The Passion of the Christ, a dangerous film.

[Katzman]

I am horified by the tactless display of violence in this treatment of a beautiful and profound subject that in this film has been reduced to little more than an orgie of violent fetishes and dumbed down docrine. The sublime message of the passion is hardly put accross, in fact the film seems devoid of theology, resting it's 'merits' instead on the more accesable, more powerfull propergandic tools, so highly refined now in the medium of cinema, of cinematography and a base indulgece in meaningless violence. Yes meaningless violence, for don't get me wrong the sufferings of Christ could well be the most meaningful endurances of violence ever (in that they atone for the sins of all mankind), but this film has displayed them way beyond their necessity in putting accross the Christian message. My fears are as follows; that this film will tarnish the image and understanding of Christianity, that people will watch the film rather than read the bible and that this film both reflects and serves the purpousess of an increasingly extremist form of Christianity that in the world we find ourselves living in today can only agrivate the situation. I am also bitterly disapointed because the oppertunity to have created a sensitive and intelligent film, one that could have made more a point of the beauty within the story, the wisdom in the story, the central themes of compasion and love within the story has now been wasted on shock tactics. American cinema has largly dummed down most things did it have to dumb down this. To the ingorent masses the use of anchient Arameic will give the film a false sense of authority, another danger, as alot of the references are not derived from the gospels found within the bible but from apocraphal gospals that remain unaccepted by the church. This is also where the most anti-semetic moment is taken from, when Christ says to Pilot..."more to blame are those that brought me to you", a remark that clearly implicates the Jews and a remark that within the context of a film with little dialouge let alone theological display comes across as an overtly anti-semetic remark on behalf of the film maker. This dialouge between Christ and Pilot does not appear anywhere in the Bible, its inclusion is therefore the film makers decision, and a transparent one at that.

"Forgive them father for they know not what they do", this aspect of the passion should have been the dominant theme rather than violence. I write all this as someone opposed to extremism in all religions, as someone who is already saddened by Islamic fundementalists tarnishing the most beautiful and profound religion of Islam, someone saddened by the beautifull religion of Jewdaism tarnished by over zelous zionists and sadened by the beauty of Christianity tarnished by extremism. This movie is extremist propaganda. I also write this as a beliver in Christ.

[Noj]

It's marketing genius, really.

In approaching this motion picture with the intent of creating a *very realistic* depiction of Christ's crucifixion, it puts Christians in the position of *having* to see it to verify the realism. Add a little controversy with the antisemitic overtones and you've got yourself big money maker. God-fearin' folk in the American Midwest? They're not going to miss the Jesus Movie, hell no. Mel Gibson's approach is at least a tiny bit classier than Christian rock bands and/or televangelists, not that pandering to the zealots can be justified or appreciated.

In hearing it described as "The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre" I decided to pass.

I've got to wonder, even though I'm not one who has read the Bible, how much of the Bible's message is lost in focussing on one (albeit very important) portion? And if the purpose of the movie is to send a Christian message, is it coming across right? Is it being communicated well? :angel

[Saundra Hummer]

Mel Gibsons movie is just another example as to how an individual chooses to view religion, and many see this as him not being satisfied with how the main branch of Catholisicm views the life and death of Christ.

This is exactly why there are so many different denominations in Christianity, Islam, and Judiasism.

No one has ever been satisfied with the religion of their fathers, or so it seems, deciding instead to go off, and form a new belief system, based on what has been learned, adding their beliefs to what has been accepted as doctrine by many. It just doesn't fit into how they want to believe, so they add to it, or change it.

[dwatts]

Gee, release a film about Jesus Christ, and it gets attention! who'd have thunk it? The cynical would say this was a pretty crass move from Mel. Others would say it's simply reflective of his faith, and if he's got the money, why not?

I really don't have any desire to see the film.

[bubber]

IMHO PoC is not a work of art. It's speculative, one-dimensional and hollow. It did not engage me at all, the whole thing was so
overstated that to me the movie became a parody of a story from the Bible.

The reviews here have been lukewarm at best, but some of the more fundamentalist Christians seem to like it. I guess many of them have'nt seen many movies, though.

So much money spent on so little content.

[solarjazzband]

In every old church/cathedral in Europe, there are paintings/pictures/windows etc. etc. etc. , ALL about the last 12 hours or Christ.

Now, Mel Gibson just put the same story in a modern medium: film.

[bubber]

Yeah, but there are different ways to do things - and Gibson produced a mediocre film.

[Katzman]

Yes there are paintings, stainglass, alterpeices, statues and the like depicting the passion in many a church in the world but there is a few worrying differences between those and this film. 1) There is useually far more theological content on display within these images as they where used to teach people about Christianity, therefore the images would have been explained to people by priests etc who would suplement their sermons by reading from the bible. Compare this to this film which is certainly out to teach but a very shallow message comes accross. The medium of film is the new alterpeice for the masses. And this film is like a very well painted painting without any deeper content than that which the immediate image the viewer is subjected to. 2) Where as alterpeices where origionaly used for specific functions, they would either be put on display on specific religious days or their different sections (in the case of triptyches and multi sectioned alterpeices like Mathaias Grunwald's Isanheim alterpeice or Rogier Van De Wyden's Beune alterpeice) would be displayed bit by bit through out the religious calander in order to compliment a fuller Christian message with a visulal guide.

Futhermore Images displayed in churchs are not dominantly images that solely depict the passion but ones that depict the birth, life, death and resurection of Christ and therefore a display a contexlual appropriateness in which to show Christs suffering, not to mention images that depict scenes from the lives of saints or the virgin, which in the catholic church can tend to be more plentiful than images of christ.

It is not the film's quality that worries me it is the after affects. This film will become manditory viewing for every christian world wide, and although the pope can ban contraception he would be treading on very dangerous ground if he where to censor, which is what I think he should do.

[Andy D]

Can't see what all the fuss is about really, but then again I tend to see religion in general as a kind of 'opiate' that allows the illusions of the capitalist west to become a kind of reality:wink2:

I recall as a teenager trying to get into Monty Python's 'Life Of Brian'. as people protested out side the cinema in which it was being shown. Not sure what motivates Gibson to make this film, perhaps it is an issue of violence and its true effects, directors like Oliver Stone have been doing this for years.

On the other hand what happened to Jesus was pretty horiffic, and why should we not see it in all its glory, would we be so concerned if it was a film about the US contribution to the 2nd World War or an artistic Tarrentino flim?

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

It all comes down to Mel Gibsons fathers beliefs, and whether Mel Gibson himself is trying to promote them. his not believing that the Nazi's slaughtered the Jews, the paramount reason, & whether he blames the Jews for Christs death, and what harmful ideas will come from viewing this film.

Already in the Middle East, followers of Islam, after having seen the movie, and being reduced to tears, are blaming the Jews.

People are afraid that this will lead to violence against the Jewish people, and they are probably right, as people look for any kind of excuse to do what it is they had wanted to do in the first place. A movie wasn't needed to give them those ideas and courses of action, they would have found another way, another excuse.

[It Should be You]

What you hear again and again over here in the United States is that the violence served to make the viewer realize just how much Jesus suffered, and therefore just how great his love was.

Strange. I come away with that by just reading the New Testament and using my inagination! If anyone needs to see the gory details on the big screen in order to realize it, well, they're not very good readers, in my opinion! It's a literary problem...

If any of you have had the shock of seeing Matthias Grunewald's painting of the crucifixion in person in Colmar (1515), you wouldn't need to see this film to understand the horror either!! Grisly!!!

[Andy D]

Well what some in the UK say is that what this depicts is the full effects of violence and abuse. There are some who suggest that film making has become something that we see as 'reality'. So showing the effect of violence and abuse, and not the 'Tom and Jerry' versions, that seem typical of so many Hollywood films brings people into the real world.

If you look at films like 'Gladiator' for example, that depicted a real life version of what a gladiators life may have been like, this was a film that was praised and won awards all over the place. Why is it somehow different because the violence, the gore is concerned with someone called 'Jesus'?

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

People aren't liking the violence, and I for one won't see it because of it. I know the horror the story depcits, and I just don't care to watch it.

It isn't the violence, and gore, that have people so outraged, it is the fact that it points an accusatory finger at the Jews with words and actions that are not susposed to be based on fact. The Jews are the ones being blamed, while it paints Pilot as a man in a quandry as to what to do, while history tells a different story of the man, one who was so brutal as to be unimaginable. They say the blame is layed at the feet of the Jews, that it was their wishes alone that killed Christ. This is why there are so many people in an uproar over the movie. They believe it unjustly points the finger at just the Jews. They are afraid it will provoke more anti-semitism, and they are probably right.

Regardless of who killed him, all peoples are sorry about this or any other act of barbarism which has happened in the past, but to continue to blame the Jews for Jesus's death, and to continue to blame the West for the Crusades, hundreds of years ago, it isn't even a concept that I am capable of understanding.

[kenny weir]

The key thing to my finding this whole thing odious is the fact - and from what I've read it's 100 per cent true - that what the film depicts is NOT what's in the Bible but indeed is the product of Gibson's mind and whatever drives it.

[Katzman]

Andy D,

The reason that the use of gore and violence in depicting the passion of Christ is different from it's use in the film Gladiator is because of the sensitive nature of the subject matter. One can attempt to create a realistic set of images about a historical instance, such as gladiators fighting, without any more offence caused than to those who are squemish. Yet with a subject matter like the passion trying to make it as realistic as possible has not only didactic dangers but theological dangers to boot. Didacticly; it invites the viewer, through it's extreme realism and use of anchient Arameic, to feel as if they have learnt something truthfull about the events of the passion. Theologicly; thou shall not covent images, it comes very close to offereing itself as a depiction of actual events, which no religious image should do, this is futher aggrivated by the reputed comment (unofficial) by the Pope that "it is as it was".

There are two fundemental problems with this film. One that it offers itself as a correct depiction of the events of the passon, as if one where actualy there, which I find both dangerously misleading and an ostentasious flirt with the sacreligious. Two that it is so obviously a vehical for anti-semeticism, dressed in the age old authority of 'religion' (dare we speak against it even though it's sources are apocraphal).

(there are no serious angle smilies)

[Saundra Hummer]

Mel Gibson, has built a church costing serveral million dollars, in Southern California, dedicated to the strictest teaching of church doctrine. He has set up a foundation for studying and promoting and teaching his beliefs, some of which I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, the main branch of Catholicism no longer practices, or has never accepted as church doctrine, and policy. I may be remembering this incorrectly, but this is what I seem to recall. Most of the Catholics believe this brand of Catholicism to be a radical splinter branch.

They say he will be puting the money he has made from this film to further his beliefs, by expanding his church building into other areas.

He did all of this well before the movie was made. I don't believe he is exploiting peoples beliefs just to make money, I feel he really believes this way, and wants others to also. Seems he is having quite a bit of sucess. I am sure there are powerful images on the screen, that one will never forget, but just because it has been made so visable and real, does it mean it is gospel? Hardly, we mustn't be led so easily. There are truths out there that need to be told, and from what I am hearing and reading, he has manipulated the history of the bible to suit his own beliefs, not to reinforce what it is we have already been told, or have read, but what it is he wants us to believe. We just can't be so easily manipulated.

[Andy D]

Katzman.

What you find sensitive I may not and as in many cases it is a very subjective issue. For me personally I have little religious belief, and as such do not concern myself with the brutality and the violence that is depicted in such films. People are free to watch what they like, what concerns me is the double standards that some people apply.

I personally do not like watching films that have a high violence count, but I have a professional interest in the effects that such films have on people and on children in particular. I would suggest that the theological considerations, are those of a few people who try and maintain the view, that religion still holds a prominant position and has a significant role in people lives.

Many will condem this film with out actually going to see it, many condemmed Salmon Rushdie when he wrote his book 'The Satanic Verses', few had actually read the book and I wonder who actually considers this film dangerous?

The danger for for me is that the moral miniroty and liberal intelectuals tell us what and is not a good film, just like they tell us who the 'bad guys' are and the consequences of this are all to plain to see.

I have not come across any articles in which the director of the flilm suggests that we are going to learn anything new about the passion, if there is than I guess we will not, if on the other hand we learn something about the violence that man can inflict on others then maybe we can learn something.

You suggest that there is one telling of the last days of Jesus, as though there is one truth, a dangerous concept in my view. The moral minority in the states have taken this view for years. And it is a little ironic to suggest that the film lacks a degree of authenticity, when American, in many people's minds is engaged in a unjust War against what it considers a one sided view of Islam.

Also once again who is saying the film is anti-semetic? You are giving an opinion and I respect what you say, others are tired of the cry 'anti'semetic' every time you have a film about Jesus or talk about the Holocaust. The ideas of people like Finkleheim and Norm Chomsky, to some are anti-semetic and to others represent real debate and discussion.

Regards

Andy D.

[Andy D]

I meant of course Norman Finkelstein and his book 'The Holocaust Industry', sometimes I think we have a Jesus industry, that makes people cry 'anti-semetic' when ever we discuss subject like the Passion:wink2:

Regards again

Andy D.

[Katzman]

Andy D,

First of all, beyond the manners in which we both express things in relation to this perticular topic, the semiotics of it all, I have a deep suspician that we are in fact in aggreement on most of the aspects of this issue. The acception to this is probably the matter of anti-semitism. Where it is only my point of view that this film is anti-semetic, it is however a view that is widely acknowlaged. In part this is a knee jerk reaction to the subject matter, as you suggested, which is not at all suprising seeing as the issue of the Jews being culprits for the death of Christ has been THE root of anti-semeticism right up until Wagner invented the concept of nationalistic driven anti-semitism in the nineteeth century. There are, however, very tangable motifs and instances within this film that I would lable anti-semetic. The instance when Christ says to Pilot, "more to blame are those that brought me to you", implicating the jews, take as apochraphal account, one that is not accepted by the church, and is clearly taken from one of the "radical splinter branch", neo-conservative, faux-gosples. The depiction of the Jews in general in the film is done with great flare for the uncouth. Jewish 'elders' mock and scorn Christ as he suffers on the cross, even the romans come accross as more sympathetic. To me it is as if a real point is trying to be made of the jews.

I do not suggest one telling of the last days of Christ, rather that is what I see as a danger and that is what I see this film as attempting to offer. In a world in which we are all so poiniently aware of a perticular brand of Islam that is one side let us not add a one sided Christianity to that equasion. I do not wish the film was more authentic (because who am I to know what more authentic is), I just wish the film didn't present itself as authentic. There was a great, now wasted, oppertunity to to create a film that through a more poetical approach acknowlaged the debates, dilemas, themes and psycholagy that lie implicit to the passion and imply the story is best experianced through the extreame subjectivity of individual assesment. A film like this trys to objectify the events creating 'one' telling of the last days of Christ, where as the only authenticitys (plural) are in the subjectivity of different people's different understand/experiances. That for me is one of the great mystical elements of any religious story.

Regards

[Andy D]

Katzman.

I am curious as to who you think holds the 'widely accepted view that the film is anti-semetic?' I was not of course around in the times or christ, and like most things about the life of Jesus and indeed religion as a whole it seems to be open to a degree of intrepretation.

The language that you use, at least to me seems to suggest that you have an agenda of somekind. Now this is ok, but the neo-conservatives you refer to also have an agenda, just as those that advocate a more radical interpretation of Islam.

I do not know if the Jewish elders 'mocked' jesus or not, for as I suggested earlier I am not interest in following the teachings of Christ or anyone else for that matter. The danger for me is that we cannot have real debate, unless we can have the kind of debate we are having now. Did for example the Jewish elders play a part in what happened to Christ? How much are they in some way cuplable for what happened?, Could they have done something about what happened?

Now these are important questions for today, look at what happened in places like Bosnia and Rwanda, could the mass killings have been avoided? almosy certainly yes they could have been.

You mention a 'particular brand of Islam', well we could add to that a particular brand of Jewish faith, or Christianity that feels that killing people, bombing people, etc etc is justified on the basis that the religion says it is ok to do this. Again this may be down to an interpretation of particular teachings.

I also come back to what I said earlier I have not come across Mel Gibson claiming that the film is an 'authentic' event, just his interpretation of what may have happended.

Regards

Andy D.

[Fran]

Frankly I think Religion is dangerous.

Show me how it has done anything, since the begining of time, towards "Peace on Earth"
It is inherently divisive in its divergent basic principles and the minutiae of the varied religions and their sects.

[Saundra Hummer]

This film has given impetus to anti-semitism. This was a fear of meny people, and it is happening. It will probably continue to grow, as the old saying is coming true "A picture is worth a thousand words." People who never even believed much in the bible are coming away as converts, and with too many, anti-Semitism has been inplanted in ther souls.

This may not have been the message, but this is the outcome.

In the Mid East, the Muslims who have seen this movie are even more convinced of the evil of Jews. This can lead to no good. This in itself is a pity.

Many in the Christian Coallition like the war that is going on with the Muslims, as they believe the end is near, and that Christ will be returining to earth, so peace isn't what they hope to see in the Mid East. This is actually on record, this has been said by Christian leaders here in the U.S. Everyones reasoning is scarey to me. This is a thought process I just don't understand. They believe, as most of us do in the U.S., that Christ suffered and died for us, but they don't seem to care how many people around the world suffer because of several religions misguided beliefs, because it means that the promises in their religions are all the closer to coming true.

[mickey/lynn]

Originally posted by Fran
Frankly I think Religion is dangerous.

Show me how it has done anything, since the begining of time, towards "Peace on Earth"
It is inherently divisive in its divergent basic principles and the minutiae of the varied religions and their sects. Fran,

Your statement is one that I find myself agreeing with--partially. Do you think man has made religious dangerous, or are you saying that the actual words and teachings of the various religions, are dangerous? I find some of the stories and readings in the bible to be quite positive, spiritual (which is how I define myself) if you will. I also can see where some people have used some of those stories to justify evil (such as the the story about Ham(noah's son) --this is supposedly how some people justified slavery). Just wondering what your thoughts are.....

[Katzman]

Andy D,

I agree with you when you talk about perticular brands of faiths. It is perticular brands of faiths, off shoots, fundementalist, and cult like, ones that seem dangerous to me. This is what I see this film as representing. Over zelous zionists that, through their stagnent and most stuburn analysis of their own religion have kept a brutal ocupation of Palestine going, extremist Islamists who stubernly distort Isalm in order to find cause for jihad, and now fanatic Christian communities lobying the american public into a religious furvour, one ripe with anti-semetic sentiments and one ripe to go head to head with other religions around the world.

Also I would like to clarify something. What actualy happened during Christs passion, whether the jews mocked, didn't mock and the like, does not concern me in this perticular topic. It is the effects of this film that concern me. One of the effects of this film seem to be an increase in anti-semetism, and therefore it is only natural to analyse the film to see what it is that could provoke such reaction and whether the film maker intended such a statement. My argument is that such an intention exsisted.

Futhermore, on the issue of didacticism, whether the film makers intention was to create a film to teach or not is of no concern. It is whether people, the viewing public, are suduced into 'learning' from it, in other words the effect of the film is to give the illussion of it teaching something, that is of concern. Especially scince what they would be learning is a one sided, 'perticular brand', of Christianity that they would be being exposed to.

As I said before, Andy D, I really think we are in much more of state of agreement on these matters than it would appare. It is just that we are useing different litanies, word stylings and semiotic associations from each other and are therefore lulled into a false state of discord. I would place money on the chances that we share alot of similar world views.

Regards:tongue2:

[Andy D]

Sandi.

I asked Katzman the same question 'who is it that says that the film has given impetus to anti-semitism? What is the evidence for this?

Regards

Andy D.

[Andy D]

To say that films cause the actions of people has not been proved, there was an attempt in the UK to suggest that children watching TV Violence committed more violence. There is no real proof of this, the anti-semitism, the anti-islamic views are there whether you watch the film or not.

Your argument is valid, yet you have no evidence of this one way of the other. People 'learn' from films all the time, feel that what they see on film is somehow reality. Of course it is not, but films about 'reality' do not make money and so it can be seen as part of the process of 'manufacturing consent' that Norm Chomsky writes about.

There is no seduction necessary, people go to watch films with in most cases, little knowledge or little concern about reality. You make the statement that the film represents a 'one-sided view', others feel that it represents a particular dipiction of the passion. Gibson is entitled to his view as you or I am.

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

I wish I could remember names better than I do, or I should keep a notebook beside me, and write some things down, but there has been a big uproar here in this country over this film, granted some of the people started complaining about the film because of Mel Gibsons fathers religious leanings, saying that he thought the same way, when they couldn't possibly have known how he thought about his fathers beliefs.

There have been references to this film all over the news, on talk shows, and in our magazines. Some agree with the film, but more don't than do when it comes to the news stories. Some people think the film wonderful, and totally accurate, other's see it a a somewhat historical story, interspersed with fiction to make it of more interesting, and compelling.

The Vatican has been seen to backtrack on it's statements about the film, knowing that the controversy is out of hand. Al Jazeera reports the film is dredging up Jewish hatreds, Muslims are blaming it on the evil, murdering ways of the Jews. Online news stories are saying that it is anti Semitic in tone, and implication, putting the blame soley at the feet of the Jews. Words are used that aren't accepted doctrine of most churches.

True, all churches started out as what were called cults, take Mormanism as a prime example, now it is one of the more powerful churches in the world, take the cult of Scientology, now an accepted religion.

I would just like to see religions of any faith be more aware of what it is they are doing, I feel they should be more kind to others, quit trying to drag everyone into their way of believing, or hoping that the non believers would all die, and quit trying to help them on their way. A world gone mad all in the name of religion? Power is more like it.

[Andy D]

The point I am making is that the uproar comes from certain parts of the Jewish Community, here is the UK the British Council Of Jews, who seem to cry 'anti-semitism' everytime a film about Christ comes about.

Ironic when you see the statements that many of these people make in relation to 'radical Islam', that they seem not to be so tolerant of views different from their own. I personally have not seen the film, and have no intention to see it, neither the subject nor the comments passed on the film at present, will make me change my mind.


Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

Hi Andy, I;m with you on viewing this film! I have no desire to. It has been the subject of so much debate, clip after clip on the television, and photo after photo in the news, and in magazines ad nausiam.

It isn't just the Jewish people and institutions that are complaning, it is think tanks and average everyday people who have gone to see it. Everyone comes out of the movie disturbed by the graphic nature, scholars come out saying that movie is an inacurate portrayal of the event, this is what has been reported here. I don't believe a day went by without several discussions about this film. There are of course people who have seen it that think it is just wonderful, and come out with an overwhelming belief in the film and what it is it is trying to convey

Mel Gibson has been on the news himself, and on morning talk shows, even telling Diane Sawyer not to go there when she questioned him about his fathers beliefs and statements regarding Jews.

We have been deluged with everyones thoughts about this movie. I mean deluged, to the point where it is overwhelming, and it begins to go in one ear and out the other. Like a person who is shouting at you, pretty soon, you don't hear a word they say. Just too radical at times.

[Saundra Hummer]

To get people to go and see this movie in the numbers he wanted, he made it available to church groups across the country, they are the ones, the Bible Belt conservative Christians, the Christian Coallition, who as a rule feel it is a sin to go to the movies. He then made blocks of tickets available to these groups and this marketing ploy has been a huge success. He has pulled in people who would have never seen it otherwise, and they inturn started pulling in more viewers to see it, then there is the controversy, which has pulled in even more.

Art is art, and facts are facts, and the two seem to be in conflict here. Some say there is little truth in the film, others believe it is gospel. Some say it is just a movie, but Mel Gibson has protrayed it as factual. I really don't know myself, I just know the controversy this film has started, in all faiths and among non-believers as well.

[Leeway]

I write all this as someone opposed to extremism in all religions, as someone who is already saddened by Islamic fundementalists tarnishing the most beautiful and profound religion of Islam, someone saddened by the beautifull religion of Jewdaism tarnished by over zelous zionists and sadened by the beauty of Christianity tarnished by extremism. This movie is extremist propaganda. I also write this as a beliver in Christ.

I agree with you completely on this aspect of things. The rise of bellicose fundamentalism around the world augers no good.

[clifton]

For informational purposes (most notably Andy, check this out), I note that allegations of "The Passion. . ." being anti-Semitic are coming from varied sources, not all of them Jewish. The film has been condemned as anti-Semitic by Charles Krauthammer, Maureen Dowd, and Frank Rich. These last two are well-known writers for the New York Times who don't have a pro-Ariel Sharon agenda.

Other than that, I haven't seen the film, nor do I want to. Personally, I'm very uneasy with discussing religion on the board. BTW Leonard Pitts, a syndicated op-ed columnist does not think the film was anti-Semitic.

[Simon Weil]

I spent a long time looking at the issues surrounding the film, but never wanted to see it. On some level, I thought it was best left alone. That it wouldn't really make a difference to antisemitism.

This is a review of The Passion (http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Observer_Film_of_the_week/0,4267,1179452,00.html) by Philip French. French is my favourite critic (of anything) currently writing. I waited for this review. It says this:

Gibson and his co-screenwriter, Benedict Fitzgerald, seem to take the phrase 'gospel truth' quite literally and their script is a conflation of the Gospels as if they were uncontested fact. There are a few imaginative embellishments and odd additions from Catholic pietistic sources, but nothing from contemporary history. This means that a simplistic, propagandistic account of the events, that involves blaming the Jewish leaders for Christ's death while largely exculpating Pontius Pilate as the representative of Rome, is enshrined in the movie.

The film thus supports the principal cause of anti-Semitism and the appalling effects this most awful of prejudices has had for nearly 2,000 years. It will not, I think, plant the seeds of anti-Semitism in those hitherto unaffected, but it is unlikely to change the views of the already prejudiced.

This is a serious, responsible review. I believe it.

Simon Weil

[Andy D]

This is what Paul Bradshaw wrote in the Guardian, a fairly influencial and respected British Newspaper:


As for the anti-semitic question, well, at least Mel didn't use British actors with British accents for the Jews. That really would have settled it. As commentators have already exhaustively rehearsed: this was an intra-Jewish dispute. But it's a question of emphasis. Gibson undoubtedly dwells very sternly indeed on the collaborationist Pharisees, a baying Jewish mob manipulated by cringingly pusillanimous leaders, deferring to the Roman consul and callously unmoved by Jesus's anguish, on which they have insisted and which they coldly witness in every awful detail. Pilate himself is generously portrayed: a tough, reflective Roman, troubled by the question of truth put to him by Jesus, and reluctant to demand his death. The Romans are shown as culpable too, though; the centurions cackle like evil muppets at every whipcrack and nail-bang.

Perhaps this is about how we all see things in different ways.

Regards

Andy D.

[Fran]

Originally posted by mickey/lynn
Fran,

Your statement is one that I find myself agreeing with--partially. Do you think man has made religious dangerous, or are you saying that the actual words and teachings of the various religions, are dangerous? I find some of the stories and readings in the bible to be quite positive, spiritual (which is how I define myself) if you will. I also can see where some people have used some of those stories to justify evil (such as the the story about Ham(noah's son) --this is supposedly how some people justified slavery). Just wondering what your thoughts are.....

I see it in much the way you do. I agree that the bible can be "positive", and perhaps if left as such, with no further influences, would not be to great a problem. But as soon as one reads the bible one begins to interpret. And there goes the ball game.
There is so much conflict within the bible, one passage to another, that it is left wide open to the most divergent of interpretations. Paul even contradicts himself at times as pointed out on the CBS special a few nights ago.
Most of us do not really know what Paul wrote. I understand from Greeks who have read Paul's writings, in the original Greek, that the translations used today are distortions of his words, Albeit much possibly unintended. Some words translated with the wrong interpretation for the context, etc.
We aren't going to get religion banned so I guess we'll just have to go along hating a killing each other for a few centuries more

[Katzman]

Fantastic artical by Philip French. Did you read it Andy D? What did you think? I belive it was taken from the Guardian, a fairly influencial and respected British newspaper.

There is nothing wrong with Jewish people crying out anti-semitism. Let us not get phobic about that due to some urge to lump all Jews together, all equaly tarnished by events in Palastine. Many Jews, many known to me personaly, abhore Isriels policy of aparthite like suppression. They do so primarily for moral reasons, but also because it is plain to see that such policys increase anti-semitic sentiments the world over. I hope your determination, Andy D, to refute claims that this film is anti-semetic is not inspiered by a stereo-typed image of the Jews as a people all too ready to flash their trump 'its anti-semetic' card due to some hang up they still carry with them from 2000 years of persecution and the holocaust.

Also the section of the artical you posted by Paul Bradshaw reads to me as acknowlaging the overtly negative portrayal of the Jews in thie film. It does so by drawing comparison between the manner in which Romans are portayed to that of the Jews that seems to imply that the Jews are plainly demonised whereas the Romans, although unsavoury characters, are portaryed as more reluctent, thoughtfull and all together more human characters, even though it be of a darker side of the human character. Ofcourse I would like to read the entire artical, if it is no trouble could you post the articals link.

Regards

[Andy D]

Katzman.

Negative is not the same as anti-semetic and I worry about some people, who may not be able to tell the difference between the two positions. As for my 'determination', I suggest you take time to read some of the many posts I have posted in the 'Politics' section, you may then have some idea as to what my potential motivations may be.

Regards

Andy D.

[Andy D]

Now this is what Mel Gibson says about the film:

In his first public comments about the film since the controversy began, Gibson said, "Neither I nor my film are anti-Semitic ... Nor do I hate anybody -- certainly not the Jews. They are my friends and associates ... Anti-Semitism is not only contrary to my personal beliefs, it is also contrary to the core message of my movie."

Now in my worK I am often called uopn to try and look at why some children do what they do, to find out what motivates their actions or thoughts, and I often have to spend several sessions with them, talk to their families and teachers etc etc. Even then I can only give my opionion, to say that I 'know' something to be true is open to some debate.

What people are saying about this film is their own opinions, without knowing and talking with Mr Gibson, I have no idea what motivates him to make this film. All of us have some kind of agenda, and I am equally curious as to what the agenda of those that think this is an 'anti-semetic' film, as those who think it is not:wink2:

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

We do know that the Romans used crusifixion as a means to deter people they considered a potential threat from becoming an actural threat, and to punish criminals in the extreme while prolonging their deaths. There were other forms of the death penalty, but this was the chosen method of Romans. Stoning was the preferred method of the Jews. Both barbaric, as all death penalties are.

It isn't who is at fault that is the problem, it is the perceived notions that some peoples will get into their heads that is the problem here. Placing blame, warranted or unwarranted on any one country or group is something that isn't needed with the tenderbox of a world that we are living in. People in position of someone like Mel Gibson, however well meaning his movie might be to his way of thiniking, is inciting more negative feelings against the Jews, or perhaps I should say more intense feelings against the Jews, as hopefully it won't make new converts to such a backward ideology.

[Andy D]

Interspersed with this is a flashback scene to Judas Iscariot receiving his 30 pieces of silver for betraying Jesus to the Pharisees; Gibson films, in slow motion, the bag of coins being flung across the room and dropped, clattering, to the floor. In a spirit of mischief and curiosity, I had invited a friend, a Jewish New Yorker, to the press screening, and she later picked out this moment of money-grubbing as an instance of the film's anti-Semitic agenda. I couldn't see it myself - the betrayal of a friend for money is a movie staple, not a racial slur - though I did baulk at the scene on grounds of visual clunkiness (Judas can't even be trusted to make a clean catch).

This was taken from Anthony Quinn's review of the film in the Independent Newspaper, a respected paper in the UK who like Paul Bradshaw suggest that it is more about an individual interpretation than anti-semitism.

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

I grew up in a church that portrayed the Jews as the culprits, and the Romans as harsh, but somewhat benevelant occupiers at the time, Pilot not wanting to do anything to upset the cart, keeping the Jews placated by killing Christ. It was taught that he unwillingly went along with the Jews just to keep things running smoothly.

Mel Gibson, when asked on a morning t.v. show "Who killed Christ?" answered, "We all did." Will the Jew haters and there are millions, will they have seen this answer? Doubt it, and I doubt that they will ever even hear this sentiment.

We all know the stories about who betrayed Christ, we all now the story about the "30 pieces of silver," we all know the stories about the temple priests, and Pilot. It has been taught to us over, and over, especially those of us with "Bible Belt" roots. It was a constant theme. We heard it almost every time we walked into a church. As I began to draw my own conclusions I didn't blame it on anyone but the times and the cultures of the bronze age.

We're in such volitile times that church leaders, and Mel Gibson himself need to launch a campaign to let people know that this isn't the purpose of the film, that not any one group is responsible. A soundbite here, and there won't do it. You all realize that there are millions of people out there that still believe with all of their hearts and souls just like they did BCE. This is one reason we are in the situation we are in now world wide.

[Katzman]

Andy D,

I don't need to read your past posts on politics to understand your motivations, although I look forward to doing so in time. I have allready assertained that you hold inteligent, libral views and all in all seem like a fair guy, your posts on Gilad Atzmozon is a case in point. It is because of this that I have already said that despite seemingly disagreeing we are probably in agreement on more things than it seems, it is our litanies that have clashed rather than our views.

As I have already posted, and Saundra Hummer has argued, it is the after effects, irrespective of the film makers intentions but nevertheless his resposability, that I feel are dangerous. Can you not see the potential for incited anti-semeticism that this film has created? And if so is that not irresponsible?

I read Paul Bradshaw's artical in its entirety, another brilliant writer from the Guardian. I did get the sense that the film came off as anti-semetic to him,

a baying Jewish mob manipulated by cringingly pusillanmous leaders, deffering to the Roman consul and callously unmoved by Jesus's anguish, on which they coldly witness in every awful detail.

Paul Bradshaw, I would add, propositions quite clearly ideas perfectly in keeping with other critcisms of this film that I have voice in this thread.
1) The overlook of Jesus's message of love
2) The false sense on authority created by gore and the use of anchient Arameic, "blood and dead launguages equals reality"
3) The genral unwarrented focus on violence to the detrement of all other themes that equates to a onesided and frankly inccorect and therefore misleading account of the passion. The gosple according to Mel Gibson

His sarcasm and teasing wit had me in hysterics at times, thank you Andy D for bringing his artical to my attention.

Regards

[Katzman]

Mark Kermode, writing for the observer, a fairly influencial and respected UK newspaper, states that the high priest of the Jews Caiphus is depicted as instigating the crucifixion in this film. He claims that this has caused out rage not just from the Jewish communtiy but also from Christian sources.

the film's portayal of the Jewish high priest Caiphus, who is seen as effectively instigating the crucifixtion (rather than the historicaly culpable Pontius Pilate) and whose depiction in the movie is described in a review from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops as 'almost monolithically malevolent'.

Regards,

[Saundra Hummer]

We are accustomed to Hollywood and the hyping of themes, war, love, religion, it has always been the Hollywood way.

The difference here is that instead of putting it out as entertainment, it has been depicted as gospel, the truth.

Showman that Cecil B. Demille was, he was trying to entertain, tell a bible story in a colorful way when he did his movies, he wasn't trying to portray factually, events or the era. None of us ever thought that they were.

Mel Gibson previewed his movie with various church groups thoughout the country. His movie, the purpose of which is to show the true way of the cross was spoon fed to the Christian Coallition. This is the same group that generally does blame the Jews for Christs death, this is how we were taught growing up in the church. We were in some churches, same religion, different ministers, that taught differently, and I am sure that there are those that think differently than Mr. Gibson. I certainly hope so.

It has disturbed many people in different ways, some because they believe the depictions, the words, and some because they feel it will make their lives harder. Lets hope that this isn't the case. There is enough turmoil in the world.

[Simon Weil]

Originally posted by Katzman
...it is the after effects, irrespective of the film makers intentions but nevertheless his resposability, that I feel are dangerous. Can you not see the potential for incited anti-semeticism that this film has created? And if so is that not irresponsible?

The question is: Will it incite antisemitism? You liked the Philip French article and he says:

It will not, I think, plant the seeds of anti-Semitism in those hitherto unaffected, but it is unlikely to change the views of the already prejudiced.

That is he doesn't think it will, despite the fact that he clearly acknowledges the anti-Jewish nature of the piece. To me, this seems like a deeply-thought responsible reaction. It is not enough that a piece should be anti-Jewish for Jews to complain about it. There should be some point in doing so.

And there isn't a hope in hell of getting this film stopped. All one does is wind up Christians. Which plays straight into Gibson's hands.

Nothing is going to happen. Let it go.

Simon Weil

[Saundra Hummer]

You're probably right Simon, nothing more than already has, and is happening now. We're just hoping things don't intensify.

[Katzman]

I think it is in Jewish peoples right to complain about something if it is anti-jewish, there need not be a futher 'point' in doing so. Also I said 'potential' rather than 'will' in regard to the possibility of this film inspiering anti-semetic feelings. No one can know whether it 'will' but one can judge the 'potential'. I hope that Philip French is right when he says that he doesn't think it will "plant the seeds of anti-semeticism in those hithero unaffected", nevertheless the potential is there, the provocation is there.

Censorship will never happen, nor should it if we value freedom of speach. But for the same value I will not leave this topic. We need to persist in questioning things, politly and hopefully intellegently so as to keep (make) the world a sharp and open minded place.

Regards

[Saundra Hummer]

One of my very best friends is Jewish, and did we ever have some great times together, since we were 15 years old. We are still close, even thought we live about 1000 miles away from each other. Through thick and thin, arguments and serious disagreements to the point that I think a lot of people would have given up on one another, but we have stuck it out, and have gained a lot because we have.

I know how she feels when she is being discriminated against, and I have seen the hurt it can cause. Everytime I heard about a synagogue being bombed, I worried that it could be her parents that were in danger, not plesant thoughts.

When we had our shop I met a Jewish couple at the L.A. Mart, a building with several vendors selling clothing, accessories, etc. They saw that we are living in Oregon, they said they were considering selling their home in Pacific Pallisades and moving to Portland, and began to ask us all kinds of questions about this state. This was during the time skin heads were going on rampages against Jewish people. I talked to them about it, advising against a permanant move, telling them instead to rent their home, lease up here for a year or so and see if culture shock wouldn't do a number on them, plus the rain which is incessant in Portland, which I figured would do a number on their moods, as it does everyone that we know who has moved there, but my main warning to them was about the anti semitic violence that was happening at that time. It was severe. I have always wondered what they ended up doing.

No one should have to go through that type of discrimination because of their beliefs. No one should have to worry about it at all, but in this day and age it is on the rise, descrimination of the very worst kind, when we thought things were so much better, & it's not just against the Jews.

I have just seen what it is like for quite a few people and it just isn't right. Why chance provoking such acts? Irresponsible I believe.

[a.j. zeitlin]

I haven't seen the film so I can't make any claims of feeling offended. But Gibson's public behavior (in interviews, the New Yorker profile, etc.) strikes me as appalling. While he may feel comforted by his own faith (which I never doubted), the sensitivities of others leave him totally unmoved. His exclusionary signals to Jewish audiences, screening early versions of his film in front of cherry-picked church audiences, were less than subtle. He then all but threatened Frank Rich.

But most disturbing is his equating all criticism of his movie with Jesus's suffering, a warped and shallow worldview that seems to equate Krauthammer, Rich and others with a small group of Jews during the crucifixion. Gibson has never forgiven the Church for Vatical II.

And then there's his father. One can argue about whether or not Gibson Sr. should be dragged into this. But the old guy made himself part of the story when he made public statements worthy of any Nazi.

[mickey/lynn]

I was speaking with my best friend today, and this movie came up. She asked me had I seen it, I stated no, and she asked me did I plan on seeing it soon? (I am a big Mel Gibson fan, she knows this) I told her I have no intention of ever seeing that movie, my two teen-age children wanted to see it, so my sister went with them to see it, I went to see Spartan (w/Val Kilmer).

They came out of the theater, and my daughters eyes were bloodshot, and I could see that my sister and son had been crying. I go "What, was it that bad?" They all stated that he was just beaten for two hours, there was so much blood..it was "disturbing" (my sister & best friend used that word), so much violence. I thought to myself, maybe my kids weren't old enough to handle this, because clearly, they were disturbed. My son and I have watched most of the black gang films, that had everyone up in arms about the level of violence that these movies contained. So I asked my son, was the violence worse than Boyz in the Hood? Menance to Society? He stated, "Mom, I have never seen anything like that in a movie, ever. Jesus just got "beat down" (that's how he put it).

I raise this question. Is the violence acceptable in this movie because of the subject matter? Then to have people actually thinking that this movie is based on historical facts, I don't like that. There is no evidence (correct me please if I am wrong) that truly lets us know, what happened to Jesus during the crucifixtion. The bible dosen't even go into any details, as far as the blood and gore. Didn't he base this movie on a nun who said God came to her and showed her this vision (version) of what actually happened? (You know, when I have a little bit too much to drink, sometimes visions come to me......) Just kidding- I don't drink.


I realize that this is a movie, but it's a movie about JESUS, and some people are truly taking this to heart. And...if for ever and a day, most people have been told/taught that "the jews killed jesus"- why on earth make a movie that for two whole hours shows you "THIS is what THEY did to him"? I have heard the argument, it isn't "just" the jews that he shows beating Jesus, okay, but if we have all been told from the time we were youngins' that the jews murdered him, , put two and two together and you get four. Most people are walking away thinking "that's what they (jews) did to Jesus.

Anti-semetic? I think it is based on peoples attitudes towards jews in this realm. How can it not be? Will it incite more anti-semetic feelings towards those of the jewish faith? I think you may have a few people take on an anti-jew attitude but, I think that it will just make those who already have negative feelings towards them in the first place, it will make their hatred/negative feelings run more deeply.

[Greg]

Is the violence acceptable in this movie because of the subject matter? Then to have people actually thinking that this movie is based on historical facts, I don't like that. There is no evidence (correct me please if I am wrong) that truly lets us know, what happened to Jesus during the crucifixtion. The bible dosen't even go into any details, as far as the blood and gore.

I fully agree. There is no single Gospel story addressing the crucifixion. No wonder your kids were crying. Children shouldn't have to watch this. I had to see hundreds of pictures of the Holocaust, read the most harrowing accounts of it, and read the poems of children interned in death camps when I was a kid at Hebrew School. That certainly did a number on me. But at least it educated me about something that had happened in the same century and the pictures were real, the info was real, and I was able to learn something real. The Gibson movie is fake. The history is fake. The blood is fake. And the audience is learning something fake...and dangerous.

Anti-semetic? I think it is based on peoples attitudes towards jews in this realm. How can it not be? Will it incite more anti-semetic feelings towards those of the jewish faith? I think you may have a few people take on an anti-jew attitude but, I think that it will just make those who already have negative feelings towards them in the first place, it will make their hatred/negative feelings run more deeply.

The real issue is that, a few decades ago, with Vatican II, the church finally did the right thing after centuries of brutal pograms and persecution of Jews, culminating in the holocaust...the pope issued an edict finally saying the Jews are not responsible for killing Christ. So after almost 2000 years, the Roman Catholic church, one of the most powerful institutions on the planet, finally realized the Blood Libel was bullshit. It seemed the church was evolving (at least on that issue).

Now here we have an "artist" (at least that's what Mel calls himself) who has dedicated his career to make-believe violence and mayhem. He and his anti-semitic father reject the Vatican II edict, and subscribe to an older following of the church. If anything in the Western World is more powerful than the church, it's hollywood, and with this movie Gibson set the widespread message of the church back decades if not centuries, to utter barbarity and blood libel. He even has Satan walking among the Jews in his movie. Not the Romans. The Jews. The message is very clear. And what did the Pope have to say after seeing the movie? "It is as it was." Both he and Gibson are setting the church back a looooooooong ways. And who will ultimately pay for it? Jews. Because it will fuel anti-semitism.

[Andy D]

mickey'lynn.

Not for the first time you raise some interesting points, in that is the violence more acceptable because of the subject? I am a fan of the early Oliver Stone films and some of Spike Lee's earlier films, which often depicted violence in one form or the other. These are considered by some to be 'important' films, and the argument that these people put forward at the time, was that they are depicting real situations, be that racial tensions and violence or state imposed violence or brutality.

The life of Jesus is an interesting point, in that it is hard to what is historical and what is history after the event. There seems to be no real accurate historical evidence about the life of Jesus, and much of this was written long after the events are supposed to have happened.

So what is Gibson trying to do?

Of course I do not know, we have what he says and we have what the critics say. The problem

[Andy D]

Sorry I posted before I had finished I was going to say:

The problem I have with this kind of discussion is that it has been polarised into ant-semitism Vs not anti-semetic, which in my view limits the debate. The historical records at the time of Jesus are not great, and often it is left to interpretation and this is what causes some of the difficulty.

It seems that any differing view on the life of Jesus, is greeted with the cry of anti-semitism. Sometimes I wonder if some people use the life of Jesus, the way some social-critics have suggested the holocaust is used, to justify a certain position, a certain stance and a certain way of justifying actions?

Regards

Andy D.

[Greg]

The problem I have with this kind of discussion is that it has been polarised into ant-semitism Vs not anti-semetic, which in my view limits the debate. The historical records at the time of Jesus are not great, and often it is left to interpretation and this is what causes some of the difficulty.

Why are you uncomfortable debating whether the movie is anti-semitic? The main historical facts we know from that time are that the Romans came through Judea with an iron fist and killed about 1 million Jews. Tens of thousands of Jews were nailed to the cross. One of them, apparently, was Jesus. Not even the Gospels fully support the sadism in Gibson's movie.

It seems that any differing view on the life of Jesus, is greeted with the cry of anti-semitism.

Huh? Differing from what? The Roman Catholic church, with Vatican II, absolved Jews of any blame in the death of Jesus. Gibson, by putting this on the screen in front of millions of viewers, sets the church back decades, if not centuries, to a blood libel message, and you're upset when it's pointed out that's an anti-semitic message?

Sometimes I wonder if some people use the life of Jesus, the way some social-critics have suggested the holocaust is used, to justify a certain position, a certain stance and a certain way of justifying actions?

The Holocaust happened less than a century ago, and there are photos, historical accounts from survivors and others, and incontrovertible evidence about what happened. You better believe the Holocaust justifies certain actions. How can you possibly compare that to a sadistic movie made by the son of a Holocaust denier (assuming Gibson himself isn't one), who continues to blame the Jews for the death of Christ?

[Saundra Hummer]

It is just that so many people are aware of the beliefs of Mel Gibsons father, and of the off shoot, splintter branch of the Catholic church, that he, and his father belong to. Mel Gibson supports this church, even building one in Malibu, spending millions, upon millions of dollars. This is a deep seated belief with him, not an opportunist trying to line his pockets, but instead, he is trying to show the "True Way of the Cross," that his belief teaches..

People have felt, rightly so, that this church group blames the Jews for all that happened to Christ.

Mel Gibsons fathers beliefs are among the most radical any of us have ever read about. I'm not just talking about his religous beliefs but of many other things he has said and written about. Of course this doesn't mean that the son believes the way his father does, but this is where the fear comes from.

This movie being protrayed as "Gospel" has worried scholars, and lay people alike. Some dismiss it's importance and the theory that it is anti-semitic as nonsense, and others swear with all they believe, that it does smack of anti semitism, and that it will promote, and further it. It is all in the eye of the beholder, as has been suggested here before.

Go to google.com, and look up Hutton Gibson, and see the JTA story on him. It will explain why so many are so concerned, rightly or wrongly. We will have to wait to see.

[Andy D]

I am not uncomfortable, but I could ask why are you comfortable with focusing on this issue?

What historical basis do you base the claims on that you make?

Are you familier with the book 'The Holocaust Industry' I have mentioned this in one of my earlier post, and the views that are put forward in this book?

In my view one needs to be carfeul not to have one view of any situation, to do this often leads you into the Kindgom of the Blind!

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

Who knows, maybe things were worse than the movie could acturally portray, after all the stench of the crowd, then stench of death was impossible to impart. The flies, the excrement, the overall degradation was probably even worse than the movie could possibly show.

There are only about two mentions of Jesus by his actual contemporaries, in actual historical documents and these are extremly vague, nothing to support the Gospels. The only actual history we have of him is from our New Testament, and there are differences in them. Maybe one day texts will be discovered either in a dusty ancient Library, as they say that there are documents that haven't even been explored in hundreds of years, or in the Vatican library, which scholars say thousands upon thousands of manuscripts have never been opened, or even in some desert cave, like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

They say there are writings that churches have that they don't want the public to know about or see. I have no idea if this is true or not, but look how the Dead Sea Scrolls were handled, and this premise could very well be true.


People wanted the glory of Christ to be shown, not the agony and brutality, they wanted to see his good works, the strengths and the kindnesses. Of course this is Mr. Gibsons mission, to show in all its horror, what the New Testament teaches us about the death of Christ. Any death is a tragedy and when it is metted out by another man, whether as brutal as shown in this movie, or by any other means, it is something no one wants to experience, or most of us anyway. To have it brought to life on the giant screen is to some unbearable, and to have blame focused on the Jews, is a tragedy in itself, especialky in this tenderbox of a world we are living in. As said before, Mel Gibson said we all killed Jesus, but I am of the opinion that many of us didn't hear that message.

[Katzman]

The film IS anti-semetic.

[Andy D]

For me just too many simplistic views 'the film is this, the film is that'. Just like saying 'We have the right to do this and the right to do that'

Does anyone really have 'God on their side?'

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

We have a friend who was in Korea, a point man with a BAR rifle. He is so anti war and anti government because of it, and anti organized religion, not that he himself is an unbeliever, but he was sorely tested in Korea.

He would be coming in from a mission and the chaplins would be telling a group of 18 year olds they were going to win the battle they were being sent out on in a few mnutes because God was on their side. It angered him, so he said that the only ones coming back were "us athiests." This was said after he had been out freezing, shooting, and running for their lives. He said that God doesn't take sides, that everyone was dying, not just the North Koreans and the Chinese. He was in constant trouble for his attitude and mouth, but they needed his skills, one of which was his ability to smell the barley the Chinese cooked. He knew it and could smell it when no one else could, that and the fact that he was such a good shot, and so strong and brave. He is bothered to this day by that war, and how the men were treated by the brass.


No, most of us know that God doesn't take sides, or the world wouldn't be in the mess it is today. Everyone who had ever been right would have things go their way, and seeing how things have turned out over the centuries, we all know better.

[Andy D]

No, most of us know that God doesn't take sides, or the world wouldn't be in the mess it is today. Everyone who had ever been right would have things go their way, and seeing how things have turned out over the centuries, we all know better.

How many people, Governments and Nations claim that God is on their side? Well too many to be helpful, and the consequences is all too predictable.

So sometimes we need to move beyond God, beyond religion and beyond the 'collective' guilt that we are told is 'mankind's' legacy and that creates so many problems.

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

True, we need to take things into our own hands reasonably, and sensibly, and quit using God in such selfish, and self seeking ways. He must get pretty tired of winning football games, and any other number of trivial pursuits; so tired that when it comes to the worlds attrocities, famines, skirmishes and wars, he is worn out.

How foolish of us to think we shouldn't strive to accomplish a lot of things on our own, instead of leaving it for God to cure. A fair parent doesn't take sides, so think about it.

[Greg]

Andy D said:I am not uncomfortable, but I could ask why are you comfortable with focusing on this issue?

Because with this film, that is the crux of the issue. The church's interpretation of the death of Jesus and the blood libel against the Jews is directly responsible for the disgusting treatment including attempts at outright genocide of Jews at the hands of Christians over the past 2000 years. This movie is a slap at Vatican II and a slap at Jews. It's an interreligious act of aggression.

What historical basis do you base the claims on that you make?

What claims? About the Romans entering Judea? In 66 CE, Judeans began to revolt against the Roman rulers of Judea. The revolt was smashed by the Roman emperors Vespasian and Titus Flavius. The Romans destroyed all but a single wall of the Temple in Jerusalem and killed hundreds of thousands of Jews--many historians put the figure at 1 million. Romans put the survivors to work as slaves which led to the diaspora. This is basic Middle East history. It happened right around the time "The Passion" took place.

Are you familier with the book 'The Holocaust Industry' I have mentioned this in one of my earlier post, and the views that are put forward in this book?

I'll say this once nicely. There is no logical reason to bring up "The Holocaust Industry" or any similar book in a thread about "The Passion of Christ".

In my view one needs to be carfeul not to have one view of any situation, to do this often leads you into the Kindgom of the Blind!

You would do well to practice what you preach, Andy. You seem to kneel to King Blind at times.

For me just too many simplistic views 'the film is this, the film is that'. Just like saying 'We have the right to do this and the right to do that'

As far as I can tell, that means you personally are incapable of reaching conclusions. That's your problem. Not anyone else's.

Saundra Hummer said: after all the stench of the crowd, then stench of death was impossible to impart. The flies, the excrement, the overall degradation was probably even worse than the movie could possibly show.

As I said, tens of thousands of Jews were crucified. If you're going to show what the Romans did in Judea, why not put it into some semblence of historical perspective?

As said before, Mel Gibson said we all killed Jesus, but I am of the opinion that many of us didn't hear that message.

Who cares what Mel Gibson says? I sure didn't kill Jesus. I believe he was a Jew, like many other Jews, who believed strongly in love and in questioning the authority of his time. And why are so many rushing out to see this disgusting film? Why are they letting their kids see this disgusting film?

No, most of us know that God doesn't take sides, or the world wouldn't be in the mess it is today. Everyone who had ever been right would have things go their way, and seeing how things have turned out over the centuries, we all know better

That's cute, but this isn't about G-d's actions. It's about man's actions--specifically making an anti-semitic movie and showing it to millions of people. Throughout history there is one group that is consistently made a scapegoat, and that is Jews. When does the shit end?

[Andy D]

The illusion is that there is one truth, one reality and this is based on a limited perspective. I would suggest you try and read some of the books I have mentoned and the writers that write them. some of which subscribe to the Jewish faith.

Please be brunt and illogical, for this is the Kingdom of the blind, do you know of this book? Look it up by putting the words in Google and then we can have a real discussion and real debate.

As for the rest of your comments, well they are best left in the Kingdom!

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

Lets all calm down here.

I care about whats been said, and done by everyone.

I'm not just talking about the single cross of Jesus, the whole place had to be unbearable, as like you have said, the Romans killed thousands. I am of the opinion that the cruelty, and hoplessness of the place couldn't have been portrayed in a movie, not possible. It could perhaps give a small window in to the scene, but not portray it in its all emcompassing horror. It just isn't possible.

If you are Christain, and follow the teachings of the New Testament, then you believe that Jesus was crucified, if you aren't then you could have any other number of beliefs about this story. I know my Jewish friend is at odds with the New Testiment, she questions it, while her mother tells her to think about it, she knows it just isn't reasonable to think of it in Christian terms.

As far as what Mel Gibson said in the Diane Sawyer interview, she asked him, "Who killed Jesus?" He said "We all did." This is something that the movie doens't show. It shows the Jews being at fault, from what I have seen and read. I am against that depiction, I am not taking his side. I am of the opinion that it will make anti-Semitism worse, but that is just my opinion, and we will have to wait to see, as there is no other way to know for sure.

Of course Jesus was a Jew, and he stayed Jewish with all of the Jewish beliefs according to bibical scholars, he didn't leave the Jewish faith. He had no desire to, according to scholars. You believe he was a Jew, not the massaih, and the Muslims believe he was a prophet. We all have our beliefs and that is fine, there are a lot of people who don't believe any of it and that is fine.

I just think that this movie, which I will never see has started something that isn't good. I feel that it is divisive, and that it will cause probems. Too bad it is this way, but I feel it is going to bring up old hatreds and strengthen them.

In talking about being cute about what God does or doesn't do, that is how I feel, not everything is Gods doings, a lot of it is mans.

[Greg]

Saundra, I agree with much of what you say.

Andy, it's clear you do not want to discuss this movie or anything concrete. All you want to do is whip out your broad paintbrush and make everything a whitewash of moral equivalence to obfuscate historic facts--of which you seem particularly ignorant--and the conclusions that can be drawn from them. The broad brushstroke is a common trick of the New Left, and it's intellectual poison.

You don't know history. That is the first thing you should learn if you hope to understand the world. So go google yourself silly, I have no use for your New Left websites or books. Of course some of them were written by Jews. There is such a variety of opinions among Jews it would make your head spin. Unfortunately, our enemies of the "convert or die" mantra are not so heterogenous or tolerant in their views. And therein lies much of the problem.

This movie should not have been made. The PASSION of Christ was his teaching, his dedication to loving all. Madman mel skipped that part and gave us the most sadistic spectacle imaginable to galvanize Christians and seduce them into his view of how the Church should teach the details of the crucifixion and the events leading to it. Disgusting.

Nikos Kazantzakis--now there is an artist. Mel Gibson is a sadist and an anti-semite, despite what he says to the camera. The man is an actor, after all.

[Simon Weil]

Originally posted by Greg
You don't know history. That is the first thing you should learn if you hope to understand the world. So go google yourself silly, I have no use for your New Left websites or books.

Ahhh, all-knowing Greg. Bane of bulletin boards...

Simon Weil

[Greg]

How are you doing, simon?

[Katzman]

Dear Greg, as I have exhausted my explinations on this subject for the time being (if anyone can be bothered to read back over what I've been saying they will notice I have had to repeat myself due to the provakation of Mr whitewash new leftie numurous times) it is great to read someone tell it as it is, you write well and seem really well informed. However Simon Weil is right to critcise you for assuming anothers ignorance. Andy-D, on other threads has consistantly shown himself to be both informed and conciensious. On this perticular issue though I just dont think he gets the point. This is an alive issue, i.e. one that has real socio-political consequenses now and for potentially a long time into the future and therefore any concepualised moralities that seemingly disalow conclusive points of view at the risk of potentialy offending (political-correctness gone extremist in a cerebral orgie held in honour of that great philisophical oxymoron the universality of subjectivity) is a way too privlaged attitude to hold. God forbid we hold anything as fact, oh lord restrain us from acknowlaging anything as truthful, no even worse, as truthful relative to situation. Mind games for the cowardly. Whilst war, terrorism, greed, hold the future of our world in a vice let us be cerebral, libral, philosophicaly cunundrumed, brain dildoed most of the time, but not always and not now. There are more truths than "I think therefore I am", (or even "There is a thought"), human suffering is truth, and this film is an incitement towards an escilation of suffering, suffering through ignorance, extremism, the dumming down of a truely profound story and anti-semeticism.

Andy-D, do you recognise that there is such a thing as anti-semetism? Now surely you will say yes to this question (only Gibson senior would awnser no), so what is it that causes anti-semitism? In fact what is the most historically continous cause of anti-semetism, in fact the only cause up untill Wagner invented nationalistic anti-sematism? The belief that the Jews killed Christ. Greg rightly points out Vatican II at this point.

Are you too afraid to admit to something being anti-semetic in case it would seem at odds with your anti-Israeli policy towards the Palestinians? For the record I am anti-Israel's actions but equaly can acknowlage an anti-semetic sentiment where there is one. Be brave.

Regards

[Saundra Hummer]

What it all seems to come down to, although we're all seeing it from different vantage points, is that all of us like, and want fairness, and this is what we are striving for. We are all wanting that, just see things differently. What seems fair to one, is anothers poison. It's hard not to let preconceived notions interfere with rational thought.

[Greg]

Katzman, we're on the same page on this one. No doubt about it. You don't like me blasting Andy but you recognize why I did it, and that's good enough for me. Just be careful how much patience you undeservingly give to guys like Andy. I said he was uninformed, but I know he's not stupid. He knows he can express his anti-semitic leanings as an anti-Israeli stance and still appear politically correct. Do you really wonder why discussions of anti-semitism are outside his comfort zone?

Saundra, this is not about you, me, Andy, Katzman, etc. It's bigger than that. Millions of people are seeing this movie. Many of them are uneducated. Many of them are bringing their kids. The diecide is being portrayed as historic fact even though it's not even supported by the Gospels in the way Gibson shows it.

it's a fact that the church absolved Jews of any blame in Jesus' death in the 1960s. It's a fact that Gibson and his father reject that and belong to a sect of the church that renounces Vatican II. Gibson obviously had the blood libel drilled into his little Aussie head as a youth. And now he will be drilling it into the heads of millions who see this sadistic film. Disgusting.

I'm not worried about educated, informed people who check the movie out to evaluate it or hear the Aramaic and Hebrew, or whatever. I'm worried about the message of BLAME, the images of throngs of bloodthirsty Jews cheering and gathering for Jesus' death (which is supported NOWHERE in the Gospels) being graphically depicted in the most disturbing way for uneducated, ill-informed people who will walk away thinking Jews deserve to die for that.

[Saundra Hummer]

Hello everyone.

Read my other posts about this, and you will see I am as much against this movie, and the message it throws about, as much as anyone on this site.

I think it is just as you say, and maybe I am wrong as I haven't seen the movie, and as a rule I wouldn't even weigh in on something I haven't seen, but there has been enough written and shown to make an educated judgement on the matter. I have only seen transcripts of dialog, and clips of parts of it, but I have read everything that has been on my news briefs, news magazines, etc., and to my way of thinking I truly believe this movie adds to the Jews delima.

It was a nun, by the way who started this whole mess, according to a PBS special on religion, and Wagner was influenced by her writings and beliefs. It was her hate filled interpertations of the bible that started the attacks on Jews in Europe. I have done some web searches into this, and although that doesn't make me a bibical scholar or an expert, I beieve I can see the purpose of this movie. and I believe as most of you do, this is an attempt to put out his vision of how and what the church should believe, and to perhaps to even atone for his own sins, as he claims.

I have played devils advocate here on some issues about this movie, and about Mel Gibson, but if he believes even a tiny bit like his father, he has my sympathy, as the man is totally out there in the stratisphere.

I do believe this movie is going to cause problems with some people,and that isn't something that any of us want, those of us with a lick of common sense that is.

[Noj]

As I've said before I find it very strange that there would be anti-Jewish sentiment in a movie about Jesus, the famous Jew. I've always thought of Jews and Christians and Muslims in the same bag. Mind-boggling that some people involved in these sects think killing in the name of God is a good idea or that hating one of the other sects is righteous. The myopia is fascinating, the inability to see beyond ancient texts written in an ancient tongue from an ancient perspective incongruous to the present.

I feel lucky that I have no qualms with any perceived racial/religious group. I respect good people who live with a sense of morality, of love, of treating people fairly, of being just, of doing unto others...

I'm glad Greg is back. :D

[Saundra Hummer]

Glad you feel the way you do Noj, now if the rest of the world would just follow along. Such a state we're all in. it isn't too good for anyone right now.

EKE hasn't posted since the last bomb attack in Spain, and we're all hoping that he is taking a nice vacation with his family.

Did you ever look up Hutton Gibson on google? This is why everyone is so very concerned with this movie. It will explain a lot, go to the JTA thread, and you will see why this movie garnered such attention in the first place.

[Katzman]

And the news starts to fillter in.Police in Naples are investigating posters bearing an anti-semetic message and a picture of actor Jim Caviezel as Jesus in "The Passion of the Christ".
The posters, which appeared on Naples walls after Mel Gibson's film opened in Italy this week, were signed by previously unknown organisations that police said appeared linked with the extreme right wing.
"the posters don't suprise us," a spokesman for the Italy-Israel Associatio told reporters. "It was a given that this film, with its morbid and insistent representation of violence would have rekindled sentiments of prejudice and hatred."

[mickey/lynn]

Greg,

You keep (twice) mentioning that people are taking their children to see this movie, and I assume that this does not sit well with you. Speaking for myself, I discussed this movie with my children and let them know that it was a movie based on Mr. Gibson's ideas, opinions etc..You stated in one of your posts, how as a child (teenager) you viewed pictures of the holocaust etc....In a "teaching" context, I don't see the harm in having teenagers view this film, as long as a discussion takes place and they are given the opportunity to ask questions and have their questions answered.

Yes, I was troubled by my children's reactions to this movie however, after we discussed the film and we went to various websites learning (together) various things about the real "Passion" and what it really means, they (I believe) came away from the movie a little bit more wiser. I know all parents are not going to do that, and some might be really biased against jews, but I think there are some out here like myself who will do the right thing.

Also, I agree with Katzman about Andy. This is one of the first times he and I are not seeing eye to eye on a subject (which is to be expected). Usually he's a bleeding die-hard liberal!!!:wink2:

Seriously, because some people don't view this in the way you think they should Greg, let's not be too hasty to write them off as ignorant. Andy has a heart. He must have had surgery because it's not "bleeding" (at least not on this topic). Glad to see your heart has been repaired Andy!!:laugh:

[Andy D]

Well seems that this subject is creating some discussion.

Greg - I do not deal in absolutes the way you seem to do, and I guess no matter what I say we will have to disagree on this issue. You mention the term ' broad paintbrush' and indeed I take the points you are trying to make.

However you have a way of expressing yourself that appears aggressive and agenda driven. This limits discussion and reduces the debate to 'I have this view and you have that view'. To suggest, as you did, that you have no time or interests in differing opinions is a dangerous position to take.

I will take as a compliment that you think I am part of the New Left, I have always considered myself an old fashioned kind of socialist:wink2:

You mentioned history, and you have expressed you view of history, but history is often about interpretations and differing narratives. Few things are as concrete as you suggest. I have little 'faith' as such, and know enough about history, to know that there exists anti-semetic ideas and some people act on these ideas.

However there are other races, other cultures that have faced their own difficulties, been persecuted over long periods of time, been misrepresented and so on, no race or religious group has any more right to call themselves persecuted or victimised.

You seem to me, based on what you have written, to have a one-sided limited view, to suggest that you have no time for'new left websites and books', to suggest that I 'google' myself silly is worrying. Not because you have the right to say what you say, or that I am concerned about this, but because in order to stop conflict, to understand how people act and think the way they do, you need to understand many differing perspectives.

Now if this is a new left thing then I am one of them. To use terms like 'enemies', to talk with such anger, to boarder on the insulting is something I deal with daily in my work. I respect your right to free-speech and to hold the views you do, I do this is a respectful way, not in an abusive and limited way.

I recently finished reading Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's book 'Hitler's Willing Executioners'. Now this book is about ordinary Germans and the Halocaust, and paints a picture of what can happen when anti-semetic ideas go unchallenged. Is this book one of those that you have no time for?

But, and here is the rub I challenge all ideas that are racist, that discriminate, that lead to abuse and intolerance, no matter what area they are in or what 'people'religion' they involve. To do othewise risk the danger that there is just one type or racism, one type of suffereing a point with the Armenians have made for some time (you make have to look this up in google

:laugh: )

Regards for now

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

I have witnessed tatoo's, concentration camp tatoo's, on young children, one, a boy of about 9 years old in the early 1970's. He was Armenian, and I was incredulous that he would have his identification number on his forearm. This was in the town of Turlock, California. I didn't ask where they were from, but they were Armenian, I just didn't realize the extent of their problems before that time.

There are discriminations all around the globe, in all ethnicities, in every country. It is just that the systematic "Final Solution," and it being state sanctioned is something we all abhor. The terror of this is something we have all studied and learned about, as the enemies of ours at that time were the ones commiting it, we were so relieved to have won that war, as we all had fears of suffering the same fate, or we small children did. Countries around the globe ingrored the plight of the Jews, just as they do now with Africans and others, A stain on every country. I thought after WWII we would never again see such human cruelty, and apathy. How very wrong I was.

Rawanda and the other countries in Africa don't pose a threat to us, and since they are black, we tend to ignore their plight. Our leaders don't believe we have anything to gain by working to end such suffering, and frankly, there isn't much of an outcry from any of us, not any of us here in this country and around the world. Too wrapped up in ourselves.

[Simon Weil]

Originally posted by Katzman
....Wagner invented nationalistic anti-sematism...

Nope, he was important, but no more than that. Plenty of other people had anti-Jewish nationalistic ideas in Germany preceding him. Wagner's antisemitism is a specialist subject of mine.

My online Wagner and the Jews book (http://members.aol.com/wagnerbuch/intro.htm).

Although I don't deal with Wagner's racism, it might be that the composer created the specifically modern form of racial antisemitism when he fused Gobineau's ideas with his own pre-existing antisemitism (in 1881). At any rate, Wagner's circle is commonly regarded as the gateway into Germany for Gobineau's ideas, where they fused with antisemitism. This is one of the core pathways to Hitler. Gobineau was not himself an antisemite.

Off-topic, but my subject.

Simon Weil

[Andy D]

Sandi.

We in the west have often ignored the plight of those countries that have little to offer us. We have often decided which 'suffering', which genocide to get involved with and which suffering to 'honour'.

For example when Indonesia was murdering almost 300,000 people in East Timour we in the west did little about this, choosing instead to honour the then President and the countries strategic position.

I guess what I am trying to say, is that is is dangerous to take a view that one people's suffereing is more worthy of memorial days, apologies, renumeration, special status etc than any other.

Regards

Andy D.

[Katzman]

Simon Weil,

I stand correct on the subject of Wagner, yet is it not true that Wagner, possibly due to his fame as a composer, is often seen as an iconic figure of this nationalisticly fulled anti-semetism even though he was a contributer rather than its inventor?

I also think that an understanding of the history of anti-semetism is imporatant in truly acknowlaging the threat that this film could potentially evoke.

Regards

[Andy D]

The title of this thread is "The Passion of the Christ, a dangerous film"

One of the issues I have with this title is that it assumes that people are influenced by films. In one of my earlier posts I suggested that the jury was out on the idea that childern are influenced by whatch they watch on TV.

So Katzman points to some evidence that people may be reacting to the film. Yet there is no real evidence that this is in fact the case, it is like a teachers thinking that a child has attention problems, the child shows poor attention and the teachers says "There you are I told you so".

It excludes the possibility that the child-teacher relationship may be poor, that the child is not stimulated by the work, poor teaching, parenting issues etc etc. If you have one idea, one thought then nothing else can be considered and we end up with a diagnosis of ADHD with all its implications.

Regards

Andy D.

[Greg]

mickey/lynn said:
You keep (twice) mentioning that people are taking their children to see this movie, and I assume that this does not sit well with you. Speaking for myself, I discussed this movie with my children and let them know that it was a movie based on Mr. Gibson's ideas, opinions etc..

I can appreciate that, but the idea that children are seeing this movie makes me cringe for reasons I tried to articulate.

You stated in one of your posts, how as a child (teenager) you viewed pictures of the holocaust etc....In a "teaching" context, I don't see the harm in having teenagers view this film, as long as a discussion takes place and they are given the opportunity to ask questions and have their questions answered.

Yeah, but I also stated that the Holocaust was recent history and there was an abundance of incontrovertible evidence supporting what I was shown. All that supports the Passion is the Gospels, especially Matthew, which historians see as an oral account, passed from person to person and eventually put into text. There is zero hard evidence that the Gospels are historically accurate. Yet they have been used to affix on Jews the responsibility for Christ's crucifixion. That's a very serious responsibility that we didn't ask for, and it was affixed to us, to our horror and to the doom of millions of us, based solely on Christian teaching and practice. Finally, the Vatican II absolved us. And now here we are again, right back where we started.

I'm sure you made an effort to put the movie in perspective for your children, which I appreciate, but IMO the damage is done. If not for your kids than for many, many others.

Andy D said: Greg - I do not deal in absolutes the way you seem to do,

You absolutely refuse to see the anti-semitism inherent in this film. You absolutely don't want to discuss the reasons it is anti-semitic.

However you have a way of expressing yourself that appears aggressive and agenda driven.

If labeling a film anti-semitic when that film has a message inherently geared toward anti-semitism and if explaining why that label is deserved is aggressive and agenda driven, then mea culpa. I'm happy to appear that way.

This limits discussion and reduces the debate to 'I have this view and you have that view'.

That makes no sense. You're free to discuss whatever you want and you know it damn well. You were asked to articulate the reasons you don't see the film as anti-semitic. You couldnt do it because the film is anti-semitic. It's as simple as that. The logical conclusion is to blame the film if you can't find any redeeming quality to it, not to blame it on stifled discussion. That's a silly cop out on your part.

To suggest, as you did, that you have no time or interests in differing opinions is a dangerous position to take.

First of all, even if you think my position is "dangerous", my position is not being shown to millions of people around the world. Mel Gibson's position is. My position is not the subject of this thread. Mel Gibson's position is. Why are you so easily knocked off topic and washed into a haze of moral equivalency where everything has equal footing and you're incapable of drawing conclusions?

I will take as a compliment that you think I am part of the New Left, I have always considered myself an old fashioned kind of socialist

It's not a compliment and shouldn't be taken as such. The new left are a bunch of pseudo-intellectual radicals posing as liberals who are screwing up the democrat party in this country.

You mentioned history, and you have expressed you view of history, but history is often about interpretations and differing narratives. Few things are as concrete as you suggest.

History is the study of the past using empirical evidence in the written or archeologic record, which--like it or not--supports concrete facts. If you wish to express doubt about certain historical occurences based on inconsistencies or interpretations you have reason to doubt, I for one would be interested in learning SPECIFICALLY what you doubt, and why. That's not what I'm hearing from you. I'm hearing more cop outs and vague excuses to ignore history. That is by definition a position of ignorance on your part. You don't get to ignore history just because you don't like it. Frankly, it seems like you have a psychological problem with authorative accounts--whether it's history or a critique of a movie.

I have little 'faith' as such, and know enough about history, to know that there exists anti-semetic ideas and some people act on these ideas.

Do you realize how tenuous you are making your grasp of history seem?

However there are other races, other cultures that have faced their own difficulties, been persecuted over long periods of time, been misrepresented and so on, no race or religious group has any more right to call themselves persecuted or victimised.

Why do you feel the need to make this point in a thread about this movie? The answer is simple. You wish to minimize and obfuscate the persecution of Jews at the hands of Christians who affixed responsibility for the crucifixion on them. If you have another explanation, let's hear it, but I read you pretty clearly.

You seem to me, based on what you have written, to have a one-sided limited view, to suggest that you have no time for'new left websites and books', to suggest that I 'google' myself silly is worrying.

It's FAR more worrying that a supposedly intelligent person like yourself would be more concerned with me telling you to google yourself silly than with millions of people seeing an inherently anti-semitic film. Your priorities are totally out of whack and you lack any sense of perspective.

Not because you have the right to say what you say, or that I am concerned about this, but because in order to stop conflict, to understand how people act and think the way they do, you need to understand many differing perspectives.

For all you know I've arrived at my conclusions because I've considered many more perspectives--and in more detail--than you.

I recently finished reading Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's book 'Hitler's Willing Executioners'. Now this book is about ordinary Germans and the Halocaust, and paints a picture of what can happen when anti-semetic ideas go unchallenged. Is this book one of those that you have no time for?

No, that's a very important book, but its place in this discussion is not particularly necessary.

But, and here is the rub I challenge all ideas that are racist, that discriminate, that lead to abuse and intolerance, no matter what area they are in or what 'people'religion' they involve.

If that were true,you'd be criticizing this movie as strongly as I and Katzman have. I suspect it's not true at all but just indicative of your status as "legend in your own mind" and delusional "crusader for truth and justice".

[Greg]

Originally posted by Andy D
[B]The title of this thread is "The Passion of the Christ, a dangerous film"
One of the issues I have with this title is that it assumes that people are influenced by films.

That's the least of your "issues". The level of ignorance Andy displays is troubling.

In one of my earlier posts I suggested that the jury was out on the idea that childern are influenced by whatch they watch on TV.

I'll go out on a limb and say that your area of expertise is not child psychology.

So Katzman points to some evidence that people may be reacting to the film. Yet there is no real evidence that this is in fact the case,

You just acknowledged that Katzman points to the evidence. it's real. Pay attention to it, or risk staying in your cesspool of ignorance.

it is like a teachers thinking that a child has attention problems, the child shows poor attention and the teachers says "There you are I told you so".

No, it isn't like that at all.

It excludes the possibility that the child-teacher relationship may be poor, that the child is not stimulated by the work, poor teaching, parenting issues etc etc. If you have one idea, one thought then nothing else can be considered and we end up with a diagnosis of ADHD with all its implications.

Thanks for extending this piss-poor metaphor. It's enough to fill the larest of toilets.

[Seba]

Originally posted by Greg

History is the study of the past using empirical evidence in the written or archeologic record, which--like it or not--supports concrete facts. If you wish to express doubt about certain historical occurences based on inconsistencies or interpretations you have reason to doubt, I for one would be interested in learning SPECIFICALLY what you doubt, and why. That's not what I'm hearing from you. I'm hearing more cop outs and vague excuses to ignore history. That is by definition a position of ignorance on your part. You don't get to ignore history just because you don't like it. Frankly, it seems like you have a psychological problem with authorative accounts--whether it's history or a critique of a movie.
[/B]

Is this the same Greg who continued to deny Israeli atrocities in the Gaza-strip and the Westbank, denied all the footage made by BBC and other independent sources in this matter, who is now teaching others about "interpretation of history"?

[Andy D]

History is the study of the past using empirical evidence in the written or archeologic record, which--like it or not--supports concrete facts. If you wish to express doubt about certain historical occurences based on inconsistencies or interpretations you have reason to doubt, I for one would be interested in learning SPECIFICALLY what you doubt, and why. That's not what I'm hearing from you. I'm hearing more cop outs and vague excuses to ignore history. That is by definition a position of ignorance on your part. You don't get to ignore history just because you don't like it. Frankly, it seems like you have a psychological problem with authorative accounts--whether it's history or a critique of a movie.


Ok I need to go and watch a film with my wife, so I will limit myself to this section of your post.

You are wrong history is not the study of the past using empirical evidence, you could not be further from the truth.

Now a little background, I once taught history to 11-16 years olds, I have a first class honours degree in History, my specialist subject is Russian History , and I share this with you not to brag or gloat, but to discuss your comments with a degree of knowledge.

What the youngsters I taught learned was that history is no longer about 'facts' or 'evidence' is is more concerned with narratives and grounded theory, in other words meaning and context.

There are few 'facts' in history, I am not sure how history is taught in the US or other parts of the world, but hear in the UK it is much more open to question.

Now I will go to see the film with my wife, I find your tone aggressive, but hey I am used to that as a registered and qualified clinical child Psychologist

:wink2:

Regards

Andy D

[Saundra Hummer]

It seems to me that some of these posts are trauma induced reply's, thus the deep seated concern about children seeing this movie, which I am somewhat in agreement with, however some teenagers are able to separate fiction from reality, while they still may be traumatically effected.

We all know movies are works of fantasy, or at least most are, and we still walk out of theaters laughing, in tears, uplifted, or inspired. It will have to do with the maturity of the person viewing the movie, or their gullibility. All films are the same in this matter. Some teenagers are not going to be terribly effected, others definatly will be, and the same will hold true for adults watching this film. I cover my eyes in violent scenes, as I find them disturbing, so I can't even imagine subjecting myself to this film, I would be sitting with my eves covered throughout, to hear people's descriptions of it.

It is just too bad that people love to afix blame to everything, like small children, they can't come to a rational, educated conclusion themselves, they are too easily led. These will be the people that will fall into propaganda traps, they are ripe for it.

I am in agreement that when millions upon millions see it, there will be those that will see the Jews in a very bad light, and then there will be others that will believe that all of mankind is to blame. Not casting the first stone.

[Greg]

Originally posted by Seba
Is this the same Greg who continued to deny Israeli atrocities in the Gaza-strip and the Westbank, denied all the footage made by BBC and other independent sources in this matter, who is now teaching others about "interpretation of history"?

This is the same Greg who was ridiculed for criticizing that same "bastion of accurate reporting", the BBC, for screwing up a story about a weapons inspector so badly that it caused him to commit suicide and caused the responsible reporter, Andrew Gilligan, to admit he had lied, and caused senior BBC officials to apologize and then resign.

If you would still like to place your faith in the BBC and place your ridicule on me after this, you're just plain stupid.

As for the attacks in Jenin (Israel had not yet gone into Gaza when I was previously active on this board--so I believe this is what your diseased mind is trying to recall), even the anti-Israeli UN has had to admit that there was no massacre, that nearly all of the 52 Palestinians killed were militants and that the other casualties were ultimately not Israel's fault because they were there to arrest the terrorists.

What any of this has to do with the movie, is beyond me.

[Simon Weil]

Originally posted by Katzman
Simon Weil,

I stand correct on the subject of Wagner, yet is it not true that Wagner, possibly due to his fame as a composer, is often seen as an iconic figure of this nationalisticly fulled anti-semetism even though he was a contributer rather than its inventor?

Oh, no question that he was symbolically important because of his fame. The whole thing about him and other "high-brow" antisemites in Germany is that they legitimized what might otherwise have been seen as a rather scurrilous prejudice.

There are other possible influences he may have had on the history of antisemitism, but that one seems pretty unarguable.

I also think that an understanding of the history of anti-semetism is imporatant in truly acknowlaging the threat that this film could potentially evoke.

Regards

I think the key point is indeed the aspect of Gibson trying to turn the clock back on the Catholic church's view of the Bible. He wants to remove the liberalization that has occurred since the 60s. Out of this comes the anti-Jewish message of his film, which is largely a return to the Gospels - in particular to the idea of the Jews being responsible for the death of Christ.

So, historically speaking, he's not saying anything new. He's just trying to bring back, for Jews, "the bad old days". But, on a deeper level he's part of that fundamentalist drive you see throughout the world, which wants to bring back "true religion" before the liberalizations.

The trouble is, while I can see him bringing his "old" anti-Jewish message back to the masses, I really can't see the masses paying much attention. This is because, in the Western world, people are terribly aware of the Holocaust. It just does not seem conceivable to me that people will want to be revenged on the Jews as a result of this film (which would certainly have been the case pre-1945), because every sane, responsible Western person knows where that might lead.

What does somewhat concern me is a parallel with Wagner. He brought out his opera "the Mastersingers of Nuremberg" at more or less the same time (1868-9) as he reprinted his despicable (and historically important) antisemitic tract "Judaism in Music". Jews looked at the opera and observed areas which appeared to be illustrations of Wagner's tract - and complained loudly. The result was a cause celebre of German nationalism (The opera is a nationalistic one) with Wagner as the archetypal German vs the dreadful Jews. The opera was actually prevented from appearing in at least one venue for a while. But, in the long run, this was great publicity for Wagner - and did the Jews absolutely no good at all.

See, I remember that - and I think about the way Jewish attacks on Gibson and his film have fueled public interest in the film - and I think that this is one history lesson Jews haven't learnt.

Just because you can complain, doesn't mean you should.
Simon Weil

[Greg]

Simon, I don't think you appreciate the incredible draw of this film. With few exceptions, only one thing is fueling interest in this film--and that is to see a full motion picture about the crucifixion. Christianity is THE religion of the Western world, and to say that the interest in this movie is being fueled by the few of us who speak out against it instead of the by the hundreds of millions who practice christianity and believe the Gospels, is exactly wrong.

"Don't criticize it or more people will see it and it will be your fault." We have heard this type of argument before. It is tantamount to saying that the movie is beyond criticism and that its popularity is the fault of those who try to point out its faults.

That is an inexcusable position, simon.

[Simon Weil]

Well, Gibson himself says that the conflict over the film has been great publicity. And Frank Rich wrote an article wondering if all the attacks weren't playing in Gibson's hands. It's not as though I'm making that position up. So, with my specialist knowledge I'm drawing a parallel to Wagner.

Complaints can have bad results.

Simon Weil

[edit: There's a parallel in the Jazz world, with Marsalis - who just loves conflict, thrives on it, eats it up.]

[Greg]

Does Gibson also think he's more popular than Christ, or the controversies more alluring than the Gospels? He can't understand that people would be thronging to see this sadistic spectacle regardless?

Really Simon, you shouldn't hide behind Gibson. He's vastly underestimating the draw of this film, and so are you. What percentage of the viewing audience even knows who Gibson is, or is familiar with the criticisms? I doubt it's more than 5% at the very most.

I'd be more inclined to chalk it up to Christian social groups and churches themselves that mention the movie to their members. Many of these groups go on "field trips" to see it. I can see making an argument that these groups are contributing to the enormous success of the movie. That seems logical to me.

[Saundra Hummer]

Many of these churches that Gibson gave out the film to, and then sold blocks of tickets to, or so I have read, are the same churches that teach you not to have wordly friends, even in your own family, and that the Jews did kill Christ. These are also the church groups that believe that the Catholic church, and I am quoting here, is the "Whore of Babylon." The evil in the world that will bring the end of the earth. These are the ones he pandered to, insuring the success of his film, hoping all the while for converts, or so I believe.

His plans have worked, and now it is a waiting game as to it's over all success, and how people will react to this biased message.

I do think that people have a right to be upset with the messages this film is espousing as Gospel, I am not Jewish, and I don't like what I am hearing and seeing. I don't like for someone to try and change my belief system for their own. I don't like to see a group being targeted as the only ones responsible for what is happening and what has happened in the world.

[Simon Weil]

Originally posted by Saundra Hummer
[Gibson's] plans have worked, and now it is a waiting game as to it's over all success, and how people will react to this biased message.

Right. I think one thing that is going to happen, though maybe not what you're thinking about, is that Hollywood are going to wake up to the money-making possibilities of "Christian" films.

So, we'll see some more - and, in all probability, with differing and rather more acceptable messages. Likely one will get a whole variety. It may well end up as a kind of debate about Christianity via film.

I do think that people have a right to be upset with the messages this film is espousing as Gospel, I am not Jewish, and I don't like what I am hearing and seeing. I don't like for someone to try and change my belief system for their own. I don't like to see a group being targeted as the only ones responsible for what is happening and what has happened in the world.

It's not just the right, it's a perfectly normal, human reaction for Jews to be upset at Gibson's film and his shenanigans. I'm upset, and angry. It is simply an instinct, in the end, that tells me to let this one go.

It says it'll work out.

Simon Weil

[Saundra Hummer]

Thank you Simon.

Sometimes I feel that I am becoming too radical about this whole thing, but it is upsetting for me to think about all of the possibilities and the reasons.

I have felt the arrows of discrimination, and it isn't plesant, not at all, and seeing what I understand to be manipulation by someone who should be more responsible, is terribly disturbing, even though he denies doing what we believe he has done, and that is place blame.

[Greg]

I just saw the results of a poll: 19% of people who hadn't seen Gibson's Passion thought Jews were responsible. But 36% of the people who had seen it thought Jews were responsible for Christ's death.

Not good.

http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0301g.jpg

http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1061059770539_2003/08/18/passiongibson,0.jpg

[Katzman]

I look forward to Holywoods response, Owen Wilson is Noah, J-Lo is the penetant Magdalin. After Holywood socioty's fad for Cabalism I can just see all those A-list stars fitting in their Anchient Arameic coaching sessions in between pilaties and trips to the Atkins diet food store.

Seriously though, I agree with Simon Weil that there will probably be a response in the form of another film comming out of Holywood and that the chances are that it will promote "differing and more acceptable" accounts of the film.

However we are likely to see "The Reserection of The Christ", before anything else because I belive Gibson has already planned it's production. Any hypothesi on how he will treat this subject matter? Will the descent into Limbo be shown? And if so will Christ's suffering forefathers (Jews), who he has come to free, be depicted gracefully? The theological aspects of the Christian message will undoubtably have to be engaged more than in the present film, will Gibson find ways of distorting that part of the story into his subjective brand of sideline Christianity or what?

Regards

[clifton]

It's too early to tell if Mel's film wil have an appreciable impact on worldwide anti-Semitism. However, one thing's for sure. Mel Gibson is laughing all the way to the bank.

[Wombat Seedcake]

I don't give a monkeys about christianity, Islam and any other organised religion. Along with unregulated free market capitalism it is one of the great evils of the world. I stress the word ORGANISED. I've no beef with faith but religious hierarchies tend to be corrupt and corruting, spewing out their poisonous propaganda.

Anyway. back to 'The Passion'. Given that that hack Gibson has made 2 films distorting history - 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' - I make a fair guess that 'Passion' is based on loose assumptions patched up with a few pieces of 10th hand history.

[Andy D]

Distortion of history, has in most cases been the way that Hollywood and other makers of films have gone. Few people 'read between the lines' or question what tyhey see, what few radical film makers there are find it hard to get their films made and then get them seen.

Take for example Ken Loach, who I admire as a film maker. His films have consistantly tried to challenge orthodox views of history, be that political or social. How many people do you think have seen his films or could debate some of the issues he tries to raise?

The vast majority of the film making industry, like the music industry is 'organised' and serves the interest of a few. Try listening to Billy Bragg on the Radio, and you will be hard pressed to find his kind or any other kind of radical music.

Unless people challenge the orthodoxy, and their own ideas and beliefs or challenge the way that we are 'fed' what is good film or good music, we will end up in somekind of chomsky type nightmare.

Regards

Andy D.

[Zaggie Z]

*Head spins*
I see it's impossible to jump into the middle of a thread unless you want to read pages and pages of essays before you get the gyst. I have just browsed the last five pages (and it took me fifteen minutes to do so, just browsing).
I don't see what the big deal is, really. Isn't it just another movie? You can come up with movies about any subject (or religion) under the sun (ranging from soap operas to shows like "Queer Eye on the Straight Guy" to triple-X movies), and the liberals smile and call it tolerance; but you come up with a Christian movie and the world goes crazy. I saw the film a couple of months ago with my church, and I really don't think Mel had ulterior motives in filming it... I thought his intention was to produce a film that came as close to the original story as possible, to help us see what happened. Humans are visual people. We can read all we want, but sometimes it takes seeing what we read to make it seem real. I have read the story of the crucifixion many, many times, but seeing it on film helped me to really understand how serious it was. I always took it for-granted because it didn't seem real as long as I read it. And no, the movie was not 100% accurate, but what did you expect from humans? Perfection?
I personally think the movie was a great depiction, and it made me stop and think about some things. But what do I know? I'm just a "kid". I'll just return to my innocent little world of naïveté. :D

Ooh, and before I leave, I found something interesting:

In his Rules of Engagement thread, xricci said:
All About Jazz prides itself on being the web's best jazz music resource. However, in consideration of current international events, AAJ will temporarily allow discussion of political topics in this forum.

All we ask is that you please follow two simple rules when engaging in discussions of this type: One, treat your fellow board members with respect.
And two, keep your comments civil by refraining from name-calling and finger-pointing.

Religious topics remain off limits and any threads about religion will be deleted.

Please help us make this work, and thanks for participating.

[Noj]

Don't just browse--read the whole thread.

[Zaggie Z]

:eek: That would take at least an hour and a half... EEP! :laugh:
Is there something I missed somewhere?

[Zaggie Z]

Grrrr. Fine. I'll read it tonight when I'll have the time. :rolleyes:
Gotta get back to school now.

[Simon Weil]

Originally posted by Zaggie Z
...Humans are visual people. We can read all we want, but sometimes it takes seeing what we read to make it seem real. I have read the story of the crucifixion many, many times, but seeing it on film helped me to really understand how serious it was.[/COLOR] [/B]

Actually, that's kind of depressing - in that the visual approach was the one taken in the Middle Ages, when people were illiterate. Icons, cathedrals, stained glass windows etc.. I'm quite visual myself, so I can understand the attraction. But it's a one way thing, looking at visuals.

It's nice to be able to answer back.

Simon Weil

[Zaggie Z]

Grrr... I sat down and faithfully read the first two pages, but I'm outta time for the night. Just so ya'll know though, I did make an honest effort. :p

[Katzman]

Dear Zaggie Z, it is primarilly not whether it is accurate or not that bother me about this film, it is the reprecusions that I feel could ensue and it is this that I find irresponsible in such a film.

The main reprocusions I am uneasy with are as follows;

A dumming down of a story of far more theological beauty and commpassion to one that dwells on the suffering only, this could inspire and sustain a onesided and extremist approach to Christianity, enbodied by the Christian right wing, that I find lacking in open mindedness and thus true compassion, and which I feel is a strong motivational force in the ignorant, bullish and self assured manner in which the republican government has handled world affairs lately.

Anti-semitism...read the past posts.

Furthermore I think it is in bad taste to treat this subject matter with such 'realism' in the medium of cinema. Theologically I think it flirts with the sacraligious in that one should not have false idols, religious works of art should not be thought of as 'it is as it was' rather they should be guides to understanding the subject matter. Artisticlly, it lacks the interesting psychological nuances that modern culture has to offer and that would suit this subject matter perfectly. How would Tarkofsy directed this subjectmatter? What would Samuel Becket's screen play of it be like? All in all for a high subject matter I do not belive a peice of high art has been created to hounor it.

[clifton]

I've let this thread stay open. Generally the level of civility has been very high. . .Thanks, people. Katzman has explained his point of view most thoughtfully, and I haven't seen too many attacks on religious doctrine. All I ask is that we keep things that way.