote the film and to help people remember that Mel Gibson is not only a great actor, but a good director too, too bad he is a terrible human being who has no problem twisting a religious story to sell tickets.
Think you might be giving him a little too much credit? Seriously, all I saw that might be seen as "spin control" from the Gibson camp was a statement by the Jewish actress who played Mary, saying that in no way did she think that the film was anti-semitic.
posted
I know he suplemented it with "folklore", but I don't think the movie is a "sincere work". It is a movie, not scripture. I'm probably just blowing off steam (at the people who have never read the story) and giving Mr. Gibson too much credit. However, his PR did a great job of publishing the Pope's comments on the film.
All three of those articles cite Producers from the film as their source. They all also mention that the Vatican refused to comment when asked about the quotes.
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, Thomas S. Monson came to see the BYU production of Music Man (I was working on it backstage), and his bodyguard came backstage to talk to the ASM about the end of the show. the last thing he said to the crew and cast was "we'd just like you all to know that President Monson has been laughing." We all had a good over that comment.
[/derail]
All those articles do is use the Pope's comment as a lead-in for the anti-semitism debates.
And I didn't say the movie was scripture. Hence my disgust at the "Watch this movie if you love Jesus" crowd. As for wether or not its sincere...if you were a christian painter, would your depictions of Christ be sincere? What if you were a poet or a writer? How about a director of films? Who says you have to make something equivalent to scripture to be sincere?
posted
Poets, writer and more often than not, painters do what they do for love of their art, If nobody buys it, then they have to pick up a second job. Very few feature film makers have another job, if their movie flops, they don't say, "Hmmm i guess the world is not ready for me." They say," You know what, I bet if <insert random famous person> says they loved my movie, then tickets will sell." True there are many independent film makers who couldn't care less about making a profit, they just want to break even. Mel Gibson is not one of these directors, he is in it for the money, and he knew that religion would sell.
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how three articles citing a tiny quote from the Pope would sway every single person who watched it. Where I'm from whole congregations of *Southern Protestant churches*, some of whom hadn't been to a movie theatre in years, gathered to see it. Do you think they care what the Pope had to say about it?
And did Mel Gibson magically know that it would be so successful? Seriously, everyone in Hollywood was expecting it to crash hard. Mel Gibson put up a whole bunch of his own cash just to produce and distribute it.
I'm staying out of this thread. I did this already, and I didn't enjoy it the first time.
But digging_holes seems to not understand what I meant in my other post -- isn't dh you also? If so, reread your post from February 19, 2005 06:49 PM.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't see how Jesus being put to death by Jews can be construed as anti-semitic. The film goes out of its way to show that many Jews (indeed, since the rigged trial was held at night, probably most Jews who cared one way or the other) opposed the radical, corrupt and power-obsessed faction who wanted him put to death. I get the impression that those flinging accusations of anti-semitism at the film are doing it to hide their own deeply anti-christian bigotism.
That last bit makes about as much sense as people saying that those who are against gay-marriage are doing it to hide their secret homosexual feelings and tendencies.
Other than that, I (granted, as a non-Jew) didn't find the film anti-semitic, and I was trying to be open to the fact that it might be there. Jesus, Mary, Peter, John, the other Mary, the man who carried the cross, the woman with the water and towel...all Jewish, and all shown to be good people overall. The Romans were the ones revelling in the gore of it all.
posted
What people were worried about with "The Passion" was that some anti-semitic fringe groups would use it to bring up the whole, "Kill they Jews cause they killed Jesus." rant that the ignorant are fond of.
It didn't happen, despite the success of the movie.
Perhaps this was because of the various Jewish groups presenting their fears, and the various Christian groups listening to them and reminding their followers that you can not condemn the Jews of today for what a handful did 2000 years ago.
Or perhaps this was because the fringe Christian fanatics got more mileage out of screaming, "Hey, they are saying Jesus's death is anti-semitic. They only way the Jews will be happy is if we change the story of Christ. Well, we won't do that so join us to protect our Christ from their conspiracy." Of course, none of that is true.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I get the impression that those flinging accusations of anti-semitism at the film are doing it to hide their own deeply anti-christian bigotism.
If so, perhaps I should clarify. I am not saying that all those who did not like the Passion are anti-christian bigots. I am not saying that all those worried that it may be anti-semitic (or arouse feelings of anti-semitism) are anti-christian bigots.
What I am saying, however, is that the overwhelming majority of the most vocal critics of this film, especially when it came out, seemed to have something entirely different from critiquing a film in mind, and seemed to jump on the issue of anti-semitism as simply a convenient excuse to attack it. The sheer viciousness and hatefulness of most of the attacks shocked me, at a time when I was not myself yet a christian.
See, I am not generalizing or painting everyone with a single brush. I am simply describing an impression I got from what I personally observed. I have no trouble believing that there are those people who believe the film to be anti-semitic, who do not also hold the view that all christians are inherently anti-semitic hatemongers. I think such people are deeply mistaken, but I bear them no ill will. However, I have not heard very much from these people, and I have heard much hostility from the other camp.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
My husband is a tad on the ADD side and doesn't prefer movies with subtitles. 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I must admit that is the first time I have heard the "convenient" argument for revelation within ancient Scripture.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
over that comment.
