Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Is "Passion of Christ" anti-semitic?
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pranyi
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 06 Mar 2003
Posts: 293
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I also think that this attitude of yelling "anti-semitism" at anything which

a) involves Jews
b) not coming from Jews.

will lead to the (well deserved IMHO) situation that no one will be offended by real anti-semitism anymore.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
charlieg
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 30 Jul 2002
Posts: 2149
Location: Manchester UK

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2004 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CrashPat wrote:
I'm not sure about that movie. Have not watched it, I probably never will watch it. All that I've heard about it is that it is very, very bloody. Not sure if they overdid it or not, no way of knowing.


You have a way of knowing, by watching it.

Is it over the top? I'm unsure.

A part of me thinks the romans would have been that brutal with him. But a part of me doubts that any mortal would survived the scourging even though it was only over a few hours more that Christ survived.

I think the severity of the violence is there for a reason, to show how Christ suffered. I believe that Mel Gibson has done this for emotional impact and not, as some say, to make a spectacle and a quick buck.

CrashPat wrote:
I'm against the hype that surrounds the movie, the large amounts of die hard Christians that say "If you do not see this movie, you are not a true Christian". That alone makes me think that more than anything Gibson did the movie for bankroll. Invest 30 or 40 million in the making of a movie, clear 500 million after ticket sales and the first few months of dvd rentals and sales. Not a bad move on his part, but not contributing doesn't make me a fake Christian.


A few things to talk about there.

Firstly the hype is difficult to avoid. The movie breaks the mould on so many frontiers and is about such a sensitive issue that the hype was unavoidable. There has been very little public advertising, more Mel Gibson speaking at services and seminars than media advertisements. Indeed, most of the advertising has been done by the media themselves through critiques and stories, which is itself a marketeers dream (free advertising).

As for the suggestions that not to watch the movie is to be some way undermining of your faith; that's proposterous and any real Christian would find such suggestions laughable. Part of Christianity is about freedom and choice. (I know a lot, despite my lacking faith, as I went to a Catholic school with mandatory religious education.) It is up to the individual to assess whether the viewing of a graphic depiction of Christ's death would be beneficial for their faith or be spiritually enhancing.

Since I don't believe that Christ died for me [1], I found the movie a lot less emotionally disturbing than people who have strong beliefs and strong faith; many reduced to an emotional wreck by the end of the movie with an increased attachment to a man (or God?) they previously had lesser visual stimulus to aid their thoughts of him.

So, the final point. Did Mel do this for money? Is it a subtle, clever ploy?

No. He took the movie to multiple production houses. They all said no so he funded it himself. Against everybody's advice he made the movie in Aramaic and Latin. In the end it paid off as it added to the experience but nobody could have predicted that. There has been no real funded advertising by Gibson's production company. Again why would you not advertise a movie you were wanting to make money?

I believe Gibson made the movie because of his own strong belief that there was no media representation that did justice to the suffering of Christ and he was given the power (by God he says) to do so. He funds his own Catholic church with sermons given in Latin. This guy is a religious nut with an even more religious nut for a father. He made the movie because it was a commitment to his faith and an inspiration to others the world over. The fact that the movie is a runaway success is a testament to the quality, originality, and sheer audacity of the movie and the man.

There is no way he did it for money because it is unChristian to have done so and anybody who knows much about Mel Gibson would know that his faith is one of the biggest influences in his life.

[1] I tend to think that Christ was an englightened man who was probably deluded in the best possible way. Anybody as well documented as himself and as influential as himself must have been special but I often think that the Bible is probably Christ's story told with some poetic license. Things like his rising... well... who knows what drugs the apostles did. All my own opinions and completely OT so don't comment on this bit as I won't respond.
_________________
Want Free games?
Free Gamer - open source games list & commentary

Open source web-enabled rich UI platform: Vexi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stu L Tissimus
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 08 Jun 2003
Posts: 1339
Location: NJ, 5 minutes from NYC

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Being a Jew myself, I did find it anti-semitic. They portrayed us as a ruthless, disgusting culture. My mom made my leave early because it was too bloody for her, but I believe that in the end Christ was killed by Jews. Now, I'm sorry, but we all know this is wrong. It was Romans. I, for one, consider Gibson as a modern-day nazi.

But really... Why is it so hard for people to just leave us alone? We've been forced out of our home country to be nomads, made into slaves, had to live through the crusades, survive the Holocaust, and even still there is anti-semitism in the world, be it from Mel Gibson, Palestinians, or n00bies playing FPSes online and saying "OMG u suk u jew!1".

Summed up, being a Jew sorta sucks. :? But at the same time, it's sort of cool. Meh.
_________________
old outdated sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
charlieg
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 30 Jul 2002
Posts: 2149
Location: Manchester UK

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stu L Tissimus wrote:
Being a Jew myself, I did find it anti-semitic. They portrayed us as a ruthless, disgusting culture. My mom made my leave early because it was too bloody for her, but I believe that in the end Christ was killed by Jews. Now, I'm sorry, but we all know this is wrong. It was Romans. I, for one, consider Gibson as a modern-day nazi.


You say it but you don't justify it. What made you feel it was anti-semitic? What made you feel Gibson was making statements about Jewish people (modern or ancient).

"A ruthless, disgusting culture" you say. Why? There were compassionate Jews in the movie who wept. There were council members who objected. It was only a group of extremist council members and a small mob that perpetrated forcing the hand of Pilot.

This is exactly as told by the Bible. Are you suggesting the New Testament is anti-semitic?

There are extremists in every culture who rally together to cause damage in their name. The movie in no way suggests that every Jew was responsible. It really only implicates a few key council members.

Are you saying that people would not have behaved like that in those times? Riots happen even today - mob culture occurs everywhere with every people. Are you claiming the Bible is anti-semitic or that the movie is an exaggeration?

Stu L Tissimus wrote:
But really... Why is it so hard for people to just leave us alone? We've been forced out of our home country to be nomads, made into slaves, had to live through the crusades, survive the Holocaust, and even still there is anti-semitism in the world, be it from Mel Gibson, Palestinians, or n00bies playing FPSes online and saying "OMG u suk u jew!1".

Summed up, being a Jew sorta sucks. :? But at the same time, it's sort of cool. Meh.


Hmm... the above is just paranoid. How can you call the Palestinians anti-semitic without first acknowledging the oppression dealt out by Israel? Not that I'd justify terrorism in any form but if you don't think there is something wrong with the way Israel has conducted itself as a country since the formation of Israel then you are really polarised beyond help.

Other than the 'n00bies' or childish comments from ignorant yobs, have you really experienced first hand persecution for your religious beliefs?

And is Mel Gibson directly targetting Jews? Do you believe the movie to be an innaccurate, warped interpretation of Biblical events?

Lastly, comparing Gibson to Nazi's without fully qualifying your perspective is just undermining your own arguments. Personally I'll let it pass this once but such comments detract from the meaning of your position.
_________________
Want Free games?
Free Gamer - open source games list & commentary

Open source web-enabled rich UI platform: Vexi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boudie
n00b
n00b


Joined: 01 Feb 2004
Posts: 74
Location: nova scotia, canada

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Have watched the movie, my thought is that if you went
into the movie dislking Jewish people you will probably
come out with the same opinion. If you had an open
mind going in, it will remain intact.

In the final analysis, it's JUST a movie. As to the violence,
those things went on every day then and still do today.
People are no better or worse now than they were 2000
years ago. This is human nature.

In the United States, you don't crucify people, but kill them
nonetheless, some of whom I'm sure are guilty of nothing.
Maybe it's the same thing. Nobody should be too sure of
anything, we're all in the dark. We should be wary of those
who claim to know what is not known. They're liars.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thagame
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 07 Mar 2004
Posts: 209
Location: Windsor, Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i myself saw this movie, and i agree with boudie about the whole mindset going in. BUT this takes place a looooooooooong time ago, not 2 or 3 weeks ago. things were so different back then, stuff they did was considered normal that we now consider barbaric. not just the jews or romans, a whole lot more then that. i would say they werent as civilized as we are now but i would have to argue that on a few accounts. its all about time differences and its impossible to place blame on one religion for something that was considered normal at that time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
charlieg
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 30 Jul 2002
Posts: 2149
Location: Manchester UK

PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

thagame wrote:
this takes place a looooooooooong time ago, not 2 or 3 weeks ago. things were so different back then, stuff they did was considered normal that we now consider barbaric.


Exactly! It's not anti-semitic... it's just the way things were! It could have been anybody, Jewish, Roman, or another creed. It just happened to be Jews (and Romans) because this story is about Christ and he was Jewish and lived in a Jewish land controlled by Romans.

It could have been about somebody else from another people in another land and nobody would have blinked because they would have gotten past their paranoia and accepted the such fatal violence was commonplace those days and condoned in armies like the Roman army who conquered and controlled peoples through the use of fear.

It's like claiming you're anti-Mongolian for making a movie about the Mongolians torturing, raping, burning, killing, and destroying everything in their path during the reign of Genghis Kahn. Or being anti-Russian for making a movie about Stalin having hundreds of thousands of Russians executed. There are many stories involving violence and death and the tale of Christ is but one of them. The fact that a few Jews were involved is just coincidence and, perhaps, bad luck since a major religious wave became of it.
_________________
Want Free games?
Free Gamer - open source games list & commentary

Open source web-enabled rich UI platform: Vexi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Woland
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 02 Aug 2002
Posts: 248
Location: Russian Jack, Alaska

PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 1:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ebrostig wrote:


......

If the jews are portrayed in a bad way, then the bible is also portraying them in a bad way. Do people argue this or not?

Erik


Just don't call it history.

I have not seen the movie, and have very little interest in doing so. The Guardian has a review from the perspective of a Catholic which is none all too flattering. The reason I won't see the film is the same reason I won't see Dawn of the Dead: gore on the screen has no appeal to me.

Besides, if you realy want to make a movie about people getting nailed up, my suggestion would be a remake of Spartacus---this time showing all 3,000 crusifictions with the Gibson gore factory magic. (Interstingly enough, one critique of Bravehart I ran across took issue with Wallace's portraid execution: every one knows he was publicly castrated, not just drawn and quartered.)

Now for the anti-semitism. If you are a non-Jew, it is sometimes difficult to see. What if there was a Norwegean movie in which all the Swedes just happened to be idiots? One could argue that no anti-Swedish sentiment was intended, but the watching Swedes would know better.

A better example:
I have difficult with Star Treck TNG, and especially Deep Space Nine, because of the Ferengi. I know I am not the only one to notice the similarities . Of course, the creators of TNG summarily dissmissed the charges of anti-semitism, and I certainly belive that they never intended any such thing. However, the finished Ferengi product and Natzi propaganda are irely similar enough to make me wince. And question the judgment of the creators.

Now what about Mel? Sure, I belive him when he says he never intended the movie to be anti-semitic. But surely he had to have been aware of the centuries long "blood libel," that has resulted in countelss deaths. Hell, his own daddy could have told him a thing or two about Jews being "Christ killers." So did he go out of his way to show that most Jews were not invloved in nailing Jesus up in order to not open up that can of worms? Like I said, I have no intention of seeing the movie, so I'll let those of you that have seen it make the call.
_________________
|
|_______________________________________
And some days the Universe just gives you the finger.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ebrostig
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 20 Jul 2002
Posts: 3152
Location: Orlando, Fl

PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 2:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Woland wrote:

Now for the anti-semitism. If you are a non-Jew, it is sometimes difficult to see. What if there was a Norwegean movie in which all the Swedes just happened to be idiots? One could argue that no anti-Swedish sentiment was intended, but the watching Swedes would know better.

But that happens all the time and vice versa.

A lot of Norwegians consider Swedes to be conceited and the Swedes consider Norwegians to be somewhat red-necks. Although this changed a lot after Norway found oil in the North-Sea and started to overtake Seden economically and otherwise, esp in sports.

But, then again, all of that is in a humorous way, neither the Norwegians nor the Swedes take themselves too seriously and neither bare too much grudge even though Norway was in a union with Sweden for a long time. Not to mention Denmark and Norway, we were in a union with Denmark for almost 500 years, with the Danes ruling. We are not throwing bombs at them for that.

See, it is not just the jews that has suffered in different ways, but many other nations who has, do not go around and feel like martyrs and ask for special treatments. They get over it and get on with life.

There has also been a lot of movies about the barbaric Vikings who plundered, raped and burned their way across Europe 1000 years ago, but do you see any grudge from their victims today? Nope, none whatsoever.

I'm personally sick and tired of the Jews and their constant bickering and their martyrdom. Get a life and get over the past and work towards a better future.

Erik
_________________
'Yes, Firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
charlieg
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 30 Jul 2002
Posts: 2149
Location: Manchester UK

PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 2:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Woland wrote:
Now for the anti-semitism. If you are a non-Jew, it is sometimes difficult to see. What if there was a Norwegean movie in which all the Swedes just happened to be idiots? One could argue that no anti-Swedish sentiment was intended, but the watching Swedes would know better.


Um... no.

The movie makes no blanket statement that all Jews are bad in the context of the movie and portrays a variety of behaviours by Jewish people including compassion, sorrow, and justice.

The movie directly depicts the Devil, making him the bad guy.

There is just a selection of extremist council members and a small mob that they gather who get Christ crucified. If you make the characters anonymous, it could be one of a million examples of a group of people with an agenda using an easily led mob.

Is that anti-semitic? How can it be? What would the objecting people have Mel do? Replace them with Muslims and make the movie racist towards them? The difference being the Bible depicts a group of Jews and not a group of Muslims. People are faulting the movie (both intentionally and unintentionally) for being accurate to the Bible. Perhaps the objectionists should seek to have the Bible banned from print instead of movies that retell it's tales.
_________________
Want Free games?
Free Gamer - open source games list & commentary

Open source web-enabled rich UI platform: Vexi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ebrostig
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 20 Jul 2002
Posts: 3152
Location: Orlando, Fl

PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And can someone please tell me (for the sake of clarity) what in the movie it is that is anti-semitic?

Please give the exact scenes and what it is that offends you.

The reason why I ask is that I have no idea what you people are hinting at. Seriously, this is not a trolling attempt, but I honestly don't know what it is. I have a copy of the movie and I'll be more than happy to look at the scenes again.

Erik
_________________
'Yes, Firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
charlieg
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 30 Jul 2002
Posts: 2149
Location: Manchester UK

PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ebrostig wrote:
See, it is not just the jews that has suffered in different ways, but many other nations who has, do not go around and feel like martyrs and ask for special treatments. They get over it and get on with life.

There has also been a lot of movies about the barbaric Vikings who plundered, raped and burned their way across Europe 1000 years ago, but do you see any grudge from their victims today? Nope, none whatsoever.

I'm personally sick and tired of the Jews and their constant bickering and their martyrdom. Get a life and get over the past and work towards a better future.


I don't endorse these statements so I hope people can ignore them and concentrate on the actual topic of the thread. (This is not about the historic persecution of the Jewish people but about the movie being anti-semitic or not.)
_________________
Want Free games?
Free Gamer - open source games list & commentary

Open source web-enabled rich UI platform: Vexi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Woland
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 02 Aug 2002
Posts: 248
Location: Russian Jack, Alaska

PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 2:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ebrostig wrote:
And can someone please tell me (for the sake of clarity) what in the movie it is that is anti-semitic?

Please give the exact scenes and what it is that offends you.

The reason why I ask is that I have no idea what you people are hinting at. Seriously, this is not a trolling attempt, but I honestly don't know what it is. I have a copy of the movie and I'll be more than happy to look at the scenes again.

Erik


Well, good to know Erik, that you are sick and tired of "sick and tired of the Jews and their constant bickering and their martyrdom." Silly me, I forgot that I need to get a sence of humor about the Holocaust. Those Armenians need to really lighten up about the genocide perpetrated against them by Turks, and the Bosniaks should also really, just get over it. Quit whining. Move on.

Did you ever have a chance to know your grandfather Erik? Got lots of first and second cousins? Wish I did. Oh yes, but that happened so long ago, I should just get over it.

And now, when some reactionary Hollywood jackass, that spent millions building an untra-conservative Catholic (ex-communicated due to its faliure to accept Vatical II) church, makes his version of the Truth on Celluloid, I should just accept it completely outside of historical context. I'm sure the special effects are just great.

To answer your question, since, like I said above, I have no intention of seeing the film myself, here are the two reviews that I cited in my post above. They might give you a clue. Then again ....

From "Christ, you know it ain't easy "

Joe Queenan wrote:
The film itself is an orgy of almost uninterrupted violence. After the Jewish powers-that-be have used their cunning wiles to intimidate Pontius Pilate into condemning the Messiah, Jesus is beaten with implements that tear the flesh from every portion of his anatomy. His skin is ripped to shreds. His eye is smashed shut. His head is crowned with thorns. His left arm is ripped from the socket to facilitate his Crucifixion. Seemingly, Gibson wished to convey the sense that Christ's execution was no day at the beach, perhaps objecting to the demure depictions of his torment in the 14 Stations of the Cross that adorn virtually every Catholic church on the planet. It was, of course, the inhuman treatment of this one Jew that led to the even more inhuman treatment of six million Jews by a Christian people during the Holocaust. The Holocaust was no day at the beach either.

Devout Christians may object to the flippant tone I have adopted here, but anti-semitism as spectacular as Gibson's does not deserve to be treated with anything but contempt. Though a few Jews in the film seem to object to Christ's martyrdom, the high priests and most of the spectators lining the road to Calvary seem to thoroughly enjoy the spectacle, and a good time is had by all. And while the Roman executioners are presented as sadistic cretins, the film's unmistakable message is that Pontius Pilate and the boys were merely tools of the Jews, that without the manipulation of the high priests and the enthusiastic mob, they would have merely dished out a good thrashing and sent the Messiah on his way. But the Jews were out for blood.

Any doubts about the director's medieval world-view evaporate when Satan is seen strolling among the high priests, who have turned out in their Sunday best to watch Jesus being ripped to shreds. Gibson depicts the Prince of Darkness as a mysterious chrome-dome who looks a bit like the sinister maître d's employed in many fine dining establishments. It will be interesting to see if this is how Satan actually looks should Gibson ever meet him personally. Perhaps he already has.


From "Gibson's Blood Libel"

Charles Krauthammer wrote:
The blood libel that this story affixed upon the Jewish people had led to countless Christian massacres of Jews and prepared Europe for the ultimate massacre -- 6 million Jews systematically murdered in six years -- in the heart, alas, of a Christian continent. It is no accident Vatican II occurred just two decades after the Holocaust, indeed in its shadow.

Which is what makes Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" such a singular act of interreligious aggression. He openly rejects the Vatican II teaching and, using every possible technique of cinematic exaggeration, gives us the pre-Vatican II story of the villainous Jews.


His Leni Riefenstahl defense -- I had other intentions -- does not wash. Of course he had other intentions: evangelical, devotional, commercial. When you retell a story in which the role of the Jews is central, and take care to give it the most invidious, pre-Vatican II treatment possible, you can hardly claim, "I didn't mean it."

His other defense is that he is just telling the Gospel story. Nonsense. There is no single Gospel story of the Passion; there are subtle differences among the four accounts. Moreover, every text lends itself to interpretation. There have been dozens of cinematic renditions of this story, from Griffith to Pasolini to Zeffirelli. Gibson contradicts his own literalist defense when he speaks of his right to present his artistic vision. Artistic vision means personal interpretation.

And Gibson's personal interpretation is spectacularly vicious. Three of the Gospels have but a one-line reference to Jesus's scourging. The fourth has no reference at all. In Gibson's movie this becomes 10 minutes of the most unremitting sadism in the history of film. Why 10? Why not five? Why not two? Why not zero, as in Luke? Gibson chose 10.

In none of the Gospels does the high priest Caiaphas stand there with his cruel, impassive fellow priests witnessing the scourging. In Gibson's movie they do. When it comes to the Jews, Gibson deviates from the Gospels -- glorying in his artistic vision -- time and again. He bends, he stretches, he makes stuff up. And these deviations point overwhelmingly in a single direction -- to the villainy and culpability of the Jews.

The most subtle, and most revolting, of these has to my knowledge not been commented upon. In Gibson's movie, Satan appears four times. Not one of these appearances occurs in the four Gospels. They are pure invention. Twice, this sinister, hooded, androgynous embodiment of evil is found . . . where? Moving among the crowd of Jews. Gibson's camera follows close up, documentary style, as Satan glides among them, his face popping up among theirs -- merging with, indeed, defining the murderous Jewish crowd. After all, a perfect match: Satan's own people.

Perhaps this should not be surprising, coming from a filmmaker whose public pronouncements on the Holocaust are as chillingly ambiguous and carefully calibrated as that of any sophisticated Holocaust denier. Not surprising from a man who says: "I don't want to lynch any Jews. I mean, it's like it's not what I'm about. I love them. I pray for them."

Spare us such love.

_________________
|
|_______________________________________
And some days the Universe just gives you the finger.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ebrostig
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 20 Jul 2002
Posts: 3152
Location: Orlando, Fl

PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 3:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Woland, I have answered you in a PM since I don't think the answer belongs here.

Erik
_________________
'Yes, Firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
charlieg
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 30 Jul 2002
Posts: 2149
Location: Manchester UK

PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2004 3:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Woland wrote:
To answer your question, since, like I said above, I have no intention of seeing the film myself, here are the two reviews that I cited in my post above. They might give you a clue. Then again ....


You quote two very biased reviews, but OK, I'll bite.

Joe Queenan wrote:
Seemingly, Gibson wished to convey the sense that Christ's execution was no day at the beach, perhaps objecting to the demure depictions of his torment in the 14 Stations of the Cross that adorn virtually every Catholic church on the planet. It was, of course, the inhuman treatment of this one Jew that led to the even more inhuman treatment of six million Jews by a Christian people during the Holocaust. The Holocaust was no day at the beach either.


That instantly undermines his perspective. "Jews have been hard done by." Yes, we know. The Holocaust is well documented. This movie has nothing to do with the Holocaust. It is not relevant.

Joe Queenan wrote:
Though a few Jews in the film seem to object to Christ's martyrdom, the high priests...


Whoops... in the movie most of the High Priests did not turn up to a meeting summoned at zero notice in the middle of the night, only the ones who organised it and a few more who who managed to make it despite the explicitly stated ridiculousness of the meeting. Those High Priests that were not involved in the organisation of events quickly objected to Christ's treatment and were removed by the guards of the extremist High Priests.

So, one down.

Joe Queenan wrote:
...and most of the spectators lining the road to Calvary seem to thoroughly enjoy the spectacle, and a good time is had by all.


He must've watched a different movie to me. The movie I saw had the mob following Jesus inside the city but dispersing outside the city walls. Outside the city walls there were more mourners than those baying for his blood.

Joe Queenan wrote:
And while the Roman executioners are presented as sadistic cretins, the film's unmistakable message is that Pontius Pilate and the boys were merely tools of the Jews, that without the manipulation of the high priests and the enthusiastic mob, they would have merely dished out a good thrashing and sent the Messiah on his way. But the Jews were out for blood.


And is that not the case? In the Bible it is said the Jews present chose a vicious murderer (Barrabas) over Christ.

Joe Queenan wrote:
Any doubts about the director's medieval world-view evaporate when Satan is seen strolling among the high priests.


I'll answer this later (where it's stated better by the second quote).

Charles Krauthammer wrote:
The blood libel that this story affixed upon the Jewish people had led to countless Christian massacres of Jews and prepared Europe for the ultimate massacre -- 6 million Jews systematically murdered in six years -- in the heart, alas, of a Christian continent. It is no accident Vatican II occurred just two decades after the Holocaust, indeed in its shadow.


Again misuse of the Holocaust to add negative context to Gibson's motives. This is no more than intelligent trolling and has no bearing on the accuracy of the movie.

Charles Krauthammer wrote:
He openly rejects the Vatican II teaching and, using every possible technique of cinematic exaggeration, gives us the pre-Vatican II story of the villainous Jews.


Yes he openly rejects the Vatican II. Everything else about that statement is utterly false. Indeed, the word is that the Pope endorsed the movie although this was from a Vatican leak and the Vatican refuse to condone it.

Charles Krauthammer wrote:
His other defense is that he is just telling the Gospel story. Nonsense. There is no single Gospel story of the Passion; there are subtle differences among the four accounts.


Fine, but we can accept that there are similarities between the 4 accounts and use those. This alone makes the movie broadly mostly accurate.

Charles Krauthammer wrote:
Moreover, every text lends itself to interpretation.


Finally an unarguable point.

Charles Krauthammer wrote:
There have been dozens of cinematic renditions of this story, from Griffith to Pasolini to Zeffirelli.


More litterring of irrelevant information - previous renditions have no bearing on the contents of the movie.

Charles Krauthammer wrote:
Gibson contradicts his own literalist defense when he speaks of his right to present his artistic vision. Artistic vision means personal interpretation.


Pedantic, but probably correct. However, personal interpretation does not mean wrong.

Charles Krauthammer wrote:
And Gibson's personal interpretation is spectacularly vicious.


As were the times back when Christ was alive. Regular stonings, torture, pillaging, and all sorts of other vicious acts were commonplace and indeed still are today in some countries across the globe.

Charles Krauthammer wrote:
Three of the Gospels have but a one-line reference to Jesus's scourging. The fourth has no reference at all. In Gibson's movie this becomes 10 minutes of the most unremitting sadism in the history of film. Why 10? Why not five? Why not two? Why not zero, as in Luke? Gibson chose 10.


Ugh, where to begin. 3/4 is more likely to be right than 1/4. If you take the stance, as the author has, that the gospels differ then you must go with the majority. This makes the 'Why not zero, as in Luke' comment pure trolling, again intelligently disguised.

So we have a common 1 line reference to the scourging. The scourging took place. The purpose of this movie is to graphically retell the suffering of Christ.

In all seriousness, if the movie went into the same depth and detail the Bible goes into then it would not have been more than 15 minutes long.

A passing comment "and he was scourged" would hardly have had impact. So instead it was graphic but, hey, it was the Romans that did that so why are you complaining? (And the type of scourging by the Romans, often fatal, depicted in the movie is historically well documented.)

Charles Krauthammer wrote:
In none of the Gospels does the high priest Caiaphas stand there with his cruel, impassive fellow priests witnessing the scourging. In Gibson's movie they do. When it comes to the Jews, Gibson deviates from the Gospels -- glorying in his artistic vision -- time and again.


Yay! Another valid point! Still, not the greatest. It is historically documented that the Romans publically punished prisoners. There is no reason that the High Priests wouldn't have watched. It's not like they didn't want to see Christ suffer, hell they wanted him dead. (They did arrest him, hand him to Pilot, then a Jewish mob chose a murderer over him, right?)

Charles Krauthammer wrote:
He bends, he stretches, he makes stuff up. And these deviations point overwhelmingly in a single direction -- to the villainy and culpability of the Jews.


That's very subjectively stated which makes it difficult to agree with despite there being some truth in some of those words.

Charles Krauthammer wrote:
The most subtle, and most revolting, of these has to my knowledge not been commented upon. In Gibson's movie, Satan appears four times. Not one of these appearances occurs in the four Gospels. They are pure invention. Twice, this sinister, hooded, androgynous embodiment of evil is found . . . where? Moving among the crowd of Jews.


Well it's a bit difficult to have him moving among anybody else since (the few Roman soldiers aside) everybody was a Jew.

Charles Krauthammer wrote:
Perhaps this should not be surprising, coming from a filmmaker whose public pronouncements on the Holocaust are as chillingly ambiguous and carefully calibrated as that of any sophisticated Holocaust denier.


Rubbish, Gibson has never denied the Holocaust. His father has but Mel publicly refuses to comment on his father's views (word has it he is not fond of many of his fathers most controversial opinions but does not want to feud with him).

Just to show I'm impartial on this one, I just came across this excellent overview of the discrepensies to be found in The Passion Of Christ:

http://www.mtso.edu/ljohnson/PassionChrist.htm

Reading that shows a number of discrepensies. Some can be put down to artistic license. There are a few with anti-semitic connotations but they are incredibly subtle.

The overriding fact is that if the Bible is correct and that Jesus was scourged and crucified, then it would have been incredibly violent as the movie depicts. The community in Galilea was Jewish, making it incredibly difficult to make anybody other than the Jews and the Romans culpable. Since Pilot did 'wash his hands' of the affair then where else is the blame supposed to go? It's not anti-semitic, it's just the way things were back then.
_________________
Want Free games?
Free Gamer - open source games list & commentary

Open source web-enabled rich UI platform: Vexi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
solomonHk
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 28 Mar 2004
Posts: 226
Location: int main(void) { };

PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2004 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why don't you look at it like this...

Many jews died at the hands of the Nazis and the country of Germany. Does this make every German anti semitic? Of course not. So why do so many Jews feel so "guilty" to take on the guilt of something that happened many generations before ours?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Butts McCokey
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3327

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the Jews are the devil; i've seen the movie 34 times and I knows that the Jews had plenty of opportunity to save Jesus, but didn't.
_________________
Since the bible and the church are obviously mistaken about where we came from, how can we trust them with where we're going?

"An eye for an eye will make us all blind" - Gandhi

Cold is gods way to tell us to burn more Catholics
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
playfool
l33t
l33t


Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 688
Location: Århus, Denmark

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mel Gibson.. why don't you just die already, you are past your prime and if you want me to look back you with any affection you'll stop making such violent unnessesarily bloody and depraved movies then market them the children and the mentally deficient... and I'm the monster?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lepaca Kliffoth
l33t
l33t


Joined: 28 Apr 2004
Posts: 737
Location: Florence, Italy

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

charlieg wrote:
I don't think any sane Italian would try to suggest that the Roman guards in the Passion of Christ movie were an unfair depiction. The Romans were brutal and ruthless; how else do you think they successfully conquered most of Europe?


I AM A ROMAN GUARD YOU INSENSITIVE CLOD
_________________
It isn't enough to win - everyone else must lose, and you also have to rub it in their face (maybe chop off an arm too for good measure).
Animebox!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 4103
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cokehabit wrote:
the Jews are the devil; i've seen the movie 34 times and I knows that the Jews had plenty of opportunity to save Jesus, but didn't.


but Jesus was a Jew
_________________
A free press is the unsleeping guardian of every other right that free men prize; it is the most dangerous foe of tyranny. Where men have the habit of liberty, the Press will continue to be the vigilant guardian of the rights of the ordinary citizen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Butts McCokey
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3327

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
cokehabit wrote:
the Jews are the devil; i've seen the movie 34 times and I knows that the Jews had plenty of opportunity to save Jesus, but didn't.
but Jesus was a Jew
it was a Cartman quote, i was hoping someone would pick up on it :)
_________________
Since the bible and the church are obviously mistaken about where we came from, how can we trust them with where we're going?

"An eye for an eye will make us all blind" - Gandhi

Cold is gods way to tell us to burn more Catholics
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
runningwithscissors
Guru
Guru


Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 454
Location: the third world

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lepaca Kliffoth wrote:
I AM A ROMAN GUARD YOU INSENSITIVE CLOD

Yeah, but Italy is now pretty much jesus' bitch, so he's had his revenge upon you.
_________________
At some stage, the Hindus locked on to the nation destroying concepts like ahimsa (non-violence), shanti (peace), satya (truth) — the ‘ass’ syndrome.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum