M-15 - Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ"

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Actor Mel Gibson has recently been making a movie about the last hours of Jesus's life, titled "The Passion." Gibson is of a very conservatice Catholic sect that rejects the modernizations of the Catholic Church's Second Vatican Council that de-Latinized mass, among other things. This movie, which Gibson paid much of out of his own pocket but can not find a major distributor due to controversy, has been called anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, historically inaccurate, inflamatory, and on and on. The major criticism is as follows, from an article in The New Republic (it's extremely long but fascinating, it cannot be linked to, so I put it here in its entirety, read as much as you like):

Mel Gibson's newest historical drama, on the death of Jesus Christ, is not anti-Semitic. So complete is his commitment to historical authenticity that he has eschewed subtitles, and will tell his story entirely in its original ancient languages, Aramaic and Latin. Gibson bankrolled the entirety of his forthcoming film, and he co-wrote the script; but the Holy Spirit directed it. "The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film," Gibson has recounted when asked about The Passion. "I was just directing traffic." Unfortunately, a group of Catholic and Jewish scholars, alert to Gibson's effort, engaged the services of a mole, ... illegally obtained a copy of the script, and then began to pressure Gibson to revise his story to conform to their own ideas about history and theology. Gibson's lawyers quashed their attempted extortion, however. The scholars withdrew their criticisms. And Mel's movie, in various private screenings, has already begun to move hearts and minds.*

All the sentences above are culled from recent articles in assorted media--The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, NewsMax.com, Zenit, Religion News Service, the New York Daily News, Australia's Sun-Herald. Some of the statements are true. Gibson did co-write the script. His company, Icon, did produce it. His attorney did accuse critics of attempting extortion. And at least one viewer at a private screening in June, moved to tears and prayer, has called the film "a miracle." Whether the Holy Ghost helped out during the shoot I cannot say. All the other statements, I do know, are false.*

I began worrying about Gibson's movie back in March, when The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times ran their stories. The piece in the Journal rhapsodized about Gibson's religious faith as well as about his ardent commitment to his vision: a graphic exploration of the suffering, the torture, and the death of Jesus. The script would draw not only on the Gospels, the article reported, but also on visions of Christ's Passion received and written up by two seventeenth-century nuns. Gibson, the Journal revealed, was struggling to re-capture historical reality both visually (the gore, the pain) and aurally. Ancient languages, no subtitles: this was "a point of honor for Mr. Gibson." His reason was simple. "This is what was spoken at the time," he explained.*

But something did not add up. To depict a first-century event by drawing on visionary writings composed almost two millennia later makes no sense at all: one might as well try to reconstruct ancient armor by peering at Bruegel. And while Aramaic was indeed the daily language of ancient Jews in Galilee and Judea, Latin would scarcely have figured at all. When the Jewish high priest and the Roman prefect spoke to each other, they would have used Greek, which was the English of antiquity. And Pilate's troops, employees of Rome, were not "Romans." They were Greek-speaking local gentiles on the imperial payroll. Gibson's pious evocations of historicity rang more than a little hollow. How much homework had he actually done?*

Then The New York Times Magazine published a profile of Hutton Gibson, the actor's father. He is what modern Catholics politely term a "traditionalist." Hutton Gibson considers the current papacy to be illegitimate. Vatican II--the Roman Church council in 1965 that, inter alia, changed liturgical language from Latin to spoken vernaculars, and expressed as a theological point of principle that all Jews everywhere could not be held culpable for the death of Jesus--he dismisses as a coup pulled off by Freemasons and Jews. He is also given to idiosyncrasy about the Holocaust (he believes that it never happened) and about September 11 (he believes that Al Qaeda was not involved). *

The father's views, the article properly noted, cannot simply be imputed to the son. But the Times also noted that the son has aired his own contempt for the Vatican, and has generously financed and very visibly endorsed assorted "traditionalist" endeavors. And now he is committed to making this graphically violent film called The Passion. In light of the historical connection between the charge of Christ-killing and Christian anti-Jewish violence, might the film upset Jews? "It may," Gibson conceded. "It's not meant to. It's meant just to tell the truth."*

You do not have to be Jewish to find anti-Semitism alarming and morally repulsive. Plenty of non-Jews--Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist--repudiate anti-Semitism and condemn it. But it is worth remembering that Catholics have an additional reason to combat anti-Semitism. It is that popes and bishops, in plenum councils, have issued official ("magisterial") teachings against it. Anti-Semitism violates magisterial instruction touching on biblical interpretation, on the theological significance of Christ's sacrifice, and on Catholic-Jewish relations. *

And so, within two weeks of the appearance of these articles, Icon was contacted by Eugene Fisher, associate director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Fisher's counterpart at the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Eugene Korn, also weighed in. They assembled an ad hoc group of professors-- four Catholics, two Jews, all scholars of the New Testament--to review the script together with Fisher and Korn, who themselves hold doctorates. Shortly thereafter, at their invitation, I also joined the group. *

On March 25, the day before they invited me on board, Fisher and Korn exchanged communications with one William Fulco, S.J., who teaches in the department of classics and archaeology at Loyola Marymount University, a Jesuit institution in Los Angeles. He had served as Gibson's librettist, translating the script from English into Aramaic and Latin. His intimacy with the script was perhaps the reason that he assumed, or was assigned, his role; for as long as the dialogue lasted, Fulco was the main contact on the Icon side.*

Fisher and Korn had faxed Fulco two documents on criteria for evaluating dramatizations of Jesus's Passion, one issued by the USCCB in 1988, the second produced jointly by the USCCB and the ADL in 2001. In response, Fulco thanked them, and assured both men that the script was devoid of any hint of antiJewishness. In fact, he claimed, it was "totally in accord with the [USCCB/ADL] documents." Fulco's struggles with the translation, he says in this e-mail, had engraved the script in his memory. ("I know [it] almost backwards.") Shooting had concluded, Fulco said, only the prior week. Fulco then added two points of information relevant to future events--that he was "preparing accurate subtitles" (what had happened to Gibson's "point of honor"?) and that "the film follows the script quite faithfully." (Since the reporter from The Wall Street Journal had mentioned seeing "a first look at a rough cut of the film," it must have been substantially assembled before March 7.)*

A few weeks later, on April 14, Fisher wrote to the group of scholars and to another USCCB officer: "I have just received the good news that we will receive the script for our analysis and comment within the next couple of days." The scholars had to promise confidentiality: we could not circulate the script outside of our group, "though of course your comments can be public." On April 17, Fisher informed Fulco that he had received the script and had sent copies out to the scholars. We received them and read them over Easter weekend. *

The whole group heard again from Fisher on April 25. "Gibson called me last night," Fisher began. "He had with him McEveety [another Icon producer] and Fulco." Gibson said that he wanted Fisher to convey to the scholars that he does not share his father's views, that some of his best friends are Jewish, that he is sensitive to anti-Semitism and opposed to it. "As an Irish Catholic Australian," wrote Fisher in his e-mail, Gibson "knows more than a bit about religious and social prejudice and [he] relates to Jews as fellow sufferers from it.... He's open to what we have to say, but still a bit cautious." At this point Fisher still thought that we could work with Gibson to try to improve his film.*

We already knew that Gibson's efforts to be "as truthful as possible" (his own words in the Times) would be frustrated by the best sources that he had to draw on, namely, the Gospels themselves. Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, whose texts were composed in Greek between 70 C.E. and 100 C.E., differ significantly on matters of fact. In Mark, Jesus's last meal is a Passover seder; in John, Jesus is dead before the seder begins. Mark and Matthew feature two night "trials" before a full Jewish court, and a dramatic charge of "blasphemy" from the high priest. Luke has only a single trial, early in the morning, and no high priest. John lacks this Jewish trial scene entirely. The release of Barabbas is a "Roman custom" in Mark, a "Jewish custom" in John. Between the four evangelists, Jesus speaks three different last lines from the cross. And the resurrection stories vary even more. *

The evangelists wrote some forty to seventy years after Jesus's execution. Their literary problems are compounded by historical ones: it is difficult to reconstruct, from their stories, why Jesus was crucified at all. If the priests in Jerusalem had wanted him dead, Jesus could have been privately murdered or killed offstage. If the priests had wanted him killed but were constrained from arranging this themselves, they could have asked Pilate to do the job. If the Roman prefect had simply been doing a favor for the priests, he could easily have arranged Jesus's death by any of the considerable means at his disposal (assassination, murder in prison, and so on). *

The fact that Jesus was publicly executed by the method of crucifixion can only mean that Rome wanted him dead: Rome alone had the sovereign authority to crucify. Moreover, the point of a public execution, as opposed to a private murder, was to communicate a message. Crucifixion itself implies that Pilate was concerned about sedition. Jesus's death on the cross was Pilate's way of telling Jerusalem's Jews, who had gathered in the holy city for the paschal holiday, to desist from any thought of rebellion. The Gospel writers, each in his own way, introduce priestly initiative to apologize for Roman fiat, and the evidence suggests that the priests must have been somehow involved. But the historical fact behind the Passion narratives--Jesus's death on a cross--points to a primarily Roman agenda.*

Moderns who wish to render artistically something of the Gospel stories have several options. Bach and Pasolini focused on single Gospels, thereby sparing themselves the chore of sorting through and deciding between their differing traditions. Kazantzakis and Scorsese chose instead to select, to blend, and to adapt themes from all the Gospels to create a modern story. But Gibson, by so vociferously insisting that he was committed both to the Gospel narratives and to "historical accuracy" (hence his much-trumpeted use of Aramaic and--oops--Latin), had put himself in an interesting bind. *

The script, when we got it, shocked us. Nothing of Gibson's published remarks, or of Fulco's and Gibson's private assurances, had prepared us for what we saw. Each scholar, independent of the others, wrote his or her own comments on the document. We then boiled them down, bulleted our points, and made the whole discussion easy to digest. The first section of our report explained the historical connection between passion plays and the slaughter of European Jews, the dress rehearsals for the Shoah. Then we summarized our responses to the script. We pinpointed its historical errors and--again, since Gibson has so trumpeted his own Catholicism--its deviations from magisterial principles of biblical interpretation. We concluded with general recommendations for certain changes in the script. Four short appendices--two historical, two directly script-related--traversed this same terrain from different directions. A final appendix provided excerpts from official Catholic teaching.Receiving criticism is never easy. As teachers and as scholars, who regularly give and get criticism, we knew this. We also knew that we were asking Gibson to revise his script substantially. We knew that we were working against his enthusiasm, his utter lack of knowledge, and his investment of time and money. We pinned our hopes on his avowed interest in historicity, on his evident willingness to hear what we had to say, and on his decency. In retrospect, we also functioned with a naïveté that is peculiar to educators: the belief that, once an error is made plain, a person will prefer the truth. *

Fulco knew by April 27 what the substance of our response had been: Fisher had already communicated privately with him. By May 2, we had our eighteen-page report assembled. Fisher and Korn co-wrote the cover letter on USCCB stationery, and sent the report to Icon by May 5. On May 9, members of the group received our copies. We waited. Icon was silent. When Korn phoned Fulco on May 12 to get his sense of the report, Fulco declined to share his views. He did mention that he, Gibson, and other Icon executives were scheduled to meet the following day. More silence.*

Meanwhile, disturbances began to accrue. After a story about Gibson's movie ran in the Los Angeles Times, one of the group's members, Mary Boys, S.N.J.M., received "three vicious letters filled with personal attacks and anti-Semitic drivel." (Boys is a chaired professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York, an adviser on ecumenical affairs to the USCCB, a member of the Catholic Biblical Association, and a tireless worker in the area of Catholic-Jewish relations. She knows anti-Semitic drivel when she sees it.) At the same time, another member of the scholars group, Father John Pawlikowski, O.S.M., professor of social ethics at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, mentioned an unhappy encounter that a friend of his--like Fulco, a professor at Loyola Marymount--had had with other Jesuits following Loyola's commencement ceremonies on May 11. On that day, Gibson had received an honorary doctorate. These Jesuits informed Pawlikowski's colleague that "Father Fulco has written a beautiful script; how could we possibly attack him? How could anyone criticize the story of the Passion? They were all aware of our report, so Fulco is obviously spreading the word." *

We were surprised: we had understood that, for the time being, our report, like Gibson's script, was meant to be kept between us and Icon. "They"--Fulco, Gibson, and company--"are simply going to discredit us," Pawlikowski concluded. On May 16, the truth of his words, and the reasons for Icon's silence, became clear. On that date, Fisher, Korn, the ADL, and the USCCB received a letter from Gibson's attorney. Dated May 9, written within days of Icon's receipt of our report, the letter had sat for a week while we waited for their response, and Gibson collected his degree, and Fulco avoided Korn, and the Icon executives and Fulco conferred. *

"As you are fully aware, you are in possession of property stolen from Icon, namely a draft of the screenplay for the Picture," the letter began. "At no time did Mr. Gibson authorize the release of this material to you or to any other third party for dissemination to you." The lawyering went on for another page: "You have admitted that you came into possession of this stolen property by means that are illegal." "You are now attempting to force my clients to alter the screenplay to the Picture to suit your own religious views." Our side was threatening to discredit the film, and to intimidate Gibson. ("This act is itself illegal--it is called extortion.") All scripts were to be returned by 5:00 p.m. on May 13. (Poor organization, since this letter was faxed three days after its own deadline.) Court orders, lawsuits, reserved rights and remedies, and all sorts of terrible consequences might and could and would follow. Very truly yours, et cetera.*

"Gibson, Fulco and McEveety were all on the phone with me well before," Fisher wrote to me on May 20. "They knew we had the script, as they had known for some time, and did not ask for it back." Icon's new claim also made nonsense of the earlier condition of confidentiality to which we had assented before seeing the screenplay: who else would have required that? No matter. Lawyers were in the saddle; reason was dying. *

Then, on May 30, the spin cycle formally kicked in. Zenit, a Catholic news service based in Rome, picked up an earlier article in the Denver Catholic Register written by Archbishop Charles Chaput in defense of the film. Chaput evidently felt that "a film of sincere faith" should not be charged with potentially stirring up anti-Semitism. "Between a decent man and his critics," Chaput continued, "I'll choose the decent man every time--until the evidence shows otherwise." (Icon arranged for a subtitled version of Gibson's film to be shown at a private screening in Colorado Springs the last week of June. I await with interest the archbishop's response.)*

Zenit embedded Chaput's remarks, surprisingly, within a larger and detailed review of our supposedly confidential report. It repeated our criticisms (without, of course, addressing them), and then quoted what it deemed our "central complaint," namely, that Gibson's "graphic movie" could "re-awaken the very anti-Semitic attitudes that we have devoted our careers to combating." Zenit prefaced its report of our concern by singling out for mention one member of our group, Amy Jill Levine. The reporter had gone to her website and indignantly pulled one of her selfdescriptions: "a Yankee Jewish feminist." (Lest Levine's remark be misunderstood, let the record state that she was born in New Bedford, Massachusetts and spends her summers grieving for the Red Sox.) Levine is a chaired professor of New Testament studies at Vanderbilt's divinity school and the author of prize-winning studies on early Judaism, Christian origins, and the Gospel of Matthew. Still, nothing in particular distinguished her from the rest of us except, perhaps, the humor of her self-description and her recognizably Jewish name.*

Someone at Icon had clearly leaked our report to Zenit--"a pre-emptive, ad hominem attack," Fisher observed to the USCCB, "to discredit the scholarship of the group." Icon's lawyers focused on the Bishops Conference. Mark Chopko, general counsel for the USCCB, finally sent a formal letter to the scholars on June 9 in which he repeated Icon's assertion that we had obtained the screenplay without permission. Chopko also relayed what has since become an official trope of the Icon spin: "The draft of the screenplay is not what the final film will contain." *

These two assertions--that the script was purloined, and that the final film is quite different from the script--have been endlessly repeated in numerous follow-up stories in Reuters, the New York Daily News, and elsewhere. NewsMax.com even had the chutzpah to insinuate that the scholars had leaked their own "supposedly confidential report" to the news media. And disinformation likewise abounds. The Religion News Service claimed that the "group of scholars ... has withdrawn its criticisms." We have not. We stand by them. The report in Reuters suggested that the film's potential anti-Semitism concerned the Jews, while the violation of church teaching concerned the Catholics. This, too, is false. The Catholics feel even greater urgency about its anti-Semitism, because the ethical issue for them is so clear. Jews are the objects of anti-Semitism, but Catholics and other Christians, inspired by Gibson's movie, could well become its agents. (Indeed, on the evidence of the anti-Semitic hate mail that we have all received since being named as critics of Gibson's screenplay, this response is already in play.) *

Gibson has continued to speak earnestly of his film as "conforming" to the New Testament. Unless he ditched the script with which he was working as late as March, wrote an almost entirely new one, re-assembled his cast, re-shot his movie, and then edited it in time to be screened in June, this statement, too, must be false. Six pages of our report lay out for him exactly those places where he not only misreads but actually contravenes material given in the Gospels. And his historical mistakes, no less profound, are spelled out for him there, too. *
In light of Gibson's and Icon's contact with Fisher prior to receiving our report, their first assertion--that we were working with a stolen script--is at least disingenuous. Gibson himself may not have formally "authorized" our reviewing his screenplay. But he certainly knew what we were doing. He had cleared Fulco to function as the point man. And, through Fisher, he had been in contact with us. Also, the initial condition of confidentiality could only have come from his side. Icon did not decide that the script had been "stolen" until they learned of our response and did not like it. *

The second assertion of Gibson's company--that the film, which of course we have not seen, does not follow the screenplay, which we have seen--also seems simply false. A rough cut already existed before March 7, when the Journal's reporter viewed it. Shortly thereafter, on March 25, Fulco--who is well positioned to know--stated plainly that "the film follows the script quite faithfully." And Gibson's and Icon's knowledge that we were reviewing the screenplay counts against their second claim also. Gibson had asked Fisher on April 24 to communicate on his behalf with our group. Why would he be so concerned with our evaluation if he knew that what we were evaluating bore so little resemblance to his actual film? *

Finally, details of the film as reviewed by the insider-fan on June 26 conform exactly, alas, to what we had seen in the script. Satan inciting the executioners at their task; "a vicious riot of frenzied hatred between Romans and Jews with the Savior [en route to Golgotha] on the ground in the middle of it getting it from both sides"; the post-crucifixion Mary-and-Jesus pietà--no such scenes exist in the Gospels. But they are all in the screenplay that we saw.*

That script--and, on the evidence, the film--presents neither a true rendition of the Gospel stories nor a historically accurate account of what could have happened in Jerusalem, on Passover, when Pilate was prefect and Caiaphas was high priest. Instead Gibson will apparently release what Christopher Noxon, in his article for the Times, had correctly described already in March: "a big-budget dramatization of key points of traditionalist theology." The true historical framing of Gibson's script is neither early first-century Judea (where Jesus of Nazareth died) nor the late first-century Mediterranean diaspora (where the evangelists composed their Gospels). It is post-medieval Roman Catholic Europe. Fulco could have spared himself a lot of trouble and just put the entire script into Latin. Not pagan Roman Latin, but Christian Roman Latin. For that is the true language of Gibson's story. *

What happens now? Chopko, the USCCB general counsel, formally notified Icon of the bishops' regrets "that this situation has occurred, and offer our apologies." On June 11, the USCCB issued a statement clarifying its official relationship to our report. The bishops knew what we were doing (Fisher, an officer for this group, had informed them), but the plenum group had not "established, authorized, reviewed, or approved the report written by its members." This is absolutely true. Fisher, together with Korn, had convened us. We worked as independent scholars, though four of us also have formal connections with the USCCB. *

Those four of us have posted a review of these events on the Boston College website. We have also posted there an analysis of the mystical writings of Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774- 1824), one of the visionary nuns whose writings Gibson used for his script. Emmerich wrote in her diary that she had "seen" the high priest ordering the cross to be made in the courtyard of the Temple itself. The high priest's servants, in her visions, bribe Jerusalem's population to assemble in the Temple at night to demand Jesus's death; they even tip the Roman executioners. Emmerich's Pilate criticizes the high priests for their physical abuse of Jesus, but finally he consents to crucify him, because he fears that the high priest wants to start a revolt against Rome. And so on. *

Emmerich was not writing history. She was having visions. But--as The Wall Street Journal, the film's unofficial website, and numerous news articles since have all mentioned--Gibson used Emmerich's fantasies for his supposedly "historical" script. Since the Boston College posting has brought this piece of the story forward, Paul Lauer, Icon's director of marketing, has denied that Gibson used Emmerich's writings. But he had: the nun's lurid images figured prominently in the version of the screenplay that we read and that Gibson was concerned about as recently as April 24.*

Icon's publicist, Alan Nierob, has spun the communications from the USCCB as if the bishops had recanted the project entirely. They have not. Both Chopko and the conference affirm the USCCB's commitment to reviewing the film. The conference's statement of June 11 closes by referring to the importance and the sensitivity of dramatizations of the Passion. It directs readers to its own published guidelines for such, "reminding Catholics that the correct presentation of the Gospel accounts of the Passion and death of Jesus Christ do not support anti-Semitism." *

Monsignor Francis Maniscalo, the memo's author, concludes by naming further publications assembled by the bishops. These instruct the church on the Shoah, on Catholic remembrance of the Holocaust, and on Catholic preaching about Jews and Judaism. "The Conference," Maniscalo closes, "reserves its right to review and comment on this and all other films." Hutton Gibson might disregard these men as the servants of Freemasons and Jews, but his son will doubtless be hearing from them again. I hope that they bring to their eventual review of this unfortunate film the full weight of their unique moral authority.*

Steve McEveety, the Icon producer, has reiterated that Gibson's film "has not even been completed." The release date seems set for next spring. That still gives Gibson lots of time to work on it, and to address its most egregious aspects. Compelled by whatever combination of individual temperament and commercial self-interest to repudiate the scholars' report, he can still avail himself of it. *

The prognosis does not look good. While he has continued to insist upon his personal piety and his commitment to historical truth-telling, Gibson has just executed what looks like a very cynical marketing end-run. As The Washington Times reported on July 7, Gibson "is shopping his film to a more receptive audience: evangelical Christians, conservative Catholics, and Orthodox Jews." Orthodox Jews, I can say with authority, tend to know next to nothing about the Gospels (unless, of course, they are scholars of the field). Conservative Catholics are Gibson's set-point to begin with. But evangelical Christians, in my experience, know their Scriptures very, very well. Their biblical literacy may yet cause Icon's spinmeisters to stumble. I certainly hope so.*

Anti-Semitism is not the problem in America that it is in the rest of the world. (The hateful e-mails that we have received have been balanced by others, from church leaders of inter-faith efforts across the country, expressing their support and their concern.) But I shudder to think how The Passion will play once its subtitles shift from English to Polish, or Spanish, or French, or Russian. When violence breaks out, Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to.

This criticism unleashed even more criticism. The Anti-Defamation League has gotten involved, the makers of "The Passion" have disputed the charges, The Pope has approved (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=598&e=4&u=/nm/pope_film_dc) of the film, Christians from all over have reported being moved by the movie, and on and on. The controversy continues.

What do you think of "The Passion," from what you know about it?

If you owned a movie theater, would you show it? Why?

What do you think the result of the movie would be on anti-Semitism?

[Midnightsfire]

*shrugs* An movie adaptation of someone's interpretation of a translation of a dubious figure who's actions are still debatable.

Considering that in every translation/interpretation Jesus is Jewish, I hardly think anti-semitism should be an issue.

[Wab]

The anti-Semitism got entangled partly because Mel's dad is a Holocaust denier.

[daniel4hp]

What do you think of "The Passion," from what you know about it?
- From what I've heard about it, I approve. I have not read anything about it that makes me think that it will conflict with my personal views, so I will wait until I see it before passing judgement. I might not like it, but I have not seen anything to make me think this likely.

If you owned a movie theater, would you show it? Why?
- Yes, I would, simply because I think there are people who are going to want to see it. I don't think a movie theater is accountable for the content of the films it shows, so I see no reason not to show it. It would probably be based on demand. There might be some complaints, but as long as peeople would be interested in seeing it, I'd show it.

What do you think the result of the movie would be on anti-Semitism?
- I will have to see the movie before I decide whether I consider it anti-semetic. Even if the movie is anti-semitic, I don't think this will have huge impact on antisemitism in general. There are many people who agree with Gibson's view that the Jews are at least partially responsible for Jesus' death, so simply putting this in a movie shouldn't change to much.

[swishandflick]

What do you think of "The Passion," from what you know about it?
I think that it is an adaptation of a historical figure. I think that for some it could also be a religious experience.

If you owned a movie theater, would you show it? Why?
Definately...the more controversy; the more money I would make.

What do you think the result of the movie would be on anti-Semitism?
I do not think that it would be anything at all. If the movie is truely accurate...then it would hopefully show that Jesus was actually Jewish. He was not sent to start a new religion...that is just what it came down to. Anyways...people are not going to gain ignorant views. It is more likely that they will just use this as confirmation in a way of thier idea.

Aside from that; what would actually be considered Anti-Semetic? If it is what actually happened as far as we know...then its just showing the facts and not views. For example...if they show that religious leaders actually hired for the whole setup with Judas to take place and that is what we think happened...then how is that Anti-Semetic?

[triki1988]

What do you think of "The Passion," from what you know about it?
I think it's a movie like any other.

If you owned a movie theater, would you show it? Why?
Yes. It's just a movie. Who said it was sacrilegious to show a movie about JESUS? Please. It's the...people from the Vatican who made up all those silly rules.

What do you think the result of the movie would be on anti-Semitism?
I don't think it will be. It's a movie like any other. Why is this blasphemous? It's not like he's showing anything unapproppriate! How can it be anti-semitist?

[Auror Williamson]

Report: Gibson Film Causing Vatican Rift


A debate over Mel Gibson’s film "The Passion of Christ" has involved a heated clash between Vatican liberals and conservatives, exposing an alleged power struggle between intimates of Pope John Paul II and those who resent conservative influence on the Holy Father, a top Jewish publication says.

The Forward, the nation's leading Jewish weekly, reports that Vatican liberals question claims that when the pope saw the film he commented, "It is as it was."

The paper also said that conservative Vatican officials around John Paul II are using the pope's statement to quash criticism of the film.

But the Forward’s contention that conservatives are taking advantage of "the pope's advanced physical deterioration" is called into serious question by remarks made to Crisis magazine editor Deal Hudson by the pope’s biographer and close friend George Weigel, who had dinner with John Paul II within the last two weeks.

Weigel told Hudson that the pope was "out of his wheelchair and looking very healthy; his speech and color had improved greatly since the time of his silver anniversary two months ago, and in general he seemed to have more energy."

Thrilled

Hudson added that "George was absolutely thrilled by the pope's improved condition; they had a wonderful chat and it was evident that John Paul's presence was as strong as ever."

Adding credence to Weigel’s eyewitness report of the improvement in the pope’s condition was a Vatican report that the pope is planning at least four foreign trips this year.

Apparently basing their opinion on the idea that an ailing pope is being used by conservatives to bolster their own power and was not capable of making the statement favoring the Gibson film, the Forward reported that "some Catholic leaders are openly questioning the circumstances of the alleged papal remark and urging colleagues to use their own judgment on the film."

Still, the pope's viewing of the yet-to-be-released film that has sparked so much controversy is unprecedented and would have implied an implicit endorsement.

According to the Forward, "Some church liberals and Jewish communal officials involved in interfaith dialogue argued that it was still unclear whether the pope's review of the film was reported accurately in the press, since no official confirmation of his position had been issued as of Tuesday. Others slammed the way the screening was organized and publicized by the pope's conservative advisers, who have reportedly assumed extensive duties as the pontiff's health has deteriorated."

The Forward reported that observers such as Father John Pawlikowski, president of the International Council of Christians and Jews, see the conflict over the film as merely part of a larger struggle between Vatican conservatives and liberals over the direction in which the Church seems to be going.

Pawlikowski told the Forward that the focus of the controversy is the future of some reforms adopted at the Second Vatican, which included the forceful repudiation of the notion that Jews share a collective guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus.

Excesses

"It is a question as to whether Vatican II in its principal thrust is to be upheld and further amplified or whether what is considered its excesses need to be excised," Pawlikowski told the Forward.

"This Gibson business has become something other than what it is," said the top interfaith expert at the American Jewish Committee, David Rosen.

Rosen, who is based in Jerusalem, not Rome, told the Forward: "It has become an excuse for liberals and conservative Catholics to stake out their position. The forces closest to the pope seem to be more of the conservative inclination. They don't influence how the pope views things, but they communicate in the name of the pope, and the moment you communicate, almost by definition, you interpret."

"I remain, as do others, very skeptical as to whether this ailing pope was fully briefed about the concerns we and others have expressed" about the film, Pawlikowski told the Forward. "The fact that Cardinal Walter Kasper, the person this pope appointed to oversee [Catholic-Jewish] relations, was not included in this process makes us seriously question the way in which this papal screening was handled by some of his advisers."

Pawlikowski is among the Catholic and Jewish scholars who first blasted the film without ever seeing it, though the scholars did review a copy of the script that Gibson's production firm claims had been stolen.

Relying on the stolen early shooting script, they charged that the film would stir up anti-Semitism.

Inspired

The group, which was originally portrayed as speaking for the nation’s Catholic bishops association, is composed of scholars who dispute the accuracy of the Four Gospels, upon which Gibson’s film is solidly based and which for 2,000 years have been accepted by Christians as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

One of the so-called scholars went so far as to suggest that the writers of the Gospels, Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, slanted the Gospel accounts of Christ’s crucifixion to curry favor with the Romans.

The U.S. Catholic Bishops issued a statement saying the scholars did not represent the bishops.

Among those supporting the film is Francis Maier, the chancellor of the Archdiocese of Denver, who denied that political machinations were behind the papal screening of "The Passion" and the pope's resulting comment. "Trying to find a political dimension of this in the Vatican proceeds from the false assumption that a monolithic statement could come out of the Vatican that would end all discussion of the film," Maier told the Forward.

Maier, who saw the film with Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, claimed he had seen confirmation of the papal endorsement from the pope's spokesman.

Those members of the Jewish community who oppose the film were shocked when, in the wake of the reports of the pope’s endorsement of Gibson’s work, the Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman appeared to be backing away from his previously heated attacks on the film.

Foxman issued a guarded statement on the pope's reported comments, saying that "if in fact his reaction to the film is positive," the organization respected the pontiff's view. "We must reserve final judgment on 'The Passion of Christ' until we have an opportunity to see the film."


While others in the Jewish community criticized Foxman, one ADL leader, Seymour Reich, defended the organization's approach: "Abe is saying he doesn't know what the pope saw. He couldn't continue to criticize the film; he doesn't know if it's changed or not," he told the Forward.

[Hagrid442]

What do you think of "The Passion," from what you know about it? I don't know. There doesn't seem to be any unbiased previews of the movie. They're either glowing reviews about the "true story of Jesus". Or it's a movie that portrays Jews as Jesus' murderers, and thus anti-Semitic. No impartiality. Thus, I believe it's not as offensive as some people portray it, nor is it all that inspiring a movie. I heard it's done in Aramaic, so that might scare people off.

If you owned a movie theater, would you show it? Why? OF course. There's an audience for it.

What do you think the result of the movie would be on anti-Semitism? Anti-Semitism will live on no matter what this movie does. I don't see it affecting it at all.

[Morgoth]

What do you think of "The Passion," from what you know about it?
- I've seen the trailer. Can't say it appeals to me, but then again, I did watch Icon Pictures other great release of Million Dollar Hotel, so it can't be any worse than that!

If you owned a movie theater, would you show it? Why?
- If I owned a movie theatre, I would only show films I wanted to see myself, so probably not. However, if enough people were willing to pay lots of cash to see The Passion on my IMAX, then hey, I'll show it.

What do you think the result of the movie would be on anti-Semitism?
- You'll always get some kind of anti-this or that with any film that portrays history in a differing light to what others presume is the correct version of events. I mean, hello! U571! The Passion will be a big draw to the faithful, the curious and the skeptical and will provoke more debate the closer it gets to release.

[rotsiepots]

What do you think of "The Passion," from what you know about it?
- I've seen the trailer. Can't say it appeals to me, but then again, I did watch Icon Pictures other great release of Million Dollar Hotel, so it can't be any worse than that!

Heeey, Icon has released more than just Million Dollar Hotel (which was awful)! I thought We Were Soldiers was quite good. :D

I saw the trailer three nights ago when I went to the movies and I'd have to say that it looks rather interesting. I'm not sure whether it's going to be any good, but it certainly looks well crafted, if not anything else. I'll probably end up seeing it just to satisfy my morbid curiosity.

[Wab]

I think I'll wait until someone runs it as a double-feature with The Life of Brian.

[ginnybatbogeysyou]

What do you think of "The Passion," from what you know about it?
It's a movie, made by Mel Gibson and it's about Jesus.

If you owned a movie theater, would you show it? Why?
Yes, because I think a movie like this deserves a chance to be seen by people. No matter how controversial some people might call it.

What do you think the result of the movie would be on anti-Semitism?
It will still excist. I don't see how a movie like this can have an effect on it.

[Weatherby]

What do you think of "The Passion," from what you know about it?
It sounds dreadfully boring. Jim Cazviel has never been in anything worth seeing for starters. I hear they've decided to chuck the no subtitles idea at least.
I'm only interested in seeing how they'll get around no knowing the correct pronounciation for Latin..

If you owned a movie theater, would you show it? Why?
Probably not. I'd be more interested in showing the films I want to see that are never released here.

What do you think the result of the movie would be on anti-Semitism?
Hopefully nothing like the influence Birth of a Nation had. I'd say a movie inspiring hatred was ridiclious but I know it's happened before..
I haven't seen the film so I don't know what message it contains. I couldn't predict even then.
I just know it won't affect me.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Gibson 'Passion' Film Wows Christians, Vexes Jews (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&e=8&u=/nm/religion_film_passion_dc)

Still no mention of anti-Catholicism in the movie. That seems to be glossed over in all the reports.

[Earendil]

Interesting topic.

What do you think of "The Passion," from what you know about it?
As a Mel Gibson fanatic, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Sad, I know, but I'm being honest--Gibson is a talented actor and director, and I've found some of his movies to be incredible (Braveheart and The Patriot are among my favorites). I think The Passion is a gutsy project, and I admire him for taking this chance. I haven't seen the trailer, but I have seen some footage of it from entertainment programs that have touched on the controversy--it looks like a compelling and inspiring film.

If you owned a movie theater, would you show it? Why?
Sure. There has been controversy surrounding plenty of films in the past, and people have still paid to watch them and see what the controversy is about themselves. I would bet that, because of all the bruhaha centering around The Passion, it'll get an even bigger box-office turn-out than it would've without the controversy.

What do you think the result of the movie would be on anti-Semitism?
No matter what Matrix-haters may say, movies do not have as significant an influence as people may like to think. I have a hard time believing that legions of otherwise-normal citizens will turn to Anti-Semitism because of a movie. People who are so narrow-minded, bigoted, and ignorant will think a certain way because of a number of far more influential factors; it's ridiculous to lay the blame solely on a film.

[rotsiepots]

Gibson 'Passion' Film Wows Christians, Vexes Jews (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&e=8&u=/nm/religion_film_passion_dc)

Still no mention of anti-Catholicism in the movie. That seems to be glossed over in all the reports.

Just out of curiosity, how could there be any anti-Catholicism in The Passion of the Christ (new, extended title!) ? I'm fairly certain Gibson is Catholic, so he wouldn't go on the offensive to highlight any injustices. Plus I'm fairly certain the Catholic church has only been in its current form (plus or minus a few Vatican Councils) for 1000-ish years. Not 2000-ish.

Anyway.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

I'm fairly certain Gibson is Catholic, so he wouldn't go on the offensive to highlight any injustices.
The thing is, Gibson is part of a very radical Catholic sect that rejects the conclusions (get rid of Latin Mass, exonerate Jews in Jesus's death, etc.) of the Vatican Council that occurred after World War II. So he and his family still do Mass in Latin, for example. (His father, in fact, has reportedly said that Jews were behind the Vatican Council changes and that far less than 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust. Mel Gibson, also reportedly, disagrees with his father on many counts.) So there is a very real possibility that The Passion could be radically against the teachings of the Catholic Church - mainly because Gibson's central sources are not actually the Gospels but rather the 17th century writings of nuns who had dubious visions that were far more critical of the Jews than the Gospels. Using the nun's writings as holier than the Bible is probably more of a threat to the Catholic Church than any movie possibly could be to the Jews. (Although, IMO, neither threat is all that large. But we'll see.)

[rotsiepots]

Interesting. Thanks for the information, Isaac. :tu: :)

[Midnightsfire]

Snopes strikes again (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/gibson.asp)

In the New York Times Magazine of Sunday, March 9, 2003 it is reported that Mel Gibson is making a film of the last 6 hours of the life of Jesus Christ in which he purports to tell the "truth", namely that the Jews are responsible for his death!

This canard has been discredited by all people of good will including the Pope. Yet Gibson, who is a member of an extreme Catholic sect called "Holy Family" which has distanced itself from the main body of catholicism and is not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Diocese is using his money and his high profile to finance and film this retrogressive and defamatory story.

Gibson, whose father, Hutton Gibson is a notorious Holocaust denier and who claims the the World Trade Center was destroyed by remote control and not by al Queda; that the Second Vatican Council was a Masonic plot backed by the Jews and that all popes going back to John XXIII have been illegitimate "anti-popes".

The article goes on much longer and is not refuted by either party. I believe in free speech, but not when it fosters hatred and gives our enemies ammunition to perpetuate the greatest crime of the century and the continued persecution of Jews.
Four 4000 years we have been blamed for every wrong in the world. We will not tolerate this additional insult.

I urge you to read the article and also forward this message to all people who you feel should know about this. I, for one will no longer pay my money to see Gibson's films, which support his continued racism.

Yes, the excerpts quoted above which are represented as appearing in the 9 March 2003 edition of The New York Times Magazine are accurate; they were drawn from a piece about Mel Gibson, his religion, and his father entitled "Is the Pope Catholic . . . Enough?" However, the quotes are selective, the commentary lopsided, and the overall tone suggests without real evidence that the opinions of Hutton Gibson, the actor's father, are necessarily those of his son.

Mel Gibson is a Catholic traditionalist who has used some of the monies he has earned as an actor to fund construction of a chapel in the Malibu, California, area. This chapel, Holy Family, is one of 600 traditionalist chapels in operation today (where, unlike most modern Catholic churches, Sunday Mass is still conducted entirely in Latin) and is not recognized by the Holy See (http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm) Catholic traditionalists view modern church reforms as the work of either foolish liberals or hellbent heretics, preferring for themselves a version of Catholicism as it was practiced prior to the reforms (http://nov55.com/rel/vat.html) enacted by the Second Vatican Council (commonly known as Vatican II) between 1963 and 1965.

Mel Gibson's 84-year-old father, Hutton Gibson, may be considered an eccentric, a crackpot, or an anti-Semite (or some combination thereof) depending upon how charitably one views his utterances and beliefs about religion and politics, but one cannot validly infer from the quoted New York Times Magazine article that Mel Gibson shares any or all of his father's more controversial beliefs. Mel himself neither affirms nor denies the opinions voiced by his father, but even if he were inclined towards the latter he'd be unlikely to publicly voice such criticism in accordance with the "Honor thy father and thy mother" commandment. One paragraph from the original New York Times article not mentioned in the e-mail cited above addresses how much commonality of viewpoint there may be between father and son:

Whether any of this has rubbed off on Hutton's son Mel is an open question. A church elder at Holy Family says that while the two share the same foundation of faith, Mel Gibson parts company with his father on many points. "He doesn't go along with a lot of what his dad says," he says. And beyond claiming to have seen the plans for Holy Family and attended services with the congregation, Hutton Gibson [who lives in Houston] has no apparent connection to his son's church in California.
Judging from the many e-mails we've received, many people identify the most upsetting portion of the message as the charge that Gibson will be portraying the Jews as "Christ killers" in his upcoming film, The Passion, a graphic depiction of the last twelve hours in the life of Jesus Christ. But the section of New York Times article dealing with this topic doesn't specifically state that charge as fact; it merely reports that other traditionalists believe it to be true:

Most important, [Gibson's friend] says, the film will lay the blame for the death of Christ where it belongs -- which some traditionalists believe means the Jewish authorities who presided over his trial and delivered him to the Romans to be crucified.

In his conversation with Bill O'Reilly (who prefaced the interview by disclosing that Gibson's production company has optioned the rights to O'Reilly's mystery novel), Gibson was asked whether his account might particularly upset Jews. "It may," he said. "It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth. I want to be as truthful as possible. But when you look at the reasons why Christ came, why he was crucified — he died for all mankind and he suffered for all mankind. So that, really, anyone who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability."
Nowhere in the New York Times article does Gibson blame the Jews for Christ's death, and even though some traditionalists do believe the Jewish authorities holding Jesus were ultimately responsible for sending the Savior to the cross, that does not mean Mel Gibson necessarily shares their views or will present that interpretation in his film. If Gibson intends to portray the Jews as Christ killers, he has his work cut out for him because the actors in The Passion will speak only Aramaic and Latin and there will be no subtitles. (Gibson has said that he hopes to depict Christ's ordeal using "filmic storytelling" techniques that will make the understanding of dialogue unnecessary.)

Those inclined to spurn Mel Gibson's films on the basis of the e-mail quoted above should think twice about it, lacking additional evidence -- they were fed only half the story, with the most blood-curdling point ("He says the Jews killed Christ!") being the author's loose and irresponsible interpretation of The New York Times Magazine article. For those in whom the urge to boycott Gibson over "historical inaccuracies" in his films still runs strong, there's already plenty to charge him with for what he did to American history with The Patriot and Scottish history in Braveheart.

[swishandflick]

I think its kind of silly that people just try to blame Jews for everything. It doesn't really matter who killed Jesus, because Jesus chose to die. In my belief, at any moment Jesus could have saved himself, but he didn't. Instead he chose to give up his life to save the sins of humanity. I don't care if Jesus was physically killed by a one-legged pirate, a snake, a rabbit or a squirrel. It really doesn't matter--what matters are his teachings and no one can deny that he touched the world (even if they don't believe he was the real messiah). People who blame the Jews for Jesus' death tend to forget that Jesus was actually Jewish and didn't even intend to create an entirely different religion. I think The Passion is an important movie for everyone to see, regardless of thier faith. Jesus was a real man, he is a historical figure, and he is one of the most effective religious leaders of all time.

[Aranel]

If I can find a cinema near by that'll show the Passion, I definately plan on going to see it. I wanna see it because it seems interesting and I'd like to see what all this contraversy is about. Which seems to have been great for publicity, which also makes me think perhaps one of those scripts was leaked on purpose.
Anyway, my main reason has something to do with something I read in this weekends newpaper, which had an article on the Passion
"The Passion invoked more deep reflection and emotional reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my children." - Keith Fournier, constitutional Lawyer and theologian.

Edit: Oh, does anyone know what type of ratings it is attracting?

[daniel4hp]

What do you mean by ratings? Ratings as in how much people liked it, or how much content it has that would be innapropriate for children?

[Vigilance]

I think it'll be an interesting movie that'll inspire a lot of controversy. It should be worth seeing if you've decided to have an analytical mind about the whole affair. On the other hand, I'd hate to see it turn into propaganda for some hidden fundamentalist agenda.

On the problem of historical accuracy, it's impossible to be accurate. Half the events in one gospel never happened or happened differently in others. There is no truth, here, only interpretation. If Gibson would just admit that he's offering an interpretation, there wouldn't be the problem we have with scholars (who are still studying a multi-translated, edited, and initially orally-disseminated text) claiming that the film lacks historical accuracy. Much of the Bible lacks such lofty classification.

For all that, I believe in freedom of expression. as long as the movie doesn't give people seizures, it should be viewed and debated.

[rotsiepots]

If I can find a cinema near by that'll show the Passion, I definately plan on going to see it. I wanna see it because it seems interesting and I'd like to see what all this contraversy is about. Which seems to have been great for publicity, which also makes me think perhaps one of those scripts was leaked on purpose.
Anyway, my main reason has something to do with something I read in this weekends newpaper, which had an article on the Passion
"The Passion invoked more deep reflection and emotional reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my children." - Keith Fournier, constitutional Lawyer and theologian.

Edit: Oh, does anyone know what type of ratings it is attracting?

It was given an R rating in the US, so I'm guessing it will probably get an MA in Australia. :)

[Amadeus]

What do you think of "The Passion," from what you know about it?

I don't really have an opinion on this movie; I've seen the trailer few times but I don't know what it would be like. I want to watch it though. I am interested in historical films. (Although this one is more on the religious side)

If you owned a movie theater, would you show it? Why?
Yes. I don't think all the noise about the movie, is not as problematic as some people make it sound. But then, if there's a lot of people against watching it, then probably not.

What do you think the result of the movie would be on anti-Semitism?
As for the Anti-Jewish sentiment, what about all the anti-German/Russian movies we've watched like 'the Pianist'? They may as well as have started quite a few world wars already if they were to get annoyed by the 'Evil German/Russian' images portrayed in every single movie like the people arguing about anti-Semitism right now. I don't have anything against certain religions, but sometimes some countries/groups (religious or not) overreact against the movies and it really gets me irritated...

[Quasi_EviL]

What do you think of "The Passion," from what you know about it?

I think it looks like an excellent film for what it is - someone's view on what happened at the end of Jesus' life.

If you owned a movie theater, would you show it? Why?

Of course, there are definitely movie-goers who'll want to see this movie. The recent publication of The Da Vinci Code regarding the whole chestnut of Jesus' life won't hurt either. I think there is a renewed interest from the many people who've read that book/heard about it to learn as much as they can about Jesus.

What do you think the result of the movie would be on anti-Semitism?

I don't see the parallel there. Like Midnightsfire said: Considering that in every translation/interpretation Jesus is Jewish, I hardly think anti-semitism should be an issue.

Though looking at it from the angle of it being the Jewish people's fault for him being crucified, maybe? Judas betraying him, Jesus having too many Jewish followers and attracting the attention of the Romans...that seems kind of shady to me though.

[miku_miku_kwi]

What do you think of "The Passion," from what you know about it?



What do you think the result of the movie would be on anti-Semitism?
As for the Anti-Jewish sentiment, what about all the anti-German/Russian movies we've watched like 'the Pianist'? They may as well as have started quite a few world wars already if they were to get annoyed by the 'Evil German/Russian' images portrayed in every single movie like the people arguing about anti-Semitism right now. I don't have anything against certain religions, but sometimes some countries/groups (religious or not) overreact against the movies and it really gets me irritated...


So are you implying that you wish to see a movie that glorifies the Nazis?

I don't think movies about the Holocaust would be anti-German, but more anti-Nazi. Yes, a German did create the idea of the Nazis, but if my sources are correct, not many people were considered to agree that it was the Jews' fault for their misfortune. They simply thought that something was being done to end the Great Depression. I may be wrong, though..... Besides, what about the movies where a German decides to help a Jewish family? That isn't anti-German, just anti-Nazi. If I'm wrong, correct me please! It would be embarrasing to go on a pointless rant and be completely wrong in the end. :blush:

But back to the conversation....
The Passion doesn't sound all that interesting. It sounds like it is just a long, monotonous explanation for Jesus' death. I probably would show it in a movie theater. The only reason being is so that people could watch it, although that pretty much is the reason for a movie theater.

[Aranel]

It was given an R rating in the US, so I'm guessing it will probably get an MA in Australia. :)

Thanks rotsiepots! Bit of a relief, don't think the parentals would want to go see it.

[Wab]

So are you implying that you wish to see a movie that glorifies the Nazis?

I don't think movies about the Holocaust would be anti-German, but more anti-Nazi. Yes, a German did create the idea of the Nazis,

Well, Hitler was Austrian.

However there are intelligent books and films that portray Nazis as people too; many of whom joined the party out of necessity rather than commitment like Oskar Schindler.

[HammerTime!]

I really want to see this movie!
I'm sure it will be very funny. And anti-Semite.

[Hagrid442]

A quick word from Mad Max himself:

You're going to have to go on record. The Holocaust happened, right?" Peggy Noonan asks of Mel Gibson in the Reader's Digest for March.

Gibson: "I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."

Not sure if this constitutes Holocaust Denial, but it sure does minimize the suffering of Jews in particular, and those that went through the war in general.

[la_ginny]

What do you think of "The Passion," from what you know about it?

-I'm looking forward to its release, mainly because I want to see how the world reacts to it after all the hype. And I want to see it too. I realize there are disputes about its historical accuracy, etc. But to me it's no different than watching a "Passion" play at a church. It's still going to have the spirit of the story there, and the message will be clear, with or without the historical details about language, etc.


If you owned a movie theater, would you show it? Why?

-Yes, because I am a staunch advocate of free speech rights. And I don't think I have a right to tell people what kind of art they choose to spend their money on. Because, controversy or not, this movie is still a work of art. Gibson has a wonderful right to make it, and people have a right to see it, or not see it.

What do you think the result of the movie would be on anti-Semitism?

-Well, I really hope that there are no adverse effects. I would hate for a movie that attempts at something so amazing to cause hatred or violence against anyone That said, I have a feeling that though this film will be very powerful and violent, it won't depict anything that Christians have not seen or heard before. Perhaps somebody off the street who is unfamiliar with the Gospels would suddenly feel anti-semitic, but that seems doubtful. I think some Christians already "blame" the Jews for Jesus' death. Though I don't think anyone should "blame" anybody else for that - Jesus was a Jew who chose to come and chose to die.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

I read in the newspaper (sorry, can't find a link) that over-the-internet sales of tickets for "The Passion" are at about the level of the LotR movies and HP movies; while this does not mean that it will gross a billion dollars like those, it shows that interest is very high.

[denim_fairy]

(I just wanted to post this little snippet of a recent interview with Jim Caviezel, it pretty much sums up the way I feel about the whole "controversy")

Has the controversy around the film and the fact that Mel has been accused of anti-semitism surprised you?

(Caviezel)Itsbeen the most frustrating thing to watch. I can tell you this much, the guy is not in the least anti-semitic. I never saw it. Maia Morgenstern [who plays the Virgin Mary] is this beautiful Jewish Romanian actress whose parents were in the Holocuast he'd, Maia, tell me about your traditions. Is this OK to do?" He wanted to make this film very Semitic. Instead of having an Aryan blue-eyed,Jesus, he wanted to have a very Semitic Jesus. Our faith is grounded in our Jewish tradition. We believe we're from the Huse of David. We believe we're from the Huse of Abraham, so we cannot hate our own. That crowd standing before Pontius Pilot screaming for the head of Christ in no way convicts an entire race for the death of Jesus Christ any more than the actions of Mussolini condemn all Italians,or the heinous actions of Stalin condemn all Russians. We're all culpable for the death of Christ. My sins put Him up there. Yours did. Thats what this story is about.

[mina]

"It's very violent and if you don't like it, don't go, you know?" Gibson said in excerpts of the interview provided by ABC.

Exactly my thoughts. Since HE funded the film, HE directed it, and HE co-wrote it he should get the right to do what he pleases. It is the same way I feel about television shows getting canceled because of protest. If you don't like the show, use the remote. If you don't like what a movie will be portraying, don't go.

I'm not to interested in religious films, but all of the controversey has made me want to see it.

[daniel4hp]

(I just wanted to post this little snippet of a recent interview with Jim Caviezel, it pretty much sums up the way I feel about the whole "controversy")

Has the controversy around the film and the fact that Mel has been accused of anti-semitism surprised you?

(Caviezel)Itsbeen the most frustrating thing to watch. I can tell you this much, the guy is not in the least anti-semitic. I never saw it. Maia Morgenstern [who plays the Virgin Mary] is this beautiful Jewish Romanian actress whose parents were in the Holocuast he'd, Maia, tell me about your traditions. Is this OK to do?" He wanted to make this film very Semitic. Instead of having an Aryan blue-eyed,Jesus, he wanted to have a very Semitic Jesus. Our faith is grounded in our Jewish tradition. We believe we're from the Huse of David. We believe we're from the Huse of Abraham, so we cannot hate our own. That crowd standing before Pontius Pilot screaming for the head of Christ in no way convicts an entire race for the death of Jesus Christ any more than the actions of Mussolini condemn all Italians,or the heinous actions of Stalin condemn all Russians. We're all culpable for the death of Christ. My sins put Him up there. Yours did. Thats what this story is about.
What Caviezel said sums up how I expect the movie to be as well. Obviously Christ lived in Palestine, which was mostly Jewish, so many the people who want Jesus killed are going to be mostly Jewish. Of course, not having seen the film, I can't be certain of the way it portrays the situation, but I think people may be overreacting. It is my belief that all people are responsible for Jesus' death, and that, although it was the Jews and Romans who actually killed Jesus, that it is the sins of everyone that made Jesus have to die. I have yet to see anything that suggests that The Passion of the Christ shows anything different than this.

[Auror Williamson]

The great Paul Harvery on The Passion:



I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have been
invited to a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion," but I
had also read all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a Jewish
town and owe much of my
own faith journey to the influence. I have a life long, deeply held
aversion to anything that might even indirectly encourage any form of
anti-Semitic thought, language or actions.



I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion", held in Washington
DC and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically
Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to
look beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words. The film was very
briefly introduced, without fanfare, and then the room darkened. From
the gripping opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very
human and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through
the betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way of the cross, the
encounter with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until the final
scene in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an
encounter, unlike anything I have ever experienced.


In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an artistic
triumph, "The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and
emotional reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my
ordination or the birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the
same. When the film concluded,
this "invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers" in Washington,
DC were shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing. I am not sure there
was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before
the film was now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were
woefully inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that is a rarity
in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth.



One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A
brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the weight of
the cross. His mother had made her way along the Via Della Rosa. As she
ran to him, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling
in the dirt road outside of their home. Just as she reached to protect
him from the fall, she was now reaching to touch his wounded adult
face. Jesus looked at her with intensely probing and passionately
loving eyes (and at all of us through the screen) and said "Behold I
make all things new." These are words taken from the last Book of the
New Testament, the Book of Revelations. Suddenly, the purpose of the
pain was so clear and the wounds, that earlier in the film had been so
difficult to see in His face, His back, indeed all over His body,
became intensely beautiful. They had been borne voluntarily for love.



At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to recover, a
question and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise for the film,
from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments were
effusive. The questions included the one question that seems to follow
this film, even though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this
film considered by some to be "anti-Semitic?" Frankly, having now
experienced (you do not "view" this film) "the Passion" it is a
question that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom I admire
sat in front of me. He raised his hand and responded "After watching
this film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even
remotely presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued
"It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus" I agree. There is not a
scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film.
If there were, I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully
tells the Gospel story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and
profoundly engaging way.



Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have
another agenda behind their protestations. This is not a "Christian"
film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who identify
themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human,
beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a
profound work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and
thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no
longer acceptable behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands
that we remain faithful to the story and Christians have a right to
tell it. After all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever told
and that its message is for all men and women. The greatest right is
the right to hear the truth.



We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to
which "The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who
followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed
the history of the world. The problem is not the message but those who
have distorted it and used it for hate rather than love. The solution
is not to censor the message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of
love that is Mel Gibson's film making masterpiece, "The Passion."



It should be seen by as many people as possible. I intend to do
everything I can to make sure that is the case. I am passionate about
"The Passion." You will be as well. Don't miss it!

[Wab]

Father Peter Malone, head of the Catholic Film Office, known as SIGNIS, was the first Australian to see the film. He said his own reaction was "very positive".

Malone says the crowd scenes when the mob call for Jesus' death are well handled and do not carry the view that the Jewish people, as a race, are guilty of deicide. He says the clash between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders of his time was in reality "a clash within Judaism", and the film accurately reflected the politics of the period.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/15/1076779837879.html

BTW the quote is from an article that does make the point that Mel's Dad "holds to certain conspiracy theories - including a belief that the Americans bombed the World Trade Centre."

[Midnightsfire]

I just read that Gibson went so far as to add in scenes of the Jews themselves brutalizing Christ before turning him over to the Romans, something not mentioned in any of the 4 gospels. He ommited the the phrase "Father forgive, for they know not what they do."



It's sad really, considering the fact that Jesus was a Jew and so were almost all of his original followers. The Romans were actually reluctant to crucify him not just because they didn't consider him to be a major threat, but also because he was so popular they feared having to deal with riots if he was crucified... that's the main reason Pilate even brought the decision before the people.

I don't recall if this link was posted earlier:

Gibson's 'Passion' in Very 'Select' Theatres (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111307,00.html)

[fuzzi95]

I personally cannot wait until this movie is released. I am a Catholic, and work in a Catholic Rectory. I have also looked at the whole issue through the eyes of someone not my religion. I still stand by what I believe in though. The Jewish Community (or those present at the time of the crucifiction) rallied to have Barrabus set free in Jesus' place. I don't think it's right to riot this movie. It's is simply an adaptation of someone else's views of the last hours of Christ's life. I support it 100%, and can't wait to show this by seeing the movie.

[Kaonashi]

I don't think that it's Anti-Semetic either. Every Jewish person on earth during the time period that Christ was crucified was NOT present, screaming for his head. I'm very confused as to how this movie can be considered anti-semetic in this case. If there were Catholics, or Bapists in this situation, would the movie then be considered "anti Catholic" or "anti Baptists?" Most people have enough common sense to not blame a whole group of people for the actions of a few, and those who don't will find a way to justify their views anyway without help from this movie. I just wish it was subtitled...*sigh*

I read somewhere (in some gossip rag) that now supposely Mel is being blacklisted from Hollywood becaue of this movie. Anyone else hear about this?

[swishandflick]

I just read that Gibson went so far as to add in scenes of the Jews themselves brutalizing Christ before turning him over to the Romans, something not mentioned in any of the 4 gospels. He ommited the the phrase "Father forgive, for they know not what they do."

I really don't care who killed Christ because he chose to die that way. Jesus was sent to be a Messiah to the Jewish faith, not to necessarily start a whole new religion. However, in the gospels, from what I recall, it does in fact say that the "audience" (which did happen to include Jewish people, as well as Romans) gave Jesus vinegar to drink and threw stones at him. I think its unfortunate that it happened to be Jewish people who tortured Christ in this particular incident, but that doesn't mean that they are responsible for killing Christ in any way. I don't really see the point of denying history because some ignorant people actually think that Jewish people killed Jesus. As far as Gibson eliminating that line, I think I'm going to wait to see the final edit before I think about why he would do that.

[Midnightsfire]

I really don't care who killed Christ because he chose to die that way. Jesus was sent to be a Messiah to the Jewish faith, not to necessarily start a whole new religion. However, in the gospels, from what I recall, it does in fact say that the "audience" (which did happen to include Jewish people, as well as Romans) gave Jesus vinegar to drink and threw stones at him. I think its unfortunate that it happened to be Jewish people who tortured Christ in this particular incident, but that doesn't mean that they are responsible for killing Christ in any way. I don't really see the point of denying history because some ignorant people actually think that Jewish people killed Jesus. As far as Gibson eliminating that line, I think I'm going to wait to see the final edit before I think about why he would do that.
I disagree with the idea that he chose to die that way. If he existed, (and God knows as well as many here know, I have questioned his existence :p ) I suspect he may have been a bit delusional.

And as for starting a new religion, that was Paul's (Saul) bright idea. Without him, Christianity would never have gotten off the ground.

It was actually Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest that was Jesus' problem. All things considered, I can understand why. The Messiah the Hebrews were waiting for was a warrior-king figure like Joshua or David, not some street evangelist. (Interestingly enough, the name Jesus and Joshua are semantically the same.)

And here's yet another link: The Jesus War (http://www.wcnet.org/~bgcc/gibson.htm) Lengthy and detailed. Just the way we like 'em. :eyebrows:

[swishandflick]

I disagree with the idea that he chose to die that way. If he existed, (and God knows as well as many here know, I have questioned his existence :p ) I suspect he may have been a bit delusional.


Sorry, sometimes I tend to forget that not everyone has the same Christian type ideas that I have. Obviously, that assumption was based on my own personal beliefs. Jesus is a historical figure, and even if one doesn't believe his actual teachings, I think its pretty much accepted (among whatever religions or Atheists) that a man called Jesus did actually live (even if he was just a regular human). As to whether or not he was delusional, it is, of course, logically possible, but not much in religion is actually very logical, its all about faith :p.

[Hagrid442]

I believe he existed as well, and was extraordinarily spiritual. I guess that means he was "delusional", though Lord knows that atheists are all clear-minded. :evil:

Gibson's personal history is somewhat suspect, but I don't think I can judge this movie without some more information and less biased reviews. Not sure I'd want to watch it anyway, not if it's all in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Latin. Plus, if it's graphically violent, I really don't care to see that either.

[mina]

In case anyone is interested, Mel Gibson's interview with Diane Sawyer is on ABC right now (it is over half-over though).

[DrummerboyDT]

In case anyone is interested, Mel Gibson's interview with Diane Sawyer is on ABC right now (it is over half-over though).

Mel Gibson is Catholic. The Catholics have their own bible so some stuff is different from the original King James version.

[daniel4hp]

The Catholics have their own bible so some stuff is different from the original King James version.
The original King James version? Are you implying that the King James version is somehow superior to all other translations? I don't see that you can say that the translation used by Catholics is neccessarilly any better or worse than the KJV, and, in any case, they are, for all practical purposes, identical. The only major difference between Catholic and Protestant Bibles is the inclusion of extra books in the Catholic version, but that hardly applies to this subject.

I don't think that it's Anti-Semetic either. Every Jewish person on earth during the time period that Christ was crucified was NOT present, screaming for his head.
I agree. As has already been stated, it was more a conflict between Jews and Jews than between Jews and Christ or Jews and Christians (since, as Midnightfire pointed out, Christianity didn't exist until some time later). Whether or not Jesus willingly died, it should hardly come as a surprise that some Jews were involved in the process, since a majority of people in Palestine were Jewish. (This is not to say, though, that Jews were the only ones involved; obviously the Romans played a role in Jesus' death as well.)

As I see it, Jesus had to die to save all people, because all people had sinned. I believe that we all are responsible for Jesus' death, because it is for the sins of us all that he had to die. Certain Jews and Romans were the means of Jesus' death, but they are no more responsible than anyone else. From what I have heard, this is Gibson's view as well, and therefore, I see no reason why the Passion will portray the Jews as more responsible than anyone else. Certain Jews will, I assume, be shown as partially reponsible (Caiaphas, for example), but I don't think this is meant to imply that all Jews are guilty.

[DrummerboyDT]

Well I'm not saying that KJV is superior, but some verses were taken out of other versions. Like, for instance, a verse in Isiah 53 was taken out of the old testament in some translations. I don't have a problem with different translations. But that's getting off the topic.

I support Mel for sticking to what he believes in and trying to be as authentic as possible. There was controversy over "The Patriot" because it featured kids handling guns and killing soldiers during the war to protect the family, but it was authentic to the time period. I saw no harm in it. If you don't like his movies, you don't have to see them.

[Wab]

There was controversy over "The Patriot" because it featured kids handling guns and killing soldiers during the war to protect the family, but it was authentic to the time period.

I couldn't watch this film. I wandered in when Mel and two idiot kids took out a Britiah patrol with two muzzle loaders and an axe and thought: "Too ridiculous for words".

But authentic the film wasn't. It was riddled with historical errors. Which is no bug deal as most sane people don't take movies as historical texts, but like the equally shonky Braveheart it was presented as being historically faithful.

[HollywoodBob]

Slighty OT:

Did anyone hear about Jim Caviezal getting struck buy lightning while he was up on the cross? One minute he was fine, the next ZOT!!!, smokes coming out of his ears.

Now, I'm an atheist, but if I was religious I'd think that was the almighty's way of saying "Hey now, knock it off!" :D

-HollywoodBob

[la_ginny]

Well I'm not saying that KJV is superior, but some verses were taken out of other versions. Like, for instance, a verse in Isiah 53 was taken out of the old testament in some translations. I don't have a problem with different translations. But that's getting off the topic.

Actually, from what I understand from history lessons and my friends who study theology, the King James Version could be less accurate than some translations out there now. Supposedly the newer versions were re-translated directly from the original texts, insteading of modernizing the language in KJV. And at the time King James ordered that translation, there was a lot of political hoopla going on that (allegedly) could have influenced how it was translated.

Lots of older people think the KJV is the best -- the "real" -- translation. But this is insulting to modern bible scholars who constantly re-examine the original texts to interpret them.

Sorry, that was slightly off-topic. Anywho, I'm getting excited about this movie. I think I was indifferent before. But especially after having read Paul Harvey's review, along with others, I'm actually looking forward to seeing it. Shows here are selling out like hotcakes, and local churches are booking entire showings (my old church booked two theaters full for next Sunday). Yikes! At least we know Mel Gibson will have a cozy bankroll after this...

[HollywoodBob]

Sorry, that was slightly off-topic. Anywho, I'm getting excited about this movie. I think I was indifferent before. But especially after having read Paul Harvey's review, along with others, I'm actually looking forward to seeing it. Shows here are selling out like hotcakes, and local churches are booking entire showings (my old church booked two theaters full for next Sunday). Yikes! At least we know Mel Gibson will have a cozy bankroll after this...
As I understand it, it's an amazing movie, not just from a religious standpoint, but cinematically as well. To get this movie made Mel Gibson spent $30 million of his own money because he felt it was a story that needed to be told. I would hope that he'd donate procedes to charities, rather then pocketing all the money it will make. After all 160+ million Christians in the US at ~8$ per ticket is a whomping wad of cashola. Or better yet, don't charge for tickets in the first place, then his message will get out to everyone who wants to see it.

-HollywoodBob

[strwznbrry]

As I understand it, it's an amazing movie, not just from a religious standpoint, but cinematically as well. To get this movie made Mel Gibson spent $30 million of his own money because he felt it was a story that needed to be told. I would hope that he'd donate procedes to charities, rather then pocketing all the money it will make. After all 160+ million Christians in the US at ~8$ per ticket is a whomping wad of cashola. Or better yet, don't charge for tickets in the first place, then his message will get out to everyone who wants to see it.

-HollywoodBobThere is a church in my area that my friend told me are buying the movie for the night so that anyone that wants to see it can go for free. I guess they are supporting it and feel they want whatever message this movie has to say gets out to a lot of people.

Before I read this thread I thought that the only reason that this movie was controversial was because of the graphic nature of it. Being a person that really has no religious knowledge I didn't know that there could be so much controversy over this movie.

I have yet to decide whether or not I will see this movie in the theatre or if I will catch it on video. I think with all the controversy surrounding it that it would be interesting to go see but at the same time I don't think it would have that much of an effect on me. Being that I am not a religious person I don't think that it will push me towards strong feelings of love or hate for the story the movie tells.


You know I don't remember seeing a link to the trailer so HERE (http://www.passion-movie.com/english/trailer.html)

[hawk1245]

Let me start by saying that I am a devout Christian (catholic, for that matter) and I think the film look amazing! I can't wait to see it. And honsetly, the movie had hardly ANY press before all the ant-jewish accusations, peopl were expecting it to FLOP! This is just boosting the sales of tickets. Before, Mel thought "I have made all the money I will need and more, so why not do something close to my heart?" and decided to make "The Passion of The Christ", it was originally intended to have NO subtitles. But now, EVERYBODY knows about it! It is obviously going to do well now! I mean, this is JUST like the people who say that Harry Potter is Satanic. And besides, I think anyone who is narow-minded enough to judge people they don't even know without meeting them, would me an ant-semite and a racist anyway, hat eto say it, but it's true. And Mel's father keeps on coming into this, what's he got to do with it???? This is MEL'S film not Hitton's film. Father's have an impact on their sons, true enough of course, but they are DIFFERENT people! My father and I agree on many things, but disagree on many as well. In a recent interview, Mel said that he beleived that Jewish people could go to heaven, and so could people from many different religions and denominations, and a Jewsih person played Mary, mother of Jesus! I mean, come on! This contry is cesoring the wrong things these days! They are worrtying about what is going to be a amazingly moving experience and say it's bad, but strip-clubs, por-videos and all that junk are STILL defended! It just drives me insane! Why can't people just live eqaly? Why an't Jws respect Christians, and Christians respect Jews, and Muslums respect Jews and Christians and them back? That is the key to world peace!

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Why an't Jws respect Christians, and Christians respect Jews, and Muslums respect Jews and Christians and them back? That is the key to world peace!
Because people aren't good.

[HollywoodBob]

Why an't Jws respect Christians, and Christians respect Jews, and Muslums respect Jews and Christians and them back? That is the key to world peace!

Because people aren't good.

Well I don't think that's it. I firmly believe that given the right circumstances people can get along.

We all really just want the same things, to feel safe, happy, and loved.

But when you have conflicting ideologies that people feel so strongly about the conflicts in faiths spill over into the dynamics of society.

It's funny how people can be friendly with each other until they find out their belief structires conflict. Whether it be spiritual beliefs or political alignment, I think we're all guilty of it on some level.

I don't know if it will ever cease to be an issue. I'm sure many people would like to see it a thing of the past. But whether it ever will be isn't something anyone can predict.

-HollywoodBob

[Hagrid442]

I judge people on their actions. For example, I have way more respect for Pat Buchanan, than I do Michael Moore, even though my beliefs are more in line with Moore's.

Anyway... are they dropping the idea of having no subtitles for sure? I mean, it's great that it's in those dead languages, but it loses something if you don't know what in blarney they're saying!

[Emma]

The media is making such a big stink about this film. I really don't see the reasoning for the hoopla. I'm planning on seeing it. I like to see films. I see it as someones interpertation of a story from a book.

[la_ginny]

Anyway... are they dropping the idea of having no subtitles for sure? I mean, it's great that it's in those dead languages, but it loses something if you don't know what in blarney they're saying!
Yeah, I wondered that too... I've read the preliminary reviews from the "select few" and they quote different things that people say in the movie. I mean, these guys may be religious leaders, but I doubt they're all fluent in Aramaic. So I'm guessing the subtitles are back in. I understand the "purity" thing Gibson was going for in the beginning, but in the end it just makes sense to have the subtitles.

[Godrics_Heiress]

All these media attention just spurs more good things about this film. "Any publicity is good publicity" as they say. Anyway, I'd like to see it because the media got me interested to see it. I'd like to see how accurately Gibson recounts what happened to Jesus.

[daniel4hp]

Why an't Jws respect Christians, and Christians respect Jews, and Muslums respect Jews and Christians and them back? That is the key to world peace!
That might be a nice idea, but you can't ignore history. The Crusades, for one. And then there's the hundreds of years of Christian persecution of the Jews (claiming the Jews are evil because they killed Jesus, segregation of Jews and Christians, blood libels, etc.). This isn't to say that Christians are always the culprits, but you can't ignore the fact that these relgions haven't gotten on for a long time. There are scars that you can't expect people to get over real fast.

The concern of many Jewish groups is not that the film itself is anti-semitic, but that the film will awaken feelings of anti-semitism within some people. The Jews have been persecuted for so long that they are anxious that this film will only lead to a fresh outbreak, and I don't think you can ignore their concerns. Whether or not the film will lead to hostility is questionable, but there are historic reasons for these concerns, and I think these need to be taken into consideration.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

I firmly believe that given the right circumstances people can get along.

We all really just want the same things, to feel safe, happy, and loved.

Nah, that's naive. We all just want to feel superior to the next guy. Anyway, moving on.


Anyway... are they dropping the idea of having no subtitles for sure? I mean, it's great that it's in those dead languages, but it loses something if you don't know what in blarney they're saying!
Yes, the no subtitle idea is officially gone. I just read that there's one specific line that some people are concerned about, having to do with a blood curse on the Jews. That line will be left off the subtitles, but apparently can still be heard in Aramaic. The funniest thing about this whole authenticity/language thing is that the Romans wouldn't have even been speaking Latin, they would have spoken Greek. Greek was the lingua franca of the ancient world.

[FizzingWhizbee]

Who has advanced tickets? I do for Saturday.

[Wab]

I've heard the film presents Romans badly but the Italians don't seem too worried.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

True. :D Then again, Italians aren't Romans. And there hasn't been a world-wide, millenium old history of anti-Italian actions and feelings.

[Hagrid442]

Finally, secular and unbiased reviewers review the movie!

Ebert and Roeper give two thumbs up (http://www.suntimes.com/output/entertainment/cst-nws-passion22.html)

Mel Gibson's controversial "The Passion of the Christ," which recounts the final hours in the life of Jesus, finally opens Wednesday, and the Sun-Times' own Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper offered an exclusive early review of the movie on their syndicated series "Ebert & Roeper" this weekend.

Giving "Passion" their trademark stamp of approval of "two thumbs way up," Ebert and Roeper called it "a great film."

"It's the only religious movie I've seen, with the exception of 'The Gospel According to St. Matthew' by [Italian director Pier Paolo] Pasolini, that really seems to deal with what actually happened," said Ebert, who is the Sun-Times film critic.

"This is the most powerful, important and by far the most graphic interpretation of Christ's final hours ever put on film," said Roeper, a Sun-Times columnist. "Mel Gibson is a masterful storyteller, and this is the work of his lifetime. You have to admire not just Gibson for his vision and his directing abilities, but Jim Caviezel [as Christ] and the rest of the cast."

As for the controversy over whether the movie promotes anti-Semitism, Ebert said, "I hope people will see this movie for themselves and then judge. I don't think the movie is anti-Semitic. Christ was born as a Jew, his disciples were Jewish. Yes, [in the movie] some Jewish priests call for his death. [But] they're threatened by his assault on their establishment. Institutions protect their power structures. [Besides] most of the Jews in this movie are horrified by what they see."

"This movie does not blame all Jews past and present for the death of Jesus," Roeper said. "And no matter what your faith, it should not be shaken or threatened by a movie, even one as intense and personal as this one."

Both Ebert and Roeper emphasized the movie's message of redemption.

"It focuses relentlessly on the price that Christ paid for redemption," Ebert said. "And it emphasizes that Jesus wanted this to happen. His death was the instrument of his purpose, and we should be grateful to him instead of critical of those who were the instruments of his will."

Added Roeper, "And this film does all of that in such a powerful and effective way."

"The Gospels are the most widely read works probably in the history of civilization and the most widely misinterpreted," Roeper said. "And people are going to be doing the same thing to this movie."

Hmmmm... I was just about to make my case for the Passion on a liberal web log, essentially playing devil's advocate, and using what Paul Harvey said up above as a point in the movie's favor when I came across this. (http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_paul_harvey_passion.htm)

Apparently, the words that Auror Williamson attribute to Paul Harvey, were actually written by someone else, a writer from a Catholic magazine. David Limbaugh, brother of Rush, is somehow involved. It would appear that it is a right-wing lie. I am most disappointed.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

More reviews:

Critics Pan and Praise Gibson's 'Passion' (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&e=13&u=/nm/leisure_passion_review_dc)

Notable quotes:

"One of the cruelest movies in the history of cinema," says the New Yorker's David Denby in a negative review that also calls the film "a sickening death trip, a grimly unilluminated procession of treachery, beatings, blood and agony."

Critic Denby adds, 'For two hours ... we watch, stupefied as a handsome, strapping, at times half-naked young man is slowly tortured to death. Gibson is thoroughly fixated on the scourging and crushing of Christ and is so meagerly involved in the spiritual meanings of the final hours, that he falls in danger of altering Jesus's message of love into one of hate."

As for whether the film is anti-Semitic, Denby said it "confirms the old justifications for persecuting the Jews."

Interesting.


"If an age produces the renditions of classic stories that reflect those times, then 'The Passion of the Christ,' which is violent, contentious, emotional, extreme and highly proficient, must be the Jesus movie for this era.

"It is also gravely intense and the work of a man as deeply committed to his subject as one could hope for or, for that matter, want.... (The picture's) notoriety might soon be mitigated for mainstream audiences by word of mouth centered on the prolonged suffering and very vivid gore; at the same time, many true believers ... will be deeply moved. ..."

McCarthy rejected the idea that the film was anti-Semitic and added, "The passion according to Mel is potent stuff, but rather like a full course of bitter herbs without as much as a taste of honey."

Also interesting.


The Chicago Sun-Times' Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper called "The Passion of the Christ" a "great film" and gave it a "Two Thumbs Up" in their weekly syndicated series "Ebert & Roeper."

For more info, see post right above this. :)


Newsweek's David Ansen said, "Relentlessly savage, 'The Passion' plays like the Gospel according to the Marquis de Sade. The film that has been getting rapturous advance raves from evangelical Christians turns out to be an R-rated inspirational movie no child can, or should, see. To these secular eyes at least, Gibson's movie is more likely to inspire nightmares than devotion."

He added, "It's the sadism, not the alleged anti-Semitism, that is most striking. (For the record, I don't think Gibson is anti-Semitic; but those inclined toward bigotry could easily find fuel for their fire here.)"

Another article, about the many historical inaccuracies of the movie:

Jesus Scholars Find Fault in Gibson's 'Passion' (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=598&e=15&u=/nm/life_jesus_film_dc)

Mel Gibson's portrayal of the final 12 hours of Jesus in his film "The Passion of the Christ" has been hailed as the gospel truth by some believers, but many scholars complain that it is riddled with historical errors. Their complaints range from inaccuracies about hairstyles and clothes to a lack of gospel context in the film which has raised a furor among Jewish groups who fear its graphic depiction of the crucifixion will fan anti-Jewish violence. . . .

Experts say this was his first mistake as Greek was the language spoken in Jerusalem during Jesus's time, along with Aramaic and some Hebrew spoken by Jews.

"Jesus talking to (Pontius) Pilate and Pilate to Jesus in Latin!" exclaimed John Dominic Crossan, a professor of religious studies at the Chicago-based Roman Catholic De Paul University. "I mean in your dreams. It would have been Greek." ... Latin was reserved for official decrees or used by the elite. Most Roman centurions in the Holy Land spoke Greek rather than Latin, historians and archaeologists told Reuters.

The mistakes, experts say, didn't stop with the wrong language, which Crossan -- who speaks Latin -- said was so badly pronounced in the film that it was almost incomprehensible.

"He has a long-haired Jesus...Jesus didn't have long hair," said physical anthropologist Joe Zias, who has studied hundreds of skeletons found in archaeological digs in Jerusalem. "Jewish men back in antiquity did not have long hair."

"The Jewish texts ridiculed long hair as something Roman or Greek," said New York University's Lawrence Schiffman. ...

Zias said Jesus would not have carried the entire cross to the crucifixion as vertical beams were kept permanently in place by the ever efficient Romans.

"Nobody was physically able to carry the thing (the entire cross).It weighed about 350 pounds," Zias said. "He (Jesus) carried the cross-beam, maximum."

Nor would Jesus have worn a loin-cloth in the crucifixion as did actor James Caviezel who portrayed him in the film.

"Crucifixion was a form of state terror. They humiliated the crucified victim. Everybody was naked. Men, women and children," Zias said.

Jesus, he added, would have been tied or nailed to the cross through the wrists, not the hands as shown in the film.

"You cannot crucify a person through the hands because there is nothing there but skin and muscle. It will tear."

Read both articles for more.

Something new to add:

Critic Calls Gibson Movie Anti-Semitic (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=598&e=15&u=/nm/leisure_passion_dc)

Daily News critic Jami Bernard said: "No child should see this movie. Even adults are at risk. Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ' is the most virulently anti-Semitic movie since the German propaganda films of World War II. It is sickening, much more brutal than any 'Lethal Weapon."'

[Lord_Chatterley]

Jesus, he added, would have been tied or nailed to the cross through the wrists, not the hands as shown in the film.

"You cannot crucify a person through the hands because there is nothing there but skin and muscle. It will tear."

I was very concerned indeed when I saw in the trailer that they choosed to crucify Jesus through the hands.Maybe Mel Gibson wanted just to respect the popular iconography.

[Kaonashi]

People really need to see this movie before they pass judgement on it. Ebert gave a very interesting review of this movie in today's Suntimes here, and even added the fact that it is "one of the most violent movies that he has ever seen" and that parents need to be aware of this:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-passion24.html

Richard Roeper's day job is being a columnist for the Chicago Suntimes, and he also did a very interesting column today that everyone who has an opinion on this movie who haven't seen it yet should read:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/roeper/cst-nws-roep24.html

Unrelated note: I read somewhere that when Mel Gibson was in New York last week there were a lot of protesters around who were calling him a Nazi and all sorts of other things I can't repeat here. When Gibson went into their crowd (rrather than disappearing into the crowd) to explain about the movie and to start dialogue with them, someone threw a bucket of....*gulp* BLOOD on him, telling him he needed to be cleansed by the blood of the Lamb or something like that. What is WRONG with people?

[Hagrid442]

Kaonashi, I presume you're from around Chicago? :) If so, so am I.

I read both Ebert and Roeper's pieces in the hardcopy today. I must say that I agreed 100% with them both. I don't think it's fair to judge this movie unless you've seen it. I have my reservations about it, but anti-Semitism isn't it. I believe that many people that have decried it as being anti-Semitic are often hyper-sensitive and subconsciously went into this movie expecting it. Thus they found it where it might not really exist. No, what's keeping me from watching it is that it's so graphically violent. As the critic that Ebert cites said, I feel it will be self-defeating. I'm disturbed by violence, and am a rather passive person. The vast majority of the movie, as Ebert points out, is the torture and infliction of pain on Jesus. Ok, I can understand maybe a climactic half-hour of sustained brutality, but almost two hours? I think by the 40th minute of a random Roman flaying Jesus, it will numb you to the violence, or make you leave the theatre because it's unendurable.

Sigh, I guess I'm judging the movie, here. However, I'm not judging it bad. I just have no desire to see it because of the violence.

[WhiteSlash]

First off, I will I say, that for various reasons I will not see this movie.

1. The nail going through the hand. I just can watch anything like that with out jumping with pain myself.

2. I hear it's anti-semtic. That's not good for me as I am Jewish. I told my friends if you come out hating, I'll understand. They think it wont, but hey.

3. Does anyone really wanna watch 45 minutes of some dude being tortured? I know I don't.

On Mel Gibson-

I'm kinda pissed at him right now. I can't belive he doesn't belive that the Holocost happened. What kind of idiot doesn't belive it. There are people who were there, 6 million people died and there are records. Errr.

I would have seen this movie if it wasn't for the nail though probably. :)

[Kaonashi]

Actually, I think it was his dad that said that, not Gibson.

[WhiteSlash]

Yes, his Dad did say it, but then he said it too.

Also, what's with the things for it. He's selling nails! I mean, what happened to religon? and who would want to buy a nail for a movie? I mean come on.

[Kaonashi]

Okay, I'm lost here....any links/info as to where exactly he said this, anyone?

[WhiteSlash]

Well, I heard it on the radio.

[swishandflick]

I don't think its possible to just come out of a movie theater and suddenly become anti-semetic. Hate is breeded over time, and one has to be either stupidly impressionable, or have previous anti-semetic feelings to come out of a movie theater hating a group of people. I doubt that Mel Gibson would ever say he didn't believe the Holocaust happened. That is an incredibily extremist view, and even if he does believe it he would never say it to the press. Radio personalities often exagerate to make thier point.

[HollywoodBob]

Yeah I thought the merchandizing was a little shameful.

If yall look closely, he's tied at the wrists then nailed to it. They used the rope to hide the seam of the false hand.

-HollywoodBob

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Wait, tied to the wrists and then nailed to the wrists, or nailed to the hand?

[Hagrid442]

Kaonashi, go to my post, numbered post #31 in this thread. Oh hell, I'll just re-post it.

A quick word from Mad Max himself:

You're going to have to go on record. The Holocaust happened, right?" Peggy Noonan asks of Mel Gibson in the Reader's Digest for March.

Gibson: "I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."

Not sure if this constitutes Holocaust Denial, but it sure does minimize the suffering of Jews in particular, and those that went through the war in general.

[Kaonashi]

Okay, he might be minimizing it there, but he's not saying that it never happened.

[Godrics_Heiress]

My sister's taking me to see it on Saturday. I'm a little apprehensive and I know I shouldn't be. I think that the vivid realization of what happened to Jesus during his final hours will kinda hit me in the head with a brick. I know it'll definitely make me cry.

[Wab]

Reviews I heard were that it was mind-numbingly dull and violent.

Not that I had any intention of going anyway.

I know how it ends.

[Kaonashi]

LOL Wab!

I might wait for it to come out on video because I cry a lot at movies, and I don't cry like a normal person, or quietly. They might throw me out of the theatre for this movie!

[FirefightingMuggle]

Wab :rotfl: I know how it ends :rotfl:

OK here's my 2 cents on this issue
I don't plan on seeing the movie in theaters. I'm not big on spending 7.50 a person and sit in an uncomfortable chair on something I can rent for 3.00 and watch on my couch.

I don't think that this movie is Anti-semetic. First Jesus preached love, acceptance, tolerance, and forgiveness. If you don't understand those things, you missed the point of Jesus in the first place. He was a positive force in the world. He preached a positive message. If you understand and accept the message, you will not feel anger or hatred toward the Jews, or to anyone else. Gibson claims to understand and accept, therefore he cannot hate anyone. If he is truly Christian, then he does not hate. Rather he forgives, and accepts.

Secondly, (and I'm not too sure on this as I am not Christian myself), didn't Jesus have to die? Wasn't part of his life on Earth supposed to be dying to forgive sin? So didn't the Jews and the Romans or whoever else just help to complete the work that Jesus was sent to do? IF you are a believer in predestination, then you should also believe that the Jews did their proper part. If God really did have this planned for his son, then having Jesus persecuted by his own people was part of that plan. It was God's will. How can following God's will be wrong?

Thridly. A Christian cannot be anti-semetic. A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was Jewish. Anti-Semetic people hate Jews. An Anti-Semetic Christian would hate his Savior, but still be his follower. You logically can not be a follower of something you hate with out going insane. Therefore we can deduce one of two things. 1)Either no Christian can be Anti-Semetic or 2) Anti-semetic Christians are insane. I prefer option one, because, as I said before, it is not a Christian principal to hate.

Finally, If all that I have stated above is true, and Mr. Mel Gibson is a true Christian, then he would not and could not make a movie that is Anti-Semetic. He would forgive the Jewish people of antiquity for persecuting Jesus. He would accept that they were doing the job and following the path that God laid down for them. He would accept that Jesus was sent here to teach and then die for the sins of man. He would not hate his savior.

It would be a shame if some shallow-minded people took this piece of ART and put an anti-semetic twist to it. It would be obvious to me that those people never understood the message that Jesus was preaching when he was alive. Like I said, I am not a Christian, but I believe that Jesus had a wonderful message that people should listen to. Love, Tolerance, Acceptance, Charity, Forgiveness, Hope....aren't those things that everyone needs a little more of, reguardless of your religion?
IF you still think that the movie can be anti-semetic after serious thought about Jesus, his life, his message, and Christian principles and teachings, then I don't know what to tell you.....

[DsX Phoenix]

Firefight, I know what you are saying, but all of your logic is flawed. It is all based on the idea that Christians truly are everything you stated (loving, accepting, etc.). They aren't. They are human. And as humans, certain qualities (ignorance, hatred, intolerance) are inherant. All Christians are biased towards their religion, and a lot manage to work past this bias and still manage to be somewhat accepting and loving. Many do a wonderful job at this. However, no one does a perfect job (since they're all human), and a few do an absolutely horrible job. For example, the Christian Chyrch is not very accepting of homosexuals at all. And where was the love for the Muslims during the Crusades?

Next, the fact that Jesus was Jewish himself slips the minds of most Christians on a regular basis. Christians do not consider themselves Jewish at all (classify it as a separate religion), when in fact Christianity is really nothing more than a sect of Judaism, like Baptists are a sect of Christianity.

So, your theory is exactly right on paper, but as with most theories, it messes up when applied to real life. Christians shouldn't be anti-semetic, but in actuality, quite a few are.

Also, I'd like to point out, a lot of Jews are not worried that the movie itself is anti-semetic, or even that Gibson is, but rather, that it will provoke anti-semetic feelings people who go to see the movie already have. It will basically be an excuse for people to act out against Jews, just as 9/11 was an excuse for many people to act out against Muslims.

[Lord_Chatterley]

Has anyone seen it yet?from me the movie will come out on the 7th of april.

[Auror Williamson]

BREAKING NEWS:



KAKE TV in Wichita, Kansas set report to a woman, in her 50s, suffered a heart attack during a morning screening of Mel Gibson's controversial film PASSION OF THE CHRIST. "She later died at the hospital," a station source tells the DRUDGE REPORT. The report is scheduled to be lead story on the station's 5 PM news. "She went into seizure during one of the film's most dramatic moments," a station source explains. The woman attended a 9:30am screening at Warren East Theaters in Wichita... Developing...

[Lord_Chatterley]

I don't believe it.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Wow!

That's the reason I'm not going to see it. After all the hullabaloo, I wanted to see what it was like, but as reports come out more and more about the violence, I say thanks but no thanks. There are two types of violence in movies. The first gun shots, explosions, fireballs, etc. It perhaps desensivitizes us to violence, but it doesn't make you cringe. The second is bloody, full of torture, pain, suffering. In other words, it simply disgusts the viewer. I don't mind the first kind of violence (though don't particularly care for it), but a movie that revels in the second kind I just don't want to see. From what I hear, the violence in the movie is to such an extent as to be pornographic. And that's not what I want to see.

[Lord_Chatterley]

Yes,but that's what we need to see.
That was the violence used on the people at that age,why should we censor it?

[hesdead-dealwithit]

It's not a matter of censoring it, I just don't want to see it, personally.

It's the glorification of violence. The story of Jesus is anything but the glorification of violence.

[malfoyfreak]

Well, I dont have much of a taste 4 movies based around religious things. I think it shows...favoritism. But I really cannot wait to see The Passion. I think it seems like a truly fascinating movie. I havent ever really watched anythng w/ Mel Gibson in it but, I think he will do a great job in this movie. And I cant wait to find out.

[Emma]

I saw it this afternoon, and in my own opinion I didn't think that it was all that violent. Of course there was blood and stuff, but you really didn't see much of it. It was like a Hitchcock type of thing, up to the viewer of what sort of violence is interpreted. I also saw the making of the film. Mel Gibson is in quite afew shots as hands and feet.

[Midnightsfire]

And in a related story:

'Jews Killed Jesus' Sign Causing Controversy Pastor Refuses To Remove Or Change Saying On Outdoor Marquee (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/2873395/detail.html)

*sigh*

[pottergirl09]

What do you think of "The Passion," from what you know about it?
I think it is a horrible display of public anti-Semitism that is historicly inaccurate made to increase negativity toward the Jewish population.

If you owned a movie theater, would you show it? Why?
NO. I would never, and will never, do anything else that economicly supports Mel Gibson.

What do you think the result of the movie would be on anti-Semitism?
I think that for anyone who believes the movie, it will greatly increase it.

[daniel4hp]

Next, the fact that Jesus was Jewish himself slips the minds of most Christians on a regular basis. Christians do not consider themselves Jewish at all (classify it as a separate religion), when in fact Christianity is really nothing more than a sect of Judaism, like Baptists are a sect of Christianity.
You are right about the idea of Jesus being Jewish slipping people's minds, which I find to be sad. However, I have to disagree that Christianity is a sect of Judaism. Originally Christianity was a sect of Judaism. However, as soon as non-Jews began to be let into the church (an idea credited to Paul), Christianity became a separate religion. I'm not speeking here from a religious point of view, but rather from a historical point of view. As long as all Christians were Jews, it was a sect of Judaism. However, you can mark its emergance as a separate religion when there were non-Jewish Christians.


Anyway, back to the film...

I saw it Wednesday, and enjoyed it quite a bit. I like the fact that it is in Aramaic and Latin from an artistic and historic point of view, but I think it did possibly make the film slightly more awkward. Anyway, I'm going to have to see the movie again to fully decide how I feel about it.

Violence: I had heard that the violence was shocking and extremely graphic. I didn't find this to be the case. Yes, it was violent, but not as much so as I had heard. And I feel that the violence that was there was fully justified -- it wasn't just put in for the sake of having violence, it was there to help you appreciate what Jesus went through, and I find this fully acceptable.

Emotion: I had heard reports of advanced screenings where the entire theatre was reduced to wailing. Not the case at my theatre. I personally found it to be intense, but not all that emotional in the sense of breaking down and weeping. There was really only one really emotion part, in my opinion -- the "I make all things new" part. The rest of was moving and intense, but I didn't break down crying. Nor did anyone else in my theatre.

[rotsiepots]

I think the extreme reaction to this film has partly to do with the fact that Christians have been fed such a sanitised version of crucifiction of the Christ. Other films haven't really portrayed a realistic version of the sheer brutality of it all, so I think everyone was rather shocked when Mel didn't follow suit.

It is violent and it is brutal, but I wasn't appalled by what I saw.

[Hagrid442]

LOL (http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040226/benson.gif)

[DsX Phoenix]

You are right about the idea of Jesus being Jewish slipping people's minds, which I find to be sad. However, I have to disagree that Christianity is a sect of Judaism. Originally Christianity was a sect of Judaism. However, as soon as non-Jews began to be let into the church (an idea credited to Paul), Christianity became a separate religion. I'm not speeking here from a religious point of view, but rather from a historical point of view. As long as all Christians were Jews, it was a sect of Judaism. However, you can mark its emergance as a separate religion when there were non-Jewish Christians.


Well, the only reason I said Christianity is a sect of Judaism, is because the two religions worship the same god. The only real difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Christians believe the Savior has come, while Jews do not.

[FizzingWhizbee]

I agree with Rosiepots in that the movie was brutal, but not horrifyingly so. There were a few scenes I couldn't watch, such as the nailing to the cross.

I found it extremely emotionally draining.

[Wab]

Well, the only reason I said Christianity is a sect of Judaism, is because the two religions worship the same god. The only real difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Christians believe the Savior has come, while Jews do not.

Same can be said of Islam. Like Christianity and Judaism Islam acknowledges Abraham as the great patriarch. Islam sees Christ as the second greatest of the prophets and Mohammed as The Prophet.

[DrummerboyDT]

Same can be said of Islam. Like Christianity and Judaism Islam acknowledges Abraham as the great patriarch. Islam sees Christ as the second greatest of the prophets and Mohammed as The Prophet.

I think the message Mel was getting at is that we all had a part in the death. The same kind of thing would happen anywhere else in the world at that time. It's not a racial thing, it's just a situation in one part of the world. Besides, in Judaism is the belief that the messiah will come one day so they are pre-christians in a since.

[Auror Williamson]

I saw the film today.


Pretty violent, but a great movie.


I personally do not see it as being anti-Semetic. If your Jewish, and you think it makes Jews look bad because of what the Jewish leaders did at that time, don't blame the film maker who inserts that piece of history just because your ashamed of what your leaders did.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Well, the only reason I said Christianity is a sect of Judaism, is because the two religions worship the same god. The only real difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Christians believe the Savior has come, while Jews do not.
Actually, that's more than just "the only real difference." That's a fundamental difference, and completely separates the two. In fact, if Jesus was a false Messiah, which is what Jews believe, then according to Jewish law he deserved to be killed. There are not a few Jews who are proud of killing Jesus.

*ducks*

[SilverStar]

Wow if I was a mod I'd step in.........this thread is getting very controversial.
Be careful people!!

Did you hear that some people got the random number '666' on their tickets and they were offended? (sorry if this offends anyone!!)

[RubberSoul]

I just saw the movie, and I can fully understand that Gibson wanted to portray what Jesus went through as realistically as possible, but there's a fine line between sadism and art, and I think this movie might have crossed it.

The acting, art direction, sets, etc. were all marvelous but I think if there had been a little more story and less graphic violence it would have made the movie all the better.

Does anyone know how Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ was received when it was released? Did it have the same kind of controversy surrounding it?

[DsX Phoenix]

Wow if I was a mod I'd step in.........this thread is getting very controversial.
Be careful people!!

Did you hear that some people got the random number '666' on their tickets and they were offended? (sorry if this offends anyone!!)

I don't think anyone was getting heated, just discussing certain things.

Anyways, yes, apparently the computer of a theatre in GA randomly placed the number 666 on the tickets, something that really isn't anything special, except for what this number is supposed to represent. I find it rather funny (in a "this is very ironic" sort of sense), myself. I do, however, understand why some people would be upset by this, especially if the number designation was chosen by a person.

[Kaonashi]

As someone else already pointed out, this movie isn't going to make you go out and hate Jewish people because chances are if you're inclined towards anti-Semitism in the first place you're going to feel that way regardless of this movie. Nor do I feel that this movie is saying that Jewish people as a whole hated Christ. There were a lot of Romans during that time period too...is this movie also Anti-Roman as well?

The least that people can do is go see this movie before they condemn it.

[DsX Phoenix]

No, but what this movie does do is give someone who already has anti-semetic views a reason for being anti-semetic. It sort of justifies their position (of course, this most likely wasn't the intention at all, but it is one of the side-effects), by saying, "Hey, look what the Jews did to Jesus!"

[Wab]

Does anyone know how Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ was received when it was released? Did it have the same kind of controversy surrounding it?

It was received by Christians picketing the theatres if I recall.

[Midnightsfire]

Wow if I was a mod I'd step in.........this thread is getting very controversial.
Be careful people!!


LOL!

Actually this is pretty tame.

So far everyone has posted pretty much their opinions as well as some reasonable arguments for such.

I agree with hesdead-dealwithit. (NOT the Seventh Sign, I checked.) Interestingly enough, Festus, the Roman Governor of Judea had a rare outsiders look. (Rare, because it can be found in the Bible.)

Therefore, when they were come hither, without any delay on the morrow I sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man to be brought forth.
Against whom when the accusers stood up, they brought none accusation of such things as I supposed:
But had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul asserted to be alive.
Acts 25:17-19

I just saw the movie, and I can fully understand that Gibson wanted to portray what Jesus went through as realistically as possible, but there's a fine line between sadism and art, and I think this movie might have crossed it.

I have heard it referred to as a "snuff" film. (For those that don't know, be thankful you don't. Suffice it to say that it involves a perverted pleasue in sadism. Very sick.)

[hesdead-dealwithit]

There are still some miracles that movies cannot accomplish. If, in the manner of the bleeding images of the old Christian legends, it were possible for Mel Gibson's film itself to bleed, and the blood with which it soaks its wretched hero to burst through the screen and soak its wretched audience, it would have done so. For The Passion of the Christ is intoxicated by blood, by its beauty and its sanctity. The bloodthirstiness of Gibson's film is startling, and quickly sickening. The fluid is everywhere. It drips, it runs, it spatters, it jumps. It trickles down the post at which Jesus is flagellated and down the cross upon which he is crucified, and the camera only reluctantly tears itself away from the scarlet scenery. The flagellation scene and the crucifixion scene are frenzies of blood. When Jesus is nailed to the wood, the drops of blood that spring from his wound are filmed in slow-motion, with a twisted tenderness. (Ecce slo-mo.) It all concludes in the shower of blood that issues from the corpse of Jesus when it is pierced by the Roman soldier's spear.

This is the greatest story ever told as Dario Argento might have told it, in its lurid style and in its contempt for the moral sensitivities of ordinary people. Gibson's subject is torture, and he treats his subject lovingly. There are no lilies in this field. There is only the relentless destruction and dehumanization of a man, who exists here to have his body punished with an almost unimaginable fury. He falls, he rises, he falls, he rises; he bends beneath the blows, but never mentally; his flesh is ripped, his head is stabbed, his eye is beaten shut, his hair is a wig of dried blood, he is a pulp with a cause. He is what the early church fathers, writing with admiration of their martyrs, called an "athlete" of suffering. Jim Caviezel, who plays Jesus, does not act, strictly speaking; he merely rolls his eyes heavenward and accepts more makeup. (He speaks little, as befits a man stupefied by suffering, though his Aramaic, like everybody else's in the film, is grammatically correct and risibly enunciated.)

The only cinematic achievement of The Passion of the Christ is that it breaks new ground in the verisimilitude of filmed violence. The notion that there is something spiritually exalting about the viewing of it is quite horrifying. The viewing of The Passion of the Christ is a profoundly brutalizing experience. Children must be protected from it. (If I were a Christian, I would not raise a Christian child on this.) Torture has been depicted in film many times before, but almost always in a spirit of protest. This film makes no quarrel with the pain that it excitedly inflicts. It is a repulsive masochistic fantasy, a sacred snuff film, and it leaves you with the feeling that the man who made it hates life.

Gibson is under the impression that he has done nothing more than put God's word into film. No Hollywood insider was ever so inside. "Critics who have a problem with me don't really have a problem with me and this film," he told Diane Sawyer, "they have a problem with the four Gospels." From such a statement it is impossible not to conclude that the man is staggeringly ignorant of his own patrimony. For the Gospels, like all great religious texts, have been interpreted in many different ways, to accommodate the needs and the desires of many different souls; and Gibson's account of these events is, like every other account, a particular construction of them. The Passion of the Christ is the expression of certain theological and artistic preferences. It is, more specifically, a noisy contemporary instance of a tradition of interpretation that came into its own in the late medieval centuries, when (in the words of a distinguished historian of Christian art) "the Passion became the chief concern of the Christian soul." In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, as a consequence of persecution and war and pestilence, the image of Christ hovering over the world in gilded majesty was replaced by the image of Jesus nailed in the world to the cross. Passion plays were devised for Holy Week. The lacerated Jesus became a commonplace of religious art, in which the Man of Sorrows plaintively displayed his wounds, which were venerated. This Jesus came to be drawn with a brutal realism, which climaxed in the grisly masterpieces of Grunwald.

So the kindest thing that may be said of Gibson is that he is an extremely late medieval. He contemplates the details of pain ecstatically. But this is still too kind, because the morbidity of the Man of Sorrows, even in its most popular versions, was rarely as crude as what Gibson presents. Does Christian dolorousness, a serious reflection upon the fate of Jesus, really require these special effects, this moral and aesthetic barbarity? The Passion of the Christ is the work of a religious sensibility of remarkable coarseness. It is by turns grossly physical and grossly magical, childishly literalist, gladly credulous, comically masculine. Gibson's faith is finally pre-theological, the kind of conviction that abhors thought, superstitiously fascinated by Satan and "the other realm," a manic variety of Christian folk religion.

It will be objected that I see only pious pornography in The Passion of the Christ because I am not a believer in the Christ. This is certainly so. I do not agree that Jesus is my savior or anybody else's. I confess that I smiled when the credits to The Passion of the Christ listed "stunts." So I am not at all the person for whom Gibson made this movie. But I do not see how a belief in Jesus strengthens the case for such a film. Quite the contrary. Belief, a theory of meaning, a philosophical convenience, is rarely far away from cruelty. Torture has always been attended by explanations that vindicate it, and justify it, and even hallow it. These explanations, which are really extenuations, have been articulated in religious and in secular terms. Their purpose is to redescribe an act of inhumanity so that it no longer offends, so that it comes to seem necessary, so that it edifies. My victim of torture is your martyr.

There is a small chapter in The City of God in which Augustine denounces torture--"a thing, indeed, to be bewailed, and, if that were possible, watered with fountains of tears"--and then complacently accepts the necessity of it. (He asks only that we "condemn human life as miserable.") Augustine is speaking not of the duties of the martyr, but of the duties of the wise judge. Introduce God into the grim situation, and you will find fountains of tears shed not only over the success of some individuals in making the ultimate sacrifice, but also over the failure of other individuals to do the same. This is true of all the religious traditions. There is an ideal of holy suicide in all of them. It is important that we know how such extreme deeds were understood by the men and the women who performed them, but we have no obligation to concur in their understanding of what they did. Religious belief may actually interfere with a lucid analysis of religious life. Anyway, is the sanctification of murder really what this country needs now?

There is another problem with the insistence that a movie such as The Passion of the Christ can be intelligible only to a believer. When a non-Christian such as myself reads the Gospels, he is filled with a deep and genuine pity for the man who endured this savagery, and for his mother. (Jesus' mother is infinitely more affecting than his father.) In its meticulous representation of Jesus' excruciations, Gibson's film is designed to inspire such pity. The spectacle of this man's doom should be unbearable to a good heart. Yet pity is precisely what The Passion of the Christ cannot inspire, because the faith upon which it is based vitiates the sympathetic emotions. Why feel pity, if this suffering is a blessing? Why mourn, if his reward for his torment, and the world's reward, is ordained? If Jesus is not exactly human, then it is not exactly dehumanization that we are watching, and that we are deploring.

Such prior reassurance, the ancient assuagement of theodicy, is found in all the religions when they come to the terrors of mortality; but the confidence in the outcome of Jesus' anguish is especially flamboyant. Gibson's film undoes itself in this way most completely in the crucifixion scene. Just as the hammer is about to drive the nail into Jesus' hand (the hammer is held by the director's own hand, he proudly wishes you to know), the film flashes back to the Last Supper, where the camera catches Jesus' lovely gesticulating hands as he teaches that the bread is his body; and when the cross is raised, another flashback shows him instructing his disciples that his blood is the new covenant. So this passio is not a tragedy; it is a gift. The film ends three days later, when a ray of golden light penetrates the tomb as the stone is rolled away, and the shroud lies empty on the slab, and Jesus is alive again. As he rises to leave, the hole in his hand passes before our eyes. And the sight of the wound is about as moving as the sound of a doctrine. For we know by now that no atrocity has really been committed. All that has taken place is the temporarily discomfiting fulfillment of a divine plan for the redemption of the world. The ending is happy, which has the effect of making the viewer, or at least this viewer, feel like he has been duped. His sympathy was based on a misunderstanding. He had assumed that what was done to this man was outrageous, but he was wrong. He should have been rooting all along, with Gibson, for the whips and the nails.

The Passion of The Christ is an unwitting incitement to secularism, because it leaves you desperate to escape its standpoint, to find another way of regarding the horror that you have just observed. This is unfair to, well, Christianity, since Christianity is not a cult of Gibsonesque gore. But there is a religion toward which Gibson's movie is even more unfair than it is to its own. In its representation of its Jewish characters, The Passion of the Christ is without any doubt an anti-Semitic movie, and anybody who says otherwise knows nothing, or chooses to know nothing, about the visual history of anti-Semitism, in art and in film. What is so shocking about Gibson's Jews is how unreconstructed they are in their stereotypical appearances and actions. These are not merely anti-Semitic images; these are classically anti-Semitic images. In this regard, Gibson is most certainly a traditionalist.

Now that Gibson has made the mistake of allowing people to see The Passion of the Christ--the film was much more interesting before it was released--it is plain that the controversy about its inclusion of Matthew 27:25, the infamous cry of the Jews that "his blood be on us and our children," the imprecation that served through the centuries as the warrant for the Christian assault on the Jews, was a fake, a cynical game. When Jewish groups objected to this passage in the script, Gibson expediently deleted the English translation of it. I say expediently, because decency would have prevented him from including it, from shooting it, at all. But he may as well have kept it in, because it is entirely of a piece with the Jews whom he has invented. The figure of Caiaphas, played with disgusting relish by an actor named Mattia Sbragia, is straight out of Oberammergau. Like his fellow priests, he has a graying rabbinical beard and speaks with a gravelly sneer and moves cunningly beneath a tallit-like shawl streaked with threads the color of money. He is gold and cold. All he does is demand an execution. He and his sinister colleagues manipulate the ethically delicate Pilate into acquiescing to the crucifixion. (You would think that Rome was a colony of Judea.) Meanwhile the Jewish mob is regularly braying for blood. It is the Romans who torture Jesus, but it is the Jews who conspire to make them do so. The Romans are brutish, but the Jews are evil.

Gibson pleads that these are nothing but the elements of the Gospel narratives, but the Gospels are not clear and reliable historical documents. His notion of authenticity has no time for history. Historiographically speaking, after all, there is no such thing as gospel truth; and so his portrayal of the Jews is based on nothing more than his own imagination of what they looked like and sounded like. And Gibson's imagination has offered no resistance to the iconographical inheritance of Western anti-Semitism. Again, these things are not passively received. They are willingly accepted. Gibson created this movie; it was not revealed to him. Like his picture of Jesus, his picture of the Jews is the consequence of certain religious and cinematic decisions for which he must be held accountable. He has chosen to give millions of people the impression that Jews are culpable for the death of Jesus. In making this choice, which defies not only the scruples of scholars but also the teaching of the Catholic Church, Gibson has provided a fine illustration of the cafeteria Catholicism of the right. And the American media, which flourish by confusing gullibility with curiosity, go merrily along. A few weeks ago the cover of Newsweek asked, over a closeup of Caviezel crowned with thorns, "who really killed jesus?" The article inside the magazine exonerated us, so we are safe. But is this really the question facing America? Up next: Should his blood be upon us and our children or shouldn't it? We'll be back right after this message. Don't go away.

No, go away. And take this low moment with you--but not until a little attention is paid to some of the praise that has been offered for this pernicious film. The apologetics for The Passion of the Christ must represent an intellectual nadir in contemporary American conservatism. Thoughtful people have been uttering thoughtless words. "Heartbreaking," declared Michael Novak after a screening, as if he had just walked out of Waterloo Bridge. "A meditation," he lazily called it in The Weekly Standard. It is hard to think of anything more unlike a meditation than The Passion of the Christ. But the discussion of the film was immediately and ferociously politicized, as conservatives conflated the defense of Gibson's religion with the defense of religion. If you turned away from Gibson's Jesus, you turned away from Jesus. The Via Dolorosa became the slippery slope. To criticize the film was to be godless. To suggest that it is not an accurate record of Jerusalem in the first century was to be anti-Christian. To worry that it is anti-Semitic was to be liberal. (The vigilance about anti-Semitism upon which conservatives like to congratulate themselves suddenly vanished.) Come to think of it, Pilate is the liberal in Gibson's film. And Gibson shrewdly encouraged this view of his slasher movie as the bulwark of a civilization: He made cultural warfare into a marketing strategy. Is the film violent? Of course it is, but this is God's violence. This violence is good for America.

Gibson's Jewish defenders have been especially disgraceful. "Jewish organizations must not attempt to take responsibility for deciding what Christians can and cannot believe," wrote Michael Medved in The Christian Science Monitor, as if the Jewish criticism of Gibson's film is anything other than the behavior of American citizens freely expressing an opinion. "If we are empowered to edit their doctrine," David Klinghoffer asked ominously in the Forward, "then why are they not empowered to edit ours?" reminding his readers that once upon a time the Christians censored the Talmud. Is Gibson now doctrine? Is criticism now censorship? And where is the Sanhedrin on the Upper West Side that is poring over Christian texts with a black marker? Then there was the argument for timidity. "Jewish denunciations of the movie only increase the likelihood that those who hate us will seize on the movie as an excuse for more hatred," Medved declared. I wonder if he feels the same way about Jewish denunciations of Islamic anti-Semitism. In a journal of the American Enterprise Institute, he warned that "sadly, the battle over the The Passion may indeed provoke more hatred of the Jews." Yet the hatred of the Jews is not simply a response to the Jewish response to the hatred of the Jews. Anti-Semitism is not anti-anti-anti-Semitism. It is an old and independent and vital tradition of fear and hallucination, a non-Jewish disorder that has nothing to do with the Jews, as The Passion of the Christ demonstrates.

But the loathing of Jews in Mel Gibson's film is really not its worst degradation. Kim le bi-deraba mine, as Yeshua might have said: Its loathing of Jews is subsumed in its loathing of spirituality, in its loathing of existence. If there is a kingdom of heaven, The Passion of the Christ is shutting it in men's faces.
It's an interesting article, long, of course, with some interesting points. But I think it misses the mark.

[daniel4hp]

The bloodthirstiness of Gibson's film is startling, and quickly sickening. ... The only cinematic achievement of The Passion of the Christ is that it breaks new ground in the verisimilitude of filmed violence.
I didn't read the whole article, but from skimming it, I have to say that I think I strongly disagree. The film is not in my opinion that violent. Yes, there is violence, there is blood, but there are a hell of a lot of films out there that are worse. To say that this film "breaks new ground" is vastly unfair. Maybe its just me, but I honestly didn't find the level of violence to be shocking.

Nor do I feel that Gibson was being sadistic, mideval, or bloodthirsty in his portrayal of Christ. He wanted to show what Christ went through (or what he believes Christ went through) and he wanted it to make an impact. He wanted people to appreciate the suffering Christ was willing to undergo. This is not sadistic; this is not enjoying showing violence and blood.

[Hagrid442]

I've been playing devil's advocate on this issue all along, but some things make me wonder. Here's a recent letter to the LA Times.

I am a high school teacher and the daughter of Holocaust survivors. Monday morning, Period 1, a student, age 17, comes into my room. She asks me if I had seen the film "The Passion."

I answer, "No."

She continues, "It was so sad. I cried so much. I hate the Jews."

Very, very sadly, that tells the whole story, Mr. Gibson.

Anna Paikow

Los Angeles

Link (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-gibson3mar03,1,7388667.story?coll=la-news-comment-letters)

It might not be what Gibson intends, but apparently it is inevitable that some people will find it anti-Semitic, even if most of it is leftist PC stuff. On the other hand, people with inherent anti-Semitic feelings will only have them reinforced. I wonder if it were wise for Gibson to produce this movie. Oh well, the cat's out of the bag. What are we going to do? Censor it?

[Wab]

With absolutely no desire to see this film, it seems that what has worried the people who are worried about violence is that it was far beyond the level normally allowed for films of that rating and the dwelling on what was a tiny part of the story.

"Yet the film's true shock lies in Gibson's vision of what is most important in the Jesus story, in the relentless, near pornographic feast of flayed flesh. Gibson gives us Christ's blood, not in a Communion cup but by the gallon...The bulk of his ministry, miracles and post-Resurrection appearances are absent, and his preaching of love flicked at in telegraphically brief flashbacks. Meanwhile, his scourging, handled in all four Gospels in a total of three sentences, takes up nine full minutes of film."

David Van Biema, Time

[Morgoth]

Nor do I feel that Gibson was being sadistic, mideval, or bloodthirsty in his portrayal of Christ. He wanted to show what Christ went through (or what he believes Christ went through) and he wanted it to make an impact. He wanted people to appreciate the suffering Christ was willing to undergo. This is not sadistic; this is not enjoying showing violence and blood.

What I find odd is that everyone feels so sad about seeing what Christ went through but if he knew his mission on Earth was to eventually die then he consciously brought about his own death and as you said, he willingly accepted punishment, so I fail to see why that should invoke with me any sympathy. I'd be more sympathetic if he had fought to be executed or punished.

[Emma]

This is what I was taught. He knew what was going to happen. It wasn't a big shock to him. In the film they even say "it has begun". Both the Mother and Jesus I believe said something to that effect.

Again I really didn't find it all that disturbing. The film and the editing was great.

[daniel4hp]

With absolutely no desire to see this film, it seems that what has worried the people who are worried about violence is that it was far beyond the level normally allowed for films of that rating and the dwelling on what was a tiny part of the story.
The film's rated R. I don't think you can really describe the level of violence shown as "far beyond the level normally allowed for films of that rating." There is quite a bit of violence, but there have been many R-rated films that desplayed more. For an R rating, this film is nothing at all out of line.

What I find odd is that everyone feels so sad about seeing what Christ went through but if he knew his mission on Earth was to eventually die then he consciously brought about his own death and as you said, he willingly accepted punishment, so I fail to see why that should invoke with me any sympathy. I'd be more sympathetic if he had fought to be executed or punished.
Well, the idea of many Christians is that this shows just how much he loved humanity -- he will willing to undergo this level of pain and suffering to save mankind. I think it is this message of love -- what he was willing to go through -- that evokes such emotional feelings in many Christians. Of course, there is also the element that no matter how willing he was, he was also innocent, but I think the thing that touches most Christians so much is seeing the level of pain that Jesus was willing to undergo for them. :shrug:

You do bring a good point up, though. Being sad simply because Christ suffered isn't all that sensible, because, although he was innocent, he chose to do it. The reason for the suffering can evoke emotion, and witnessing the pain can cause a Christian to reflect on Christ's love, but simply being sad because Jesus was beaten doesn't bear much logic.

[SilverWings]

I'm not Catholic, but even the Pope said of the movie, "It is as it was." For those who are worried about what the movie entails regarding racism against the Jews, there were only two basic religions in the time of Jesus. Gentiles (Christians) and Jews. The prophecy was written in the old testimate of the bible that the Messiah would be rejected by his own people. What the movie didn't show you was that 5 days before they purscued Jesus, they welcomed him AS the Messiah. (This is known as Palm Sunday.) Jesus came riding on a donkey while people raised palms and cheered that thier Messiah had finally come.

I had a boss who was a orthodox jew and he was one of the best boss's I have ever had and he told me why they thought that Jesus wasn't the Messiah. It was because they wanted Jesus to kick the Romans out and make his kingdom here on earth. Of which Jesus didn't. What Jesus said was that he was going rebuild God's temple in 3 days. The temple was meaning his body.

When Jesus died, he desended into Hell to save those who died before he came to the world, on the third day, he rose again and walked on the earth for 40 days. On the 40th day, he assended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the father.

Some people get this confused. They think that Jesus came as a Messiah to the Jews and the the jews would live like Kings because of all the hardships that they have endured. That isn't true. Jesus came and died for the sins of ALL the world.

If I am wrong, then please correct me. I don't protest to be a doctor in Theology. (I don't mean to preach. Opinions are neither right or wrong. They just are.)

Mandi

[Tane]

In my eyes I see no difference in the way Jesus was treated than those who today oppose the dictatorial leaders and suffer the same retribution for simply having a different belief. This type of treatment happens to some of the men, women and children of today but they are not worship in the same mannerism nor told they died for all of their kind.

[Wab]

The film's rated R. I don't think you can really describe the level of violence shown as "far beyond the level normally allowed for films of that rating." There is quite a bit of violence, but there have been many R-rated films that desplayed more. For an R rating, this film is nothing at all out of line.

Here it was only MA15+.

[rotsiepots]

Here it was only MA15+.

The OFLC occasionally rates films with high levels of graphic violence with an MA rating because they're "important" films for people to see, apparently. They did something similar with Black Hawk Down waaay back in 2001 when they downgraded its rating from R to MA because of the "message" of the film (this was according to the film's director, Ridley Scott, although I'm sure the official line from the OFLC was something similar, anyway).

You can read about their MA rating for The Passion of the Christ here (http://www.oflc.gov.au/resource.html?resource=291&filename=291.pdf).

I'm fairly certain the American R rating is more or less equivalent to MA. Someone might want to correct me on that.

[Tane]

The film represents stark reality of what human kind are capable of doing to others. Only this year alone a woman had to appeal over being stoned to death because she gave birth to a child 9 months after being divorced, which was enough to convict her under a new Islamic law.

Stoning of woman. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/09/25/nigeria.stoning/)

The sentence was over turned but only due to the woman being pregnant, if she had not conceived another child then she could have lost the appeal. That would have had her buried up to the neck and then stoned in the head until she was dead. That was something that happened just this year.

This woman was not the first because apparently there was another convicted of the same crime of adultery but nothing was stated about what happened to her.

What happened to Jesus could still happen to people today as those laws where never dropped and in some cases are still implemented behind closed doors.

[Midnightsfire]

I wasn't all that enthused about the movie and I really wasn't thinking too seriously about seeing it. (Big surprise to many I'm sure *grins*)


And then there's this idiot (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20040304.shtml) who is so obviously ignorant of the Christian religions it's almost painful to read.

[Hagrid442]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! It's a good thing no one takes her seriously anymore. Or at least... I hope not. Uhhhh... NEWSFLASH Ann. Ever hear of the CRUSADES?!?! Duh????

Oh... and I suppose William Safire (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/01/opinion/01SAFI.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists) is a member of the "evil liberal conspiracy"? Hmmm... former speechwriter to Nixon, and dedicated apologist to the Gulf War 2. (He had a ridiculous article where he said because of a few CD's captured by a Kurd terrorist with ties to Al Qaeda that somehow Hussein and Al Qaeda were huge party buddies) Anyway, I digress.

Not Peace, but a Sword
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Published: March 1, 2004


WASHINGTON — The word "passion" is rooted in the Latin for "suffer." Mel Gibson's movie about the torture and agony of the final hours of Jesus is the bloodiest, most brutal example of sustained sadism ever presented on the screen.

Because the director's wallowing in gore finds an excuse in a religious purpose — to show how horribly Jesus suffered for humanity's sins — the bar against film violence has been radically lowered. Movie mayhem, long resisted by parents, has found its loophole; others in Hollywood will now find ways to top Gibson's blockbuster, to cater to voyeurs of violence and thereby to make bloodshed banal.

What are the dramatic purposes of this depiction of cruelty and pain? First, shock; the audience I sat in gasped at the first tearing of flesh. Next, pity at the sight of prolonged suffering. And finally, outrage: who was responsible for this cruel humiliation? What villain deserves to be punished?

Not Pontius Pilate, the Roman in charge; he and his kindly wife are sympathetic characters. Nor is King Herod shown to be at fault.

The villains at whom the audience's outrage is directed are the actors playing bloodthirsty rabbis and their rabid Jewish followers. This is the essence of the medieval "passion play," preserved in pre-Hitler Germany at Oberammergau, a source of the hatred of all Jews as "Christ killers."

Much of the hatred is based on a line in the Gospel of St. Matthew, after the Roman governor washes his hands of responsibility for ordering the death of Jesus, when the crowd cries, "His blood be on us, and on our children."

Though unreported in the Gospels of Mark, Luke or John, that line in Matthew — embraced with furious glee by anti-Semites through the ages — is right there in the New Testament. Gibson and his screenwriter didn't make it up, nor did they misrepresent the apostle's account of the Roman governor's queasiness at the injustice.

But biblical times are not these times. This inflammatory line in Matthew — and the millenniums of persecution, scapegoating and ultimately mass murder that flowed partly from its malign repetition — was finally addressed by the Catholic Church in the decades after the defeat of Naziism.

In 1965's historic Second Vatican Council, during the papacy of Paul VI, the church decided that while some Jewish leaders and their followers had pressed for the death of Jesus, "still, what happened in his passion cannot be charged against all Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today."

That was a sea change in the doctrinal interpretation of the Gospels, and the beginning of major interfaith progress.

However, a group of Catholics rejects that and other holdings of Vatican II. Mr. Gibson is reportedly aligned with that reactionary clique. (So is his father, an outspoken Holocaust-denier, but the son warns interviewers not to go there. I agree; the latest generation should not be held responsible for the sins of the fathers.)

In the skillful publicity run-up to the release of the movie, Gibson's agents said he agreed to remove that ancient self-curse from the screenplay. It's not in the subtitles I saw the other night, though it may still be in the Aramaic audio, in which case it will surely be translated in the versions overseas.

And there's the rub. At a moment when a wave of anti-Semitic violence is sweeping Europe and the Middle East, is religion well served by updating the Jew-baiting passion plays of Oberammergau on DVD? Is art served by presenting the ancient divisiveness in blood-streaming media to the widest audiences in the history of drama?

Matthew in 10:34 quotes Jesus uncharacteristically telling his apostles: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." You don't see that on Christmas cards and it's not in this film, but those words can be reinterpreted — read today to mean that inner peace comes only after moral struggle.

The richness of Scripture is in its openness to interpretation answering humanity's current spiritual needs. That's where Gibson's medieval version of the suffering of Jesus, reveling in savagery to provoke outrage and cast blame, fails Christian and Jew today.

[daniel4hp]

And then there's this idiot who is so obviously ignorant of the Christian religions it's almost painful to read.
Ugh. That idiot's ignorance is painful to read. *shudders*

[rotsiepots]

And then there's this idiot (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20040304.shtml) who is so obviously ignorant of the Christian religions it's almost painful to read.

:wow:. Oh. My. GOODNESS. I don't think there are enough words to summarise the contempt in which I'm currently holding Ann Coulter. What an idiot.

[Midnightsfire]

Yes. I did indeed feel a bit insulted on behalf of Christians posting here.

It did feel strange I admit, But there ya go.

[GryffindorGr]

I wasn't all that enthused about the movie and I really wasn't thinking too seriously about seeing it. (Big surprise to many I'm sure *grins*)


And then there's this idiot (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20040304.shtml) who is so obviously ignorant of the Christian religions it's almost painful to read.
Wow. I just read that. Incredible. Just like a true columnist with a cut throat propensity to get attention and a rise out of people. It's another way of trying to get people to make you famous. And another way to get those who are already ignorant of religion and christianity in general to steer away from the true meaning of what it means. Truly sad.

[PadfootBlack]

As far as I'm concerned it's just her opinion. It's as good as yours or mine. Most of what she said in that article was greatly exagerrated and that's what you have to do to make people listen nowadays. I'm sure she understands Christianity just fine. It's other peoples' misinterpretations and ignorance that she has a problem with, in my opinion.

If you don't like reading Ann Coulter why don't you go read Michael Moore's drivel instead??

[Hagrid442]

Won't read him either. He's the Ann Coulter of the Left.

Both don't merely exaggerate, they obfuscate and lie.

[Wab]

As far as I'm concerned it's just her opinion. It's as good as yours or mine. Most of what she said in that article was greatly exagerrated and that's what you have to do to make people listen nowadays. I'm sure she understands Christianity just fine. It's other peoples' misinterpretations and ignorance that she has a problem with, in my opinion.

If you don't like reading Ann Coulter why don't you go read Michael Moore's drivel instead??

But better than MM's opinion?

The key difference between Moore and Coulter (apart from a welter of IQ points) is that Moore has a sense of humour and has never advocated murder: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

And, unlike Coulter, Moore has actually expressed a degree of admiration for both Coulter and Bill O'Reilly and accepted their right to expression.

[SilverStar]

Does anyone know who played the devil in this film?? (like the name of the actor)

[SilverStar]

Does anyone know who played the devil in this film?? (like the name of the actor). My sister said he did very well and that he should play Voldemort. Obviously, if he can play the devil, he can play voldy.

[FlyingPhoenix]

An action figure of that woman? Are they serious? Its a bit funny to read this after such a review. Maybe a hint? You know if you mad buy that figure and burn it or something like that.

But seriously after I saw that movie I fail to see how you can take it all that serious? Right, the jew's or better the high-pastors don't come away that well but I think in every Jesus movie is it like that. There don't exist a single one I saw where they get away better.
I don't think this movie was really touching. Maybe because I thought after he finally died its over. A good thing in my opinion. How was it "Dead might be even painless". No more pain? A good thing after 2 hours of that movie. I felt more with Marie but that was it. Just a movie nothing special about it only its well now bit more realistic.

[Hagrid442]

I agree, Flying Phoenix. It's only a movie! Why get all worked up over it? In a year, no one will care all that much over the controversy it has caused. By that time, the DVD's will be in bargain bins all over.

[Morgoth]

I think the movie will have a longer lasting effect mainly because of its amazing performance at the box office and Mel's pretty good pay day from the movie. It certainly won't be remembered in twenty years as well as Lord of the Rings or even the Harry Potter movies will, then again, they'll still be waiting for JK to finish book seven in twenty years!

[JofpGallagher]

Does anyone know who played the devil in this film?? (like the name of the actor). My sister said he did very well and that he should play Voldemort. Obviously, if he can play the devil, he can play voldy.

The Devil role was given to Rosalinda Celentano who is (curiously?...:lol: ) a woman!
She did an excellent job though.

I liked the movie a lot. I think that in the short run (10 years) the movie may not be remembered too much, but then it could happen that the movie get a certain good “status” in the long run. There are movies that are like the wine, they get better with the time. The best example is “Citizen Kane”.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Tale Tied to Hanukkah Holiday Stirs Gibson Vision (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040317/film_nm/leisure_gibson_dc_2)

Apparently Gibson now wants to make a film about the story of Hanukkah. :lol: I'm not sure if guerrilla warfare suits his style, however. :D

[JofpGallagher]

And then there's this idiot (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20040304.shtml) who is so obviously ignorant of the Christian religions it's almost painful to read.
Honestly, entitle her as an idiot is to be kind. What a waste of cyberspace. I just felt like I have wasted two minutes of my life like never I have reading that :no:

[Hagrid442]

Honestly, entitle her as an idiot is to be kind. What a waste of cyberspace. I just felt like I have wasted two minutes of my life like never I have reading that :no:

There's very little difference between Ann Coulter and the fundamentalists of Al Qaeda. About the only true differences are their genders and religions. They have much the same mindset. C'mon, this is someone that once said: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

Don't believe me? Here. (http://users.rcn.com/skutsch/anticoulter/quotes.html)

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Actually, there's a huge difference. One spouts off "opinions," the other spouts off opinions and then acts on them. It's the difference between wanting to kill someone and actually doing it - the former most people experience at some time (or should experience at some time), the latter is probably the worst act a person can commit.

[SilverStar]

The Devil role was given to Rosalinda Celentano who is (curiously?...:lol: ) a woman!
She did an excellent job though.

I liked the movie a lot. I think that in the short run (10 years) the movie may not be remembered too much, but then it could happen that the movie get a certain good “status” in the long run. There are movies that are like the wine, they get better with the time. The best example is “Citizen Kane”.

Thanks! I think she should play Bellatrix...

[Confessor]

There's very little difference between Ann Coulter and the fundamentalists of Al Qaeda. About the only true differences are their genders and religions. They have much the same mindset. C'mon, this is someone that once said: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

Don't believe me? Here. (http://users.rcn.com/skutsch/anticoulter/quotes.html)

I suppose it would be fantastic if it was "invade, kill and convert to atheism," then.

For my opinion on the Passion - I'd never watch something so offensive.

[Morgoth]

So the Passion of the Christ. One of the things that concerned me about this film is the effect it would have on those I was sat around in the cinema. Last thing I wanted was a bunch of weeping people, but luckily the theatre wasn't completely full last night so I was able to actually rest my legs up on the chairs and sit back and relax with some great ice cream. To be honest, having read a lot of reactions from atheists, I was expecting to feel the same way about the movie, quite violent, bloody, depressing and hollywood-ized and ultimately a waste of time. I got some those things from the movie but to be honest I was actually quite impressed with it as a piece of art. The story in itself was compelling enough and the performances of the actors were adequate enough to convey the type of emotion you would have expected from people of that period.

First off, I wouldn't say that the movie was anti-semetic. I look at it like this, the orthodox Jewish people were led and heavily influenced by the religious leaders of that period, which can be said by for any period in history and for any religion or political beliefs. They reacted to the anger of their leaders and did nothing wrong in following their will because religious leaders in all cases are expected to lead by example of faith and whatever they profess it will cause a reaction and that is evident throughout history. Fast forward to Germany in the 1930s and you have the same sort of thing happening, but you don't punish the German people today for the continual racial tesnsion perpetrated by Neo-Nazis. You accept that history has left a legacy that only todays generations of people can hope to avoid for future problems and that's what history should be, a lesson, not a punishment of others.

Now, the violence towards Jesus irrespective of beliefs was horrible and disgusting, even if it was great make up, it was still horrible to look at, cuts, gashes, lacerations, blood soak eyes. The torture that was displayed was quite gruesome and although it didn't provoke a sense of outrage or sympathy in me, it was effective in conveying the image that many, many Christians probably have never considered could have happened to Jesus and that's probably what gave rise to the emotional response in many. I can appreciate how a believer in Christ would feel in seeing the person they worship treated so badly by the ignorance of others.

Speaking of... the movie does a good job of teaching how ignorance and suspicion will always overcome common sense and compassion. The character of Jesus is the anti-human, the opposite of all our instincts, which is why it's incredibly hard for anyone today to mirror the type of compassion that Jesus was said to have shown others. But the movie was good in showing that ignorance has always been a timeless device used by the good and bad to provoke outrage and violence without a thought for the greater consequences of such actions. If the movie had any effect on me at all, it was that we have come no farther in our understanding of each other and our differences. We react with suspicion and venom even when the most innocent of gestures is made by the kindest of people, we don't expect others to care in any great manner for our welfare as we have become quite an isolate people with a view to working only for our own gains and anything else is secondary. But then, that's the choices that we make and that's our right to be selfish and uninterested in the welfare of others, whom at the best of times are just in our way and crowding our would-be peaceful and successful lives.

I wasn't too sure about Pontious Pilate though, the man who eventually allowed Jesus to be executed. His unhappiness with the way the Jews wanted Jesus to be treated was a bit too overdone in my opinion. He was a military man, a clever man and ultimately Jesus' death should not have been such a big issue if it meant stemming rebellion. However, he muttered the most significant line of the entire film: "What is truth?" Indeed, the question that evades all people right up to this very day is that there is no absolute truth and I think that the matter of faith is dealt with quite well in the scenes with Pilate, his wife & Jesus, when he [Pilate] asks his wife (paraphrased) "Do you know truth when it speaks?" and she answers "Yes." I think that again, the movie tells its audience "Ask and you shall find."

It's not aggressive in its prostelyzing and I didn't feel that there was a sense of preaching to me, the viewer. I think Mel Gibson did a good job in conveying a version and I will say that again, a version of events in a manner that stood back from throwing the central theme of Christianity and the truth it purports to be into your face. It's a case of: "This is what we know, it's up to you now" and really it is up to us about how we interpret this film, whether we think its hateful, anti-semetic or whether we think it's good & truthful. The medias reaction to this movie is IMO the bigger cause of anti-semetic attitudes than the film itself and I feel that Mel Gibson has been unfairly targetted by the media for apparent anti-Jewish beliefs. Whatever his beliefs, I believe that he has handled the movie in a sensible enough manner to allow a wide enough audience to get the central message of Jesus, which is about loving one another and if Gibson truly was anti-semetic then he would be guilty of breaking that very command.

Has the movie altered my view about Jesus. Well no, because I was already aware of who Jesus was as a human being. I wasn't as aware of the brutality that he may well have endured at the hands of the Romans, but again that doesn't create a sympathetic response because I do feel Jesus was aware he had to die and he could of ended the persecution at any time he wanted and ultimately it was just a movie and Christianity can't be summarised into a two hour movie. There are many aspects of Christian thinking, which I simply cannot appreciate or respect when being told about the Passion of Christ. I still feel that if Christianity wants to win more hearts and minds, it has to do soul searching of its own and examine the possiblity that it is the victim of human interferance and that the Bible cannot be taken wholly as a factual document. There has to be change somewhere, progress towards great unity.

So, overall, I'd give this movie a 9 out of 10 for entertainment value, a 7 out of 10 for acting and a who knows for historical accuracy. I would recommend this movie to non-Christians simply because it is entertaining and if you are aware of your beliefs, then this movie should not threaten them in any way

[LuvHP_001]

What do you think of "The Passion," from what you know about it?Well,i am a Jew and pretty much i'm tired of Mel and his father. Mel claims that this movie is to show the christian fate and the journey of Christ. Well, i'm not blind and his statements and the film are clearly blaming Jews for his death. HE choose to die, we jews didn't kill him. You know, we have to live through so much each and everyday and see people mock and critisise our religion and beliefs. So Mel decides to make a movie that clearly has anti-semitic points of views and then convinces people that are gullable that what he says is right, and then we get more bull. My friend saw it because she wanted to know what the conterversy was all about and she's a christian and absolutely agreed with me. It makes us look like terrible people. Anytime something is wrong, who gets blamed? Jews. What i hate the most is liers and Mel is certainly one.

If you owned a movie theater, would you show it? Why?Never, because i know that it bothers people and i wouldn't want to earn money and get money for that kind of movie. I want to show a good film that's acceptable.

What do you think the result of the movie would be on anti-Semitism?just read above.

Sorry if i get carried away or off-topic but I HAD to release that.

Also i just have to add that even though there is a lot of violent films that is going too far and is quite disturbing.

[MarcKal]

What do you think of "The Passion," from what you know about it?Well,i am a Jew and pretty much i'm tired of Mel and his father. Mel claims that this movie is to show the christian fate and the journey of Christ. Well, i'm not blind and his statements and the film are clearly blaming Jews for his death. HE choose to die, we jews didn't kill him. You know, we have to live through so much each and everyday and see people mock and critisise our religion and beliefs. So Mel decides to make a movie that clearly has anti-semitic points of views and then convinces people that are gullable that what he says is right, and then we get more bull. My friend saw it because she wanted to know what the conterversy was all about and she's a christian and absolutely agreed with me. It makes us look like terrible people. Anytime something is wrong, who gets blamed? Jews. What i hate the most is liers and Mel is certainly one.

Actually, there has been no raise of "Jew" haters, discriminators, etc.

[red_fairy]

What do you think of "The Passion," from what you know about it?
Well,i am a Jew and pretty much i'm tired of Mel and his father. Mel claims that this movie is to show the christian fate and the journey of Christ. Well, i'm not blind and his statements and the film are clearly blaming Jews for his death. HE choose to die, we jews didn't kill him. You know, we have to live through so much each and everyday and see people mock and critisise our religion and beliefs. So Mel decides to make a movie that clearly has anti-semitic points of views and then convinces people that are gullable that what he says is right, and then we get more bull. My friend saw it because she wanted to know what the conterversy was all about and she's a christian and absolutely agreed with me. It makes us look like terrible people. Anytime something is wrong, who gets blamed? Jews. What i hate the most is liers and Mel is certainly one.

I don't want to offend you, and please do not post that I am ignorant, prejudiced, etc. like I have seen other people responded to when they had a particularly delicate topic. I had a friend who was Jewish, and he said he did not have a problem with it. Saying that the Jews get blamed for everything is very extreme. I have lots of Jewish friends, and nobody acts rude or obnoxious to them because of their faith. While in the past Jews were often discriminated against, I was under the impression that things were a lot better now. (Please don't yell at me.)

Does anyone actually beleive the bull that the Jews are responsible? People, look at this. Christ's crucifiction happened almost 2000 years ago. What type of (insert word of your choice) would hold something against a group of people who belonged to a faith that was blamed by some people to have murdered Jesus? The Romans were also responsible. There were no innocent parties involved. Jesus was Jewish for Lords sake! If you go by that, shouldn't all Christians be held responsible for all the destruction of the crusades?! It is just plain stupid to blame the Jews. The people who actually did crucify Jesus are long gone. There bones are dust. It's stupid to blame a group of people for something that happened 2000 years ago.

[grrliz]

If I remember correctly, wasn't it God who decided that Jesus needed to die in order to save humanity? Wasn't everyone else, then just playing various roles in order for that to happen? There was a book written called A Time For Judas that presented the idea that Judas was not the bad guy he's made out to be, that he played an integral part in the crucifixion. People like to assign blame as to "who" crucified Jesus. But isn't the crucifixion a very important part of the faith? In fact, isn't the crucifixion and Jesus' subsequent rising from the dead largely the basis of Christianity? Why are we assigning "blame" then?

My issue with the movie is not whether or not it's historically correct or if it is anti-semitic or even the violence. My problem with it was that it didn't seem to bother to equate the crucifixion with any sort of spiritual idea whatsoever. It didn't show anything about the higher meaning of the crucifixion, of the impact it should make on people. It's as if Mel thought going for the gross out would be equivalent to showing Jesus' spiritual sacrifice. I thought he was very unsuccessful. I don't know about everyone else, but I came away with no spiritual feeling at all.

[Hagrid442]

Going back to the thread question on the Leaky Cauldron that was closed on whether I'll buy the DVD. Well... no. Though my rather areligious dad was thinking of buying it. However, I think I might have turned him off from that when I pointed out it makes Kill Bill look tame in regards to violence. And that it's subtitled. :rotfl:


I'm still unsure whether I want to watch it. I'm curious to see what it's all about, just how curious is the question.

[Micoura]

What do you think of "The Passion," from what you know about it?Well,i am a Jew and pretty much i'm tired of Mel and his father. Mel claims that this movie is to show the christian fate and the journey of Christ. Well, i'm not blind and his statements and the film are clearly blaming Jews for his death. HE choose to die, we jews didn't kill him. You know, we have to live through so much each and everyday and see people mock and critisise our religion and beliefs. So Mel decides to make a movie that clearly has anti-semitic points of views and then convinces people that are gullable that what he says is right, and then we get more bull. My friend saw it because she wanted to know what the conterversy was all about and she's a christian and absolutely agreed with me. It makes us look like terrible people. Anytime something is wrong, who gets blamed? Jews. What i hate the most is liers and Mel is certainly one.

If you owned a movie theater, would you show it? Why?Never, because i know that it bothers people and i wouldn't want to earn money and get money for that kind of movie. I want to show a good film that's acceptable.

What do you think the result of the movie would be on anti-Semitism?just read above.

Sorry if i get carried away or off-topic but I HAD to release that.

Also i just have to add that even though there is a lot of violent films that is going too far and is quite disturbing.


WHOA! STOP! That is very insulting. Ok, first off guess who else was Jewish Mr. Jesus Christ himself. Also, nobody EVER blamed The Jews for killing Jesus Christ. Here's the dealio:
Jesus had different points of view of God, for goodness sake, he's God's son, now the Jews didn't appreciate Jesus preaching his views when the Jews believe a different view. Therefore, the Jews brought Jesus to the Romans, because the Romans were in control of the Jews then, well the Jews brought Jesus to the Romans to be crucified. And so he was.

Now, Jesus knew by preaching his beliefs, he would be crucified. He knew it. Nobody KILLED Jesus, The Jews didn't kill him and the Romans didn't either. Jesuse CHOSE to die, he CHOSE to die for God's children.

Mel Gibson was not putting down anybody in that whole film (well except for Satan, but that's speaks for it's own.)

Jesus was a Jew, but he was no killed by anyone, He took on that burden Himself.

Sincerely,
Paige

[red_fairy]

WHOA! STOP! That is very insulting. Ok, first off guess who else was Jewish Mr. Jesus Christ himself. Also, nobody EVER blamed The Jews for killing Jesus Christ.

Sincerely,
Paige

In this thread, or the world? Cause the Catholic Church (according to a teacher I once had, who would give us veeery questionable info from time to time, but she was Catholic herself) blamed the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ until the 60's or 70's I think.

[SecretAgent]

The plain and simple is, we crucified Jesus. If it wasn't for us, our sin nature, and our inherent will to go beyond the boundaries of right, there would have been no need for the crucifixion.

"...He fell on His face, praying, 'My Father! If it is possible, let this cup pass from Me. Yet not as I will, but as You will.' Then He came to the disciples and found them sleeping. 'What?' He asked Peter. 'Couldn't you stay awake with Me one hour? Stay awake and pray, so that you won't enter into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.' Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, 'My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, Your will be done.'..."

Jesus did not want to die. Nobody in their right mind would. He could have chosen at any moment not to go through with this - to deny his Father and in so doing, deny us our salvation.

But he didn't.

And I think this is what Mel Gibson is trying to convey to us. He suffered because of the awful things that we choose to do. Just think about it - every small sin you commit is like driving another nail in his hands and feet. And it's that very thought that makes me try to keep my headlights on - If there's something wrong that I can knowingly prevent myself from doing, then that's one less thing Christ had to suffer through.

I'm not trying to be preachy, I'm just telling you the way I see things. Feel free to tickle my armpits as you wish now. :)

[Hagrid442]

I believe it was the Romans and paranoid Jews that crucified him. I know, it might be blasphemy for what I'm about to say, but... I don't think he sacrificed himself for us, personally. He did it for his followers at the time, and probably Judea. I say this because I take a rational and historical view of Jesus. He was a man of that time, no divine being.

However, I think he should be revered for his selfless and compassion. I'm not a Christian, but I follow Jesus Christ.

[TheGreatest]

What do you think of "The Passion," from what you know about it?Well,i am a Jew and pretty much i'm tired of Mel and his father. Mel claims that this movie is to show the christian fate and the journey of Christ. Well, i'm not blind and his statements and the film are clearly blaming Jews for his death. HE choose to die, we jews didn't kill him. You know, we have to live through so much each and everyday and see people mock and critisise our religion and beliefs. So Mel decides to make a movie that clearly has anti-semitic points of views and then convinces people that are gullable that what he says is right, and then we get more bull. My friend saw it because she wanted to know what the conterversy was all about and she's a christian and absolutely agreed with me. It makes us look like terrible people. Anytime something is wrong, who gets blamed? Jews. What i hate the most is liers and Mel is certainly one.

If you owned a movie theater, would you show it? Why?Never, because i know that it bothers people and i wouldn't want to earn money and get money for that kind of movie. I want to show a good film that's acceptable.

What do you think the result of the movie would be on anti-Semitism?just read above.

Sorry if i get carried away or off-topic but I HAD to release that.

Also i just have to add that even though there is a lot of violent films that is going too far and is quite disturbing.



If you owned a movie theatre you wouldn't show it, because it would upset people? No one is forcing people to watch it. If they think its Anti-Semitic they shouldn't watch it, thats why movies have ratings.

[DarkThunder]

Im an atheist who has no problems with the film, and Ill watch it when it comes out on DVD. Obviously not for religious reasons,but for a few hours entertainment. I hope its a good film! :)

[LuvHP_001]

well, thanks for everyone for bashing me and saying that the movie wasn't anti-semitic because you just encouraged me to try and prove my point.

I just got a letter from an organization called Jews for Judaism and they are about stopping Jews that convert to other religions (especially Christianity) and to stop the missionaries who try to convert them.

I got some appalling knowledge and information out of it. In a survey of North America it says that 1.4 million Jews in 2004 alone, converted into Christianity. 1 of the reasons just happend to do all with this particular film. Some admitted that the movie was anti-semitic and agreed that Jews are to blame for Jesus' death and many other thing. Missionaries all happend to praise this film and use upon it.

This film does bother many people. Some Christians,Jews,Buddhists or any other religion. I don't appreciate when people say that this film isn't anti-semitic because THEY think so. Most of you were just like "Oh no it wasn't, what are you talking about?" and went on providing your evidence. But you got to know that it affects people and THEY DO think it is anti-semitic.

I just had to get that off my chest, so people please don't start bashing me again, you can even ignore this, THANK YOU. There is no point of arguing, it's like arguing in the Love Thread.

[grrliz]

I got some appalling knowledge and information out of it. In a survey of North America it says that 1.4 million Jews in 2004 alone, converted into Christianity. 1 of the reasons just happend to do all with this particular film. Some admitted that the movie was anti-semitic and agreed that Jews are to blame for Jesus' death and many other thing. Missionaries all happend to praise this film and use upon it. If a single movie can convince someone to convert religions, maybe their faith wasn't that strong to begin with and it's not that much of a loss.

Do you have a link to this survey, for curiosity purposes? Because 1.4 million seems like an awful lot of converts, considering the Jewish population in North America isn't very big to begin with, so 1.4 million sounds like a sizeable chunk of the population.

[LuvHP_001]

If a single movie can convince someone to convert religions, maybe their faith wasn't that strong to begin with and it's not that much of a loss.

Do you have a link to this survey, for curiosity purposes? Because 1.4 million seems like an awful lot of converts, considering the Jewish population in North America isn't very big to begin with, so 1.4 million sounds like a sizeable chunk of the population.

Well, what can we do? There is idiots and gulliable people in whatever religion. No actually i don't, sorry because it's a mailing organization, they distribut their booklets and fliers from door to door.

And you are right because there is only 6 million Jews in North America. But there is 500 of missionaries. Also, most of these are Americans who convert but Canada who has only 300,000 are not far behind since 175,000 already did.

[red_fairy]

well, thanks for everyone for bashing me and saying that the movie wasn't anti-semitic because you just encouraged me to try and prove my point..
I said several times that I didn't want to offend you. Sorry if it did.

I just got a letter from an organization called Jews for Judaism and they are about stopping Jews that convert to other religions (especially Christianity) and to stop the missionaries who try to convert them.

I got some appalling knowledge and information out of it. In a survey of North America it says that 1.4 million Jews in 2004 alone, converted into Christianity. 1 of the reasons just happend to do all with this particular film. Some admitted that the movie was anti-semitic and agreed that Jews are to blame for Jesus' death and many other thing. Missionaries all happend to praise this film and use upon it.

Geez, 1.4 million? Can you give me a link.

[LuvHP_001]

I said several times that I didn't want to offend you. Sorry if it did.



Geez, 1.4 million? Can you give me a link.

I'm not pointing fingers, i meant in general. and read from above. It says that it mails booklets and fliers door to door. and believe that it IS 1.4 million, it's not a big suprise.

EDIT:ooo, i found a website www.jewsforjudaism.com but you won't find anything about THE PASSION OF CHRIST because it's a new section they're uploading.

[Hagrid442]

There's no objective way to determine whether the movie is anti-Semitic or not. So, that doesn't affect them. People who think differently are.

I've not seen it, so I can't say for sure if it is or isn't. From what I've heard, I'm leaning towards not.

But that's only opinion. :)

[~Tonks~]

That does seem like a lot... a link would be interesting...

Nevertheless... if a movie is converting people... a movie... I mean really. I dunno. To me, it seems sort of... well... what kind of person would be converted by a movie? I mean, how solid is their conviction going to be after the hype around the movie wears off? Wouldn't it make more sense to consult a clergyman or go to a church to find out about Christianity and make the switch? Rather than doing it because of a Hollywood film?

[TheGreatest]

well, thanks for everyone for bashing me and saying that the movie wasn't anti-semitic because you just encouraged me to try and prove my point.

I just got a letter from an organization called Jews for Judaism and they are about stopping Jews that convert to other religions (especially Christianity) and to stop the missionaries who try to convert them.

I got some appalling knowledge and information out of it. In a survey of North America it says that 1.4 million Jews in 2004 alone, converted into Christianity. 1 of the reasons just happend to do all with this particular film. Some admitted that the movie was anti-semitic and agreed that Jews are to blame for Jesus' death and many other thing. Missionaries all happend to praise this film and use upon it.

This film does bother many people. Some Christians,Jews,Buddhists or any other religion. I don't appreciate when people say that this film isn't anti-semitic because THEY think so. Most of you were just like "Oh no it wasn't, what are you talking about?" and went on providing your evidence. But you got to know that it affects people and THEY DO think it is anti-semitic.

I just had to get that off my chest, so people please don't start bashing me again, you can even ignore this, THANK YOU. There is no point of arguing, it's like arguing in the Love Thread.


Did you even read my post? No one is forcing anyone to watch this movie, if people thinks its Anti-Semitic they shouldn't watch it, when you buy a movie ticket you take that risk.

[LuvHP_001]

Did you even read my post? No one is forcing anyone to watch this movie, if people thinks its Anti-Semitic they shouldn't watch it, when you buy a movie ticket you take that risk.

Well, nice and simple. My friend bought the DVD and i wanted to check out what all the conterversy is about, because if i didn't see it but complained that would be very hypocritical of me, and i hate hypocrits.

[Wab]

In this thread, or the world? Cause the Catholic Church (according to a teacher I once had, who would give us veeery questionable info from time to time, but she was Catholic herself) blamed the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ until the 60's or 70's I think.

No, that officially ended with the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s: “'Neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during the Passion,' the book says in a centerpiece statement first issued by the church’s Second Vatican Council 40 years ago."

The church later removed from Good Friday services a prayer that spoke of “perfidious Jews,” he noted.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4387171/

It may be worth noting that the expunging of any "official" anti-Semitism was the result of Vatican II the reforms of which are rejected by Gibson's sect.

[yumdraco]

I know people that watched the film in the theatre and ended up walking out crying because they couldn't stand the thought of what Jesus had to go through for us. My grandma bought us the movie so I started to watch it and I couldn't watch it. It was to gory and it actually scared me. I got through a little bit but I just can't get myself to watch the rest.

[puer]

The movie was gory stupid and stupid again. I would not see more than the 4 minuts i watched even if yuou payed me. I hated that movie and mel gibson should go with the eyebrowless lady where she lives. :grumble: :slyth:

[marauderlupin]

I finally saw it last week. That devil character was hella scary! I stayed up half the night in fear. What was the point of it? It kept popping up everywhere like we're watching a standard horror flick. I didn't care for that devil at all. I'm getting scared just typing so I'll stop here.

[DasMutzelchen]

I saw passion of christ in the night befor yesterday.
Iam a real tough guy and such movies doesnt touch hard

BUT

this one is
cant really describe

i cant imagine how many pain human can create. i cried several times by watching.
I wanna never watch this movie again and if i had known of gibsons real attitude i ll never have watched the film. i think its only a puzzle of cruel scenes in what u can see how cruel we can be. I dislike it, i hate it.
If gibson is antisemit i dunno but 1 i know for sure. He did through petrol in the flame of some antisemtic believers to hate jewish people and their religion.
I dunno if u agree but i said to my girlfriend if she wanna watch it she can do but without me. I will never watch a gibson film again, he is just a money maker nothing else.

[Lupin27]

As a Jew, I was weary of this movie from the start. Having avoided it like the plague, I can't tell you for sure what really happened. But it's clear from at least half of the people who have seen it that it demonizes Jews. I am currently not watching any of Mr. Gibsons movies (although probably temporarily because there were one or two I really liked). I don't think Christians should hate Jews because of a few corrupt priests (and that's backwards thinking anyway because Jesus was himself a Jew, but that's a debate for another time), just as Jews shouldn't hate Germans because of the Nazis. Blame the people involved, not the whole race they belong to. Every time I hear about bigotry in religion and race I just can't understand.

But it's a double-edged sword. You don't want to demonize the whole of a race, but you don't want to paint a picture that they're all saints either. We need to be truly color/race/sexblind here so that the only terms we see each other in is personality and intentions.

People put too much stock in the superficial.

[theseeker]

Come on people, I think you're all overreacting a little bit. Not meaning to belittle your beliefs, but you're not watching Gibson's films because you think he's anti-Semetic, even though you like some of them?

You're cutting your nose off to spite your face... He may have differing views to you, but you're really just punishing yourself.

I watched the movie a couple of months ago, and I found it overly dramatic, laden with gore and obvious symbolism. I don't think it's anti-Semetic at all. Remember, these are just a few people of one religion. I watched 'The Magdalene Sisters' today, but that didn't make me go, "Oh I hate Catholics so much they're so cruel and evil!" Nor did I say "Oh that film is anti-Catholic because it shows nuns and other Catholics in a bad light".

I wasn't offended by this film at all, in fact I quite liked it. But the obvious OBVIOUS symbolism (like that raven pecking the other crucified man's eye out) grated my nerves a little, and the continued beating up and bashing of Jesus (and I know Christians and others believe that happened, which I respect) got a tad repetitive (my Christian friend told me "He did that for YOU", but he hasn't managed to convert me, unfortunately for him :) )

[Pilum]

I agree about people taking it too far - if it annoys you so much, don't go, and remember that everyone was expecting it to bomb before the controversy kicked off.... just like the film before that. And the film before that. And the one before that. Funny really. You'd think people would have learned by now.

As for the anti-semitism. Pre- or Post-Vatican 2, the fact remains that the Gospels still have the ultimate say in who got Christ crucified, and it wasn't Pilate. Now we can argue this all day from historical perspectives, and even point out that at especially when Mark and Matthew were supposedly written the Jews were revolting (again) (and again) (and again) so any action to distance this new sect from the one currently killing good Roman soldiers was self-preservation writ large, but that doesn't matter if you're making an adaptation of the book. Would you criticise Gone With The Wind for showing black people as subservient to white? Or a film about Joshua showing the Hebrews slaying all in a city simply for existing (conventions of the time notwithstanding) because that is what the book says. Ye gods, it was bad enough with some people complaining that The Two Towers had the Haradrim depicted as they are in the book, "dark...... swarthy men".

On a lighter note, I hear someone's making a Passion of the Christ videogame. Will this be the first ever game where using God Mode isn't actually cheating? :D

[Midnightsfire]

On a lighter note, I hear someone's making a Passion of the Christ videogame. Will this be the first ever game where using God Mode isn't actually cheating? :D
*grins*

They are making The Beast (http://www.thebeastmovie.com/):

The Beast is currently in pre-production.

The cast and crew are legally sworn to secrecy.

The theory that Jesus Christ never existed, while largely unknown to most lay Christians, is gaining credibility among scholars. Historians do not consider the Gospels to be historically accurate accounts. The authors of the Gospels, writing 40 to 90 years after the supposed life of Christ, never intended for their works to be read as biographies. There are no credible non-Christian references to Christ during the period in which he is said to have lived.

BEHIND THE MOVIE

The Beast is directed by internationally acclaimed filmmaker Brian Flemming. Flemming's work has been called "a parallel universe" by the BBC, "jaggedly imaginative" by the New York Times , and "immensely satisfying" by USA Today . The Fox News Channel dubbed him "a young Oliver Stone." Flemming won the New York Times Claiborne Pell Award for Original Vision for his groundbreaking feature film Nothing So Strange , which was released theatrically in 2003 and is currently distributed on DVD in more than 200 countries.

[Pilum]

Well I have some thoughts on this, but I'm not sure this is the right forum for them (especially not with the mods holding the sword of damocles over me at the mo :scared:). And nor do I have the time. I might open something in Spirit Division (if I remember/can be bothered) but needless to say I can view 'history' with one eye, and my faith (such as it is :shrug:) with another. And I can do this because (a) life's too short to get agitated over someone else's view of God, and more importantly (b) I'm human, and therefore capable of holding a near-infinite number of contradictory, even mutually exclusive viewpoints in my head at once.

We're kinda lucky that way....

EDIT: Almost reminds me of a short story I read once, where someone travels back in time to meet Christ, and is shocked to discover that he shows no interest in his 'holy' work. To kick-start him into action, Our Hero tried to force him into appropriate situations, but always has to resolve things himself. It ends up with him being arrested as a troublemaker in a vineyard just outside Jerusalem, and sentenced to death - I think you can guess what the punchline is... :)

Plus another old story someone told me about once, called "We All Went To Golgotha". Basically similar, except that it's a time-travel holiday company. To fit in, the clients are told to act in certain ways. Now turns out a very popular destination is Jerusalem on Passover around 33AD, and ends with one of the guides looking round, and suddenly realising that EVERYONE in the crowd is either a tour guide or a customer - there's not a single actual 1st Century Jewish person in the audience. Yet there they all are, all looking to fit in and not change history by screaming "Crucify him, crucify him!" at the tops of their voices. :p

[Taichi]

Jesus was not a white man, he was a middle-eastern Jew, so, if this movie were accurate, I doubt that Judas would need to betray Jesus, as he would stick out like a sore thumb.....being an anglo-saxon amongst a bunch of middle eastern jews.....

it's common knowledge that Jesus did not have nails in his hands, but rather his wrists, it is generally accepted that this is truth, as there's no other way it could've been done.....

and the hooked flail used to 'scourge' Jesus is inaccurate, as it is an EGYPTIAN flail, used in OLD TESTAMENT times, the Romans used a 'dumbell' style flail, rather than hooks......iron 'barbells' (which is where the word 'barb' comes from) flayed the skin from Jesus' bones......hooks could potentially damage internal organs (meaning he could've died before being properly crucified, and they wanted him to suffer), the barbells were designed to rend flesh, and only flesh.......

[Clothes]

What do you think of "The Passion," from what you know about it?

I saw it and I loved it. I don't think that I would want to watch it over and over again as entertainment. I viewed it more as a movie trying to tell a story and maybe make a point about Jesus. But I don't think it should be entertainment to watch someone, (especially some whom I believe was real and did this for us), die and be beaten.

If you owned a movie theater, would you show it? Why?

Of course I would, because I believe in the message the movie is at least attempting to get across. Also I agree, that there is money to be made there, although I don't think that would be my main driving force for showing it.
What do you think the result of the movie would be on anti-Semitism?

I do not tink that the movie was anti-semetic. (Easy for me to say as a non Jew). I did feel like the movie portrayed Pilate as man whose hands were forced into killing Jesus and not really wanting to. This lines up with the Bible, if you use a little poetic license. Scripture doesn't point out exactly what Pilate (the Romans) was thinking and why exactly he did what he did. It does however say that Pilate gave the oppurtunity for Jesus to be released, and the crowd (made up mainly of Jews) said no, Crucify him. The Bible also does say that the Sanhedrin (Jewish Ruling Council) is the group that initially arrested and handed Jesus in to be punished and eventually die for breaking their Laws. SO you can't make a true (factual) movie about Jesus and not include that element.
That having been said, if you read the Bible for yourself, it is clear that according to IT, any person who has ever sinned in responsible for Jesus needing to die, thus we are all responsible.

*grins*

They are making The Beast (http://www.thebeastmovie.com/):
The theory that Jesus Christ never existed, while largely unknown to most lay Christians, is gaining credibility among scholars. Historians do not consider the Gospels to be historically accurate accounts. The authors of the Gospels, writing 40 to 90 years after the supposed life of Christ, never intended for their works to be read as biographies. There are no credible non-Christian references to Christ during the period in which he is said to have lived.

Actually, this isn't true at all. There are a number of Greek, Roman, and even non-believing Jews who in their documents that jesus did in fact exist. Actually, there is more written evidence that Christ existed than there is that George Washington existed.

[Taichi]

I don't believe in sin, so I'm not responsible.....my hands are clean.....

[Midnightsfire]

Actually, this isn't true at all. There are a number of Greek, Roman, and even non-believing Jews who in their documents that jesus did in fact exist. Actually, there is more written evidence that Christ existed than there is that George Washington existed.
It is true that they are making a movie.

Documentation that hasn't been in the hands of Christian authorities however, is very few. As I posted elsewhere, there are only two documents (independent of Christian tampering) I've personally read that mention a "Yeshu" or "Yeshua" and very little else about said person.) Actual evidence for the Christ mentioned in the Bible is thin at best. (A little off-topic, but there ya go.)

[Taichi]

Well, there are accounts of George Washington were written while he was still alive, rather than the accounts of Jesus, which were written DECADES after he 'supposedly' existed....

I'm sorry, but I can't believe that he existed, let alone did what he did.......I see no relevance in MY LIFE, for worshipping a 2000 year old myth/dead man......

[MoodyHarry]

Well, there are accounts of George Washington were written while he was still alive, rather than the accounts of Jesus, which were written DECADES after he 'supposedly' existed....

I'm sorry, but I can't believe that he existed, let alone did what he did.......I see no relevance in MY LIFE, for worshipping a 2000 year old myth/dead man......I hear ya - I'm not religious, so the movie to me was a blatant cash grab by Gibson. To give him some credit, he did give some of the money to the church, I think.

I never saw the movie and never will. I saw pictures only and almost threw up. The sheer disgusting gore of the movie is appalling to me. I couldn't fall asleep because a certain pictures were flashing in my head.
If religious people find comfort in the movie, then more power to you, but the movie (and the crucifixion story in general) just reaffirms my belief on how cruel the human species can be to each other time and time again.

[GryffndorBeater]

I thought I might just tell everyone, I was at Best Buy and they're now selling "The Animated Passion: For the whole family."

[Pilum]

If religious people find comfort in the movie, then more power to you, but the movie (and the crucifixion story in general) just reaffirms my belief on how cruel the human species can be to each other time and time again.
What's that other quote, something like "It is good that war is so terrible, lest we become too fond of it." ?

Seeing as this seems to be meandering down "evidence for Jesus" roads, my two-penn'orth.

To me there are two Jesuses. The first is Yeshua bar Yusuf, nicknamed Bar Abbas for his habit of referring to God as his father. At least a rabbi, probably an Essene (with close links to Zealotry) he thought he could see the signs that The Kingdom of Heaven was nigh. So he rallied the locals over time and they stormed Jerusalem, killing and putting to flight the garrison. Huzzah! And he kicked out the Sadducees and their corrupt Temple priesthood and waited for God to return to Jerusalem.

He didn't. But the Romans did.

And so after another battle (or more likely a siege) Bar Abbas was taken, and condemned to be crucified under the law of laesae majestatis, and Pilate's warning on the cross was a very definite political statement. When Paul for some reason decided what the world needed was another religion, he brought in another Barabbas, notorious criminal, yet the Jews preferred him to the Son of God. In rejecting Jesus the Jews forced Pilates hand, so it was their fault really, therefore the Romans didn't wilfully execute a God, with all the bad joss THAT means! (I could actually be more detailed here, but I think if I went into it fully you're looking at book length! :)) Evidence? Little, as the Church then had a monopoly on scholarship (especially after the Fall of Rome), so any contradictory writings would be consigned to the flames orsimply altered during copying.

The second Jesus? Well, He's the reason I go to church! Son of God, Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, eternally begotten of the father, the whole Nicene creed. As I said above, it's lucky being human, when like the Red Queen "I can believe as many as twelve impossible things before breakfast." :D

[MoodyHarry]

Evidence? Little, as the Church then had a monopoly on scholarship (especially after the Fall of Rome), so any contradictory writings would be consigned to the flames orsimply altered during copying.Regardless of what we believe/do not believe, this is a very very important and valid point. Historical writings have a slant on them meant to convey a specific message, whether political, religious, ethical or whatever. It would do well for people not to take things so much at face value and believe the exact words. Especially when the church has extreme power and a monopoly.

I thought I might just tell everyone, I was at Best Buy and they're now selling "The Animated Passion: For the whole family.":lol: :lol:
Because watching someone get tortured and killed is family entertainment these days!!

On a side note - Kevin Smith fans - if you have ever seen Clerks, Kevin Smith is doing a sequel called "Passion of the Clerks". That's a 'passionate' movie that I will go see. :D

[Wab]

I hear ya - I'm not religious, so the movie to me was a blatant cash grab by Gibson. To give him some credit, he did give some of the money to the church, I think.

Not to any mainstream Christian church. Gibson follows a brand of Catholicism that denies the authority of the Pope due to the reforms of the Second Vatican Conference.

[MoodyHarry]

Not to any mainstream Christian church. Gibson follows a brand of Catholicism that denies the authority of the Pope due to the reforms of the Second Vatican Conference.So what church does Gibson follow, then, and why do they reject the Vatican II changes. I did some very quick looking (very quick) and let me guess, these are the ones who don't believe that the Virgin Mary should be worshipped, correct? Just asking.

[Pilum]

Because watching someone get tortured and killed is family entertainment these days!!

Just to step off topic, Moody, I've long been of the opinion that it's only a matter of time before we have gladiators on prime-time TV again.

And I don't mean with Nerf balls.

[LunaGoldstein]

I think that "The Passion of..." is gonna gain much more promenance as a parody title, just like it's fun to attach 'Electric Boogaloo" to any sequel:) Last year my brother would sign his emails as The Passion of Evan, and South Park already released a dvd called The Passion of the Jew. But The Passion of Clerks sounds hilarious.

[MoodyHarry]

Just to step off topic, Moody, I've long been of the opinion that it's only a matter of time before we have gladiators on prime-time TV again.

And I don't mean with Nerf balls.I would not be surprised. With the amount of gross out or violent shows on TV, gladiator is the next step.

We are already having people swap wives, eat maggots, starve on tropical islands, fight for a rich husband and get mutilated with plastic surgery. Bloody fights are the next step.

Humans seem to love gore and fighting. The Romans built the Coliseum and staged their 'sports' entertainment at the time with gladiator fights, etc.

Anyone remember the TV show Gladiator a few years back. It was just a bunch of people doing extreme sports - no gore. But it's coming.

[iluvhhr]

I got the DVD for Xmas (a Jesus film, how fitting), and I watched it yesterday with my brother. In the beginning I was a little bit confused with the whole garden scene. When you first see the Devil, I was like, Whoa, is that a man or a woman? Then I remembered that people had been talking about "it" months ago, and you weren't supposed to be able to tell if the actor was a man or woman. Creepy. The scene with Jesus getting beaten by the Romans was worse than him being nailed to the cross. I had to turn away at one point.

[ArtemisiaDax]

Originally Posted by Wab
Not to any mainstream Christian church. Gibson follows a brand of Catholicism that denies the authority of the Pope due to the reforms of the Second Vatican Conference.

I always thought that Gibson was a member of Opus Dei (an ultraconservative Catholic "personal prelature", but the Catholic Church denies it: http://www.catholicleague.org/research/opusdei_factandfiction.htm

In order to be a "Catholic sect" you have to acknowledge papal authority. Otherwise, you wind up with something that's very close to Catholicism in beliefs but not Catholic (e.g. Episcopalianism, Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Coptic Church, etc.)

I do think that Gibson rejects the Vatican II reforms, preferring the Latin Mass, etc.
MoodyHarry, Catholics don't worship the Virgin Mary no matter which sect they belong to. They venerate the Virgin and ask for intercession, but only the trinitarian God is worshiped. And, actually, Vatican II decreased the role of the Virgin Mary in the Church, so Gibson would actually be favoring an increased role for Mary if he rejects the Vatican II reforms.

As for the movie itself, I thought it was quite powerful, and rather emotionally draining to see. I've seen it once (back when it came out). It wasn't as violent as I expected, considering how much I'd heard, but it was still quite difficult to watch at points and wouldn't recommend bringing children to see it (there were young children in the theater when I went).
The violence in this film, unlike violence in many other films, has a purpose: it's to show how much Jesus went through to redeem humanity.
One of the most poignant scenes, in my opinion at least, was a very non-graphic one: Mary's flashback to seeing the young Jesus trip and fall.
I don't think that The Passion is going to increase anti-Semitic feeling.

And Taichi, you're free to believe what you want, but please try to be slightly more respectful about it.

[huckleberry]

I like the movie... as a pure roman catholic, (and a member of opus dei) the movie is really touching...

[Bee]

I thought it was quite a good movie. A few minor details I didn't agree with, but I was able to overlook them (along with the subtitles, which I am also not good with) and see the bigger picture.

FYI, if anyone was wondering, the devil was played by a woman, Rosalinda something. It was definitely creepy that you couldn't tell whether it was a man or a woman! Good call, though.

When Jesus was being beaten, my dad made me leave and wait outside the theatre door until it was over. He'd seen it already and knew what was coming.

[salem_phoenix]

I saw the film, and honestly, I didn't get anything out of it. I am a very spiritual and faithful Christian, but I don't really see what you could get out of seeing such violence on screen. Of all the Jesus films, I like Godspell the best. Yes, it's a bit "hippy trippy", but that movie is all about the message. It contains no miracles, not even the resurrection. The film concentrates upon the message, which I believe is the most important thing that Jesus came to teach us. Love one another.

[snufflesveil]

I saw the film, and honestly, I didn't get anything out of it. I am a very spiritual and faithful Christian, but I don't really see what you could get out of seeing such violence on screen. Of all the Jesus films, I like Godspell the best. Yes, it's a bit "hippy trippy", but that movie is all about the message. It contains no miracles, not even the resurrection. The film concentrates upon the message, which I believe is the most important thing that Jesus came to teach us. Love one another.

I saw the movie and wow. It was absolutly amazing!!!!!! I think that it did show that message. Only the last part of the message, "Live one another, As I have loved you"
Doesn't that show Jesus' love for us and what we should be willing to do for anybody at any time? That is what I got out of it. It made me relise what Jesus went through. It may be because I am only 13 but I didn't have a very clear understanding before I went and now whenever I feel bad, or now that it's lent, I think of what He had to go through just so I have a chance to go to heaven, He must really love us all!

On a different note, durring the movie I felt just completely aweful! It wasn't that much because of the pain, or violence, but more so the fact that everybody around me was crying and I couldn't, even if I tried, which I did. I kept thinking to myself, am I not a good christian, am I not a good Catholic? God why can't I cry?
Then it was like an explosion, when they nailed him to the cross, I balled. Just couldn't stop crying. It was terrible! I felt just so guilty for making my own Lord and Savior go through that terrible pain!
Did anybody else feel that way?

[evanescence4491]

I loved the movie :)
it was creepy at some parts though

[Aebhel]

I'm not even Christian, and I thought it was a wonderful movie. The storytelling was excellent, the level of realism truly amazing, the acting superb. No, I still don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God, but that doesn't change the fact that it was an incredible movie.

I don't see the anti-Semitism, honestly. The whole point of the crucifiction story is that Jesus died for his own people, namely the Jews. If anything, it was a commentary on the nature of humanity, not specifically Jews. Saying that it's going to cause anti-Semitism is sort of like saying that "Schindler's List" is going to make everyone who watches it think that Germans are evil. In other words, that attitude completely misses the point. Both stories are about the suffering and eventual triumph of good people over the evils of their own kind.

[genesis]

The Passion of the Christ is viewed as anti-Semitic because it is a passion play. Passion plays historically have been used by the Catholic Church, in particular, to stir up anti-semitism, and in certain countries, start pogroms. For many Jews, passion plays by definition are hateful.
This passion play is touching a very sensitive area in the Jewish community. The facts remain Jesus was tried by a Roman court and sentenced to a Roman death. Passion plays have a tendency of twisting the facts and making in seem Jews were completely responsible for Jesus's death. Another thing is that we don't know exactly what occurred during that trial. The gospels might have twisted the facts to prove their side of the story. You don't have to like what I say, but what I am saying is a belief amongst some people.

[Aebhel]

I understand that, but I still don't see why. Maybe it's because I watched as pure fiction--without thinking about the historical precedent. Seen as a story in and of itself, there's nothing anti-semitic about it. And to be honest, I don't see how it could stir up anti-semitism in someone who isn't already inclined that way. Passion plays were used to stir up anti-semitism, it's true, but you can't reasonably say that an old form of propaganda like that is going to work particularly well on modern society. Put bluntly, we're just too cynical.

To me, this is sort of like the "Merchant of Venice" debate--the main character is Jewish, and he's not a nice man, so the play must be anti-semitic. That just seems to be an incredible oversimplification.

As for the rest of it--while Mel Gibson may believe he's telling the Gospel truth, I certainly don't, and I doubt that most people watching the movie do either. Besides "Passion of the Christ" isn't about his trial and which authority figure did it--it's about how his followers basically abandoned him. His followers would have been Jewish no matter how twisted the historical facts got.

Again, it may just be that the entire thing was just a particularly good tragic play to me. I have no emotional investment in it, so I find it hard to get worked up.