|
Subject: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: InOBU Date: 25 Feb 04 - 05:54 PM He comes from the more blood and biger fires makes a better movie school of the Arts, so why am I not surprised that the film is over the top and bad history and hence bad theology. He has Christ being beaten during a trail before the Sanhedren... wouldn't happen, in his day any corporal punishment in a Jewish court needs the unanimous concent of the judges, so a defendant being beaten during a trial is idoitic and a slight on Jewish tradition, beyond that, presenting Pontius Piolot as a kindly block is nonsence. Well, what's next Shoa by Mel and his dad? Cheers Larry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Feb 04 - 06:15 PM Having read a couple of reviews and gotten a general idea of what's waiting for me at the theatre, I think I'll skip this one. I have no particular desire to see someone getting brutally beaten for 2 hours, and there are other aspects of Jesus' life that are of far more interest to me...such as what he demonstrated and taught to people before he was arrested, and after he walked out of the tomb. I haven't seen anything lately by Mel Gibson that didn't revolt me. I'm afraid he and I are just on a different wavelength, that's all. What he finds compelling, I find either ludicrous or sickening. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Big Mick Date: 25 Feb 04 - 06:25 PM Yeah, LH, I am feeling the same. I might go see it, but I doubt it. I find the whole debate about "Anti Semitism/Realism" and the "Who was responsible, Jews or Romans?" to be pretty silly. The bible is fairly clear about all this. I already know what it looks like to die horribly. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: maire-aine Date: 25 Feb 04 - 06:45 PM I don't plan to see this one either. Maryanne |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Amergin Date: 25 Feb 04 - 08:46 PM nah...this one doesn't interest me....the only religious movie that I ever saw and really liked was Life of Brian.... ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Bobert Date: 25 Feb 04 - 08:57 PM I didn't have to think twice about not wanting to see this movie... From what I have read, it is sensationalized to the point of being noythin' more than an indoctrination film... I don't think too many folks of Faith will be lining up to see it. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 25 Feb 04 - 09:17 PM Unfortunately, many churches are renting outand reserving whole blocks of times for showings. Unfortunate that a whole new generation gets another taste of anti-semitism to dwell on. You have to be crazy to be a Jew and go see this movie. I won't go. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Bobert Date: 25 Feb 04 - 09:25 PM You also have to be crazy to be a Christain and go see this movie. BObert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 25 Feb 04 - 09:37 PM I still love The Gospel According To St. Matthew by Paollini. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Mudlark Date: 25 Feb 04 - 09:44 PM You have to be crazy to be a pagan and go see this movie. And what's the blame thing all about anyway...I thot it was all foretold, that all of The Life of Jesus had to be played out exactly as it was for his martyrdom to be persuasive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Amergin Date: 25 Feb 04 - 10:04 PM You have to be crazy to go and see that movie.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Don Firth Date: 25 Feb 04 - 10:40 PM Item of interest:— Lightning strikes twice from Sydney Morning HeraldI wonder if Someone was trying to tell someone something. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Bobert Date: 25 Feb 04 - 11:17 PM I still love the Gospels........ And I love Jesus, my Lord.... But I don't love folks messin' wid none of 'em. Their stories are in our hearts and minds... No Mel Gibson neeeded to interpret, thank you... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Clinton Hammond Date: 25 Feb 04 - 11:24 PM I might go see it... but I suspect I'll come away still thinking that "Last Temptation of Christ" was a better film... I think Mel directed ONE good movie... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: LadyJean Date: 25 Feb 04 - 11:28 PM Many years ago, my mother made her way past an overzealous neighbor, a crowd chanting "Don't See This Blasphemous Movie", into the theater to see "The Last Temptation of Christ". She sat down in her seat and fell asleep. She snoozed through one of the most controversial movies of our time. Mel made a movie in Aramaic, a language spoken exclusively by Biblical scholars, with subtitles, featuring an excessively Catholic view of Christ's passion, that oozes blood. But! lucky man! his movie was deemed controversial, and got great green gobs of free publicity. I don't think I'll see "The Passion". If I want to see a gory religious movie, I'll rent Ben Hur. They've got a chariot race. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST Date: 25 Feb 04 - 11:32 PM Seen it twice already...and will see at least twice again.
What a glorious way to celebrate Ash-Wednesday!
Basicly, it is a cinamagraphic visitation on "The Twelve Stations of the Cross."
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Walking Eagle Date: 25 Feb 04 - 11:37 PM Think I'll pass on this one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 25 Feb 04 - 11:40 PM Think I'll piss on this one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: catspaw49 Date: 25 Feb 04 - 11:58 PM Leonard A. Schneider, aka, the great stand-up theologian and philosopher Lenny Bruce, spoke on the subject of the Jews killing Christ. He said that definitive proof of Jewish culpability had been provided by an uncle of his who had committed suicide in the basement. A note found pinned to his body said: I did it. It was me. Signed, Morty So there you have it....... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: catspaw49 Date: 26 Feb 04 - 12:17 AM I am one who actually does fail to see all the hubbub here. In generally accepted historical terms, the story of Christ is kind of classic and you can substitute other rebellious groups against other power groups in different times and have a similar scene. It is more a story of power and have nots versus haves as anything else with only the names changed to affix guilt, an incredible waste of time, since any group in power or any with a dynamic leader will react in similar fashion, religion having virtually nothing to do with it. Let's see here.........You got this guy who does cool things for his own people and those that follow him. Needless to say they all love him regardless of the legality or illegality of his acts. Those in power see him as subversive and a criminal and try repeatedly to bust his chops. Finally the guy just goes that little bit too far and the big shots nail him and as an added bonus get one or more of his own to turn on him to save their own hides. Now is that the story of Christ or John Gotti? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Blackcatter Date: 26 Feb 04 - 12:19 AM Whyu anyone would think that depicting all the awful violence of Jesus' death would casue people to come back or move towards being a Christian is totally beyond me. But people feel that way. I think focusing on the last 12 hours of his life could be a powerful thing, but who seriously needs to see just how graphic a cruxifiction was? Does anyone not get the extreme pain that Jesus likely went through? Sheesh. We saw movies of the Holocaust victims - piled up bodies and the living dead being rehabilitated by the Allied Forces. That's plenty for me to understand how horrific that situation was. Why graphic violence seems so important for some people is really puzzling. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Amos Date: 26 Feb 04 - 12:34 AM I think it's the "numbnuts syndrome" -- you get deep-frozen enough in your own head, a good dose of violence is the only thing that will reach your sense of reality. Tragic state to be in. I think perpetuating the whole dramatization is a grotesque disservice to mankind. But that's just me... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: ddw Date: 26 Feb 04 - 12:52 AM Jeez, 'Spaw, I read thru most of your post thinking you were gonna say Charles Manson. You can still catch me off guard with your rapier wit.... cheers, david |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST,Boab Date: 26 Feb 04 - 12:53 AM I probably wont see it ,for the same reason I have never been persuaded to watch "The Sound of Music"---I was fed up hearing about it beforehand![ "Climb Every Mountain", "Doe a deer" and "the Hills are Alive" have me wishing for a sound proof booth even now. I used to run a singing room in a local club, y'see---oh Gawd----!] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: MAG Date: 26 Feb 04 - 02:26 AM I just ranted on The Passion of Pain (plus climax) on the Mel's Dad thread. Unfortunately the opening here was sold out weeks ago. A good friend who works in the H.S. will see it just so she can discuss it with the mobs of kids who have. THAT is a good reason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Rustic Rebel Date: 26 Feb 04 - 04:14 AM I want to see this movie. I have always been intrigued by the stories of Jesus. Who is to say this one is any better or worse than any other. I have seen the movies that depict human suffering and pain and malicious treatment to others many times including Hiroshima and Schidlers List and all the horific movies that portray human suffering and in-human treatment to others. This movie I believe will just portray another point of view that people are a brutal spiecies that can't understand the concept of letting people live the life they choose, or fear that love will over-take the hatred and wars and it might be trying once again, like the other movies that depict human brutality, to point out a subject that is so hard to stomach, that it may have to make people realize if we don't like what we are seeing, to change our actions and not repeat history when we see our next chance of maybe seeing a christ figure or a person of extreme knowledge come into our lives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST Date: 26 Feb 04 - 08:06 AM Gee, do I want to go see a schlock Christian propaganda film with obscene and graphic violence, that was made by one of the great schlock movie makers who is notorious for his overuse of gratuitous violence and pop history films? I'm not even tempted to see another bad Mel film, regardless of the subject matter. But since he decided he would do a religious propaganda film, rather than being wholly indifferent, I'm certain I'll avoid this baby like the plague on mankind that Mel's filmmaking truly is. I'm also wondering if we should just rename our local news channels the US Christian propaganda network, for over-coverage of this sucker during sweeps month. It is nauseating. I was sitting in a waiting room last night with a tv on the local news (all of our affiliates have been covering this movie every night on the news for over a week). The question they are asking is, given the level of violence in this film (I believe it has an NC 17 rating), should we take the kiddies along? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: InOBU Date: 26 Feb 04 - 08:12 AM Frankly, I saw it, as someone who often talks about religion, (not only because I am currently on the committee of Ministry and Council of the NY Quaker Quarter) I thought it only fair to see a film I was going to say bad things about. Not to be completely negitive about the film, I'd have to say... hmmmm... I'll have to think about that for a while... Larry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST Date: 26 Feb 04 - 08:27 AM Another obscenity about this movie--the amount of free advertising it is getting. I will say this, the marketing of this film has been utterly brilliant. It has fed right into the right wing conservative obsession with injecting religious propaganda into broadcasting under the guise of journalism. Bloody fucking brilliant. To buy the kind of advertising this film is getting would cost the equivalent of the tv advertising bill for both parties in the US senate race in New York. I am shocked and in awe of the marketing of The Gospel of Mel. I suppose this will more than pay for his cult church compound he is currently building in the shadow of Hollywood, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Charley Noble Date: 26 Feb 04 - 09:05 AM If they had a film team back then, I'd probably advocate for having each generation watch the edited documentary and hopefully learn some lessons about man's inhumanity to man and the willingness of an establishment to violently put down a challenge to its power. However, there's little reason to expect a Mel Gibson production to offer such insight. For Christ's sake, I wish they'd let him rest in peace. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Peace Date: 26 Feb 04 - 10:43 AM Fourteen stations of the cross. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Feb 04 - 11:40 AM Hey, Boab...right with ya! I consider suffering through "The Sound Of Music" to be like spending a couple of hours in one of the outlying regions of hell. :-) I think Mel's movie might be even worse, but I don't want to blow ten bucks finding out. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST Date: 26 Feb 04 - 11:46 AM The mindset of many people who like this movie is well summed up by a viewer quoted yesterday at AOL news: "I dare anybody to see this movie and not believe!" So it's official: Hollywood is now the indisputable factual source for Americans. And if, as reported above, Jim Caviezel (initials: JC. Coincidence?) can squirt lightning from his ears, what else may we expect of him in the near future? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: katlaughing Date: 26 Feb 04 - 12:15 PM Charley, I think that would have made him even more of a martyred "cause." katwillNotcontributetoMel'scoffers |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Tam the Bam (Nutter) Date: 26 Feb 04 - 12:53 PM I think I'll go a see this film so I'm crazy and a Born again Chritian. Tom Frae Saltcoats Scotland. I also saw the last temption of Christ as well and I like it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Strick Date: 26 Feb 04 - 01:00 PM "Mel made a movie in Aramaic, a language spoken exclusively by Biblical scholars" Don't be silly. Here's a whole nation delighted that for once they don't need subtitles for a Hollywood movie. Assyrians Hear Native Tongue in 'Passion' As I understand it, Babylonians adopted Aramaic from the Assyrians when they conquered their empire and set up their own. It surplanted Hebrew, a close relative, when the during the Babylonian exile. On the other hand everyone knows that even the Roman soldiers of the time would have spoken Greek not Latin. Mel screwed that one up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Kim C Date: 26 Feb 04 - 01:09 PM I haven't seen it yet, but I will, either in the theater or at home on DVD. I look at it from the standpoint that the suffering of Jesus is very often glossed over in the churches. It's something even Christians don't really think about. I can only speak for myself, but I don't recall that I was ever taught that the Jews killed Jesus. I thought it was the Romans. Have I been wrong all these years? Whether you like Mel Gibson or not, consider that he's taking a gigantic career risk with this movie. How many of you would be willing to do that for something you believe? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Bev and Jerry Date: 26 Feb 04 - 02:06 PM Mel put 25 million of his own $$$ into this movie and it grossed 20 million on day one. May be a career risk but he'll make a bundle on it. Bev and Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST Date: 26 Feb 04 - 02:44 PM The mere courage to take risks don't mean squat. Hitler for example took big career risks. Mel is nothing like Hitler, and I don't think he's antisemitic. But taking risks for what you believe in, regardless of what you believe in, is really overrated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST,Different Date: 26 Feb 04 - 02:52 PM Especially when the pay off is in the 10s-100s of millions of dollars. Yeah, takes real courage to be The Mel, don't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST,Different Date: 26 Feb 04 - 02:53 PM Anyone who thinks Mel would have been penniless and homeless if his $$ million investment in the film disappeared, raise yer hands! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST,heric Date: 26 Feb 04 - 03:01 PM . . . . squirt lightning from his ears. . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Kim C Date: 26 Feb 04 - 03:12 PM I didn't say he was risking his money - I said he was risking his CAREER. I think he is someone who makes movies because he Really Likes It, and if he were blackballed by the movie industry as a result of this project, I think that would be a worse blow than just losing a little money. And what about his wife, his kids? I don't think he was just thinking of Mel when he made the decision to make this movie. I'm also surprised that so many of you are making up your minds without even seeing the movie. That's just what the ultra-conservative Christians did with The Last Temptation of Christ. If it were about someone other than Jesus, would your opinions be different? (And by the way, Hitler's risks DID end his career.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Strick Date: 26 Feb 04 - 03:17 PM "But taking risks for what you believe in, regardless of what you believe in, is really overrated." Still beats the hell out of waffling when what you believe in seems like too big a risk. There's a lot more of that than the other. Can't say what percentage of Mel's fortune is tied up in this movie, but it was a risk. Anyone remember how Sam Clemens bankrupted himself investing in typesetting equipment other other nonsense? I doubt Mel would have missed many meals, but he wouldn't have been their first celebrity to lose everything they own and have to start over. And you can't judge a risk by the fact that it appears to have paid off. That has nothing to do with what it was like to have to make the decision and have to live through all it's consequences before it paid off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Pseudolus Date: 26 Feb 04 - 03:32 PM I'll be seeing the movie at some point but I'm not rushing to be the first. Until then, I don't think I'll offer an opinion on the movie or Mel Gibson's decisions. Seems funny though to see the typical Mudcat discussion going on. It's not enough to simply state your opinion...you have to put down or call crazy anyone who may differ from that opinion...sad Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Feb 04 - 03:59 PM Don't take it all that seriously, Kim. I have to decide before every movie that comes out whether I would probably enjoy it and whether it would be worth going to see or not. That's mostly why I read movie reviews and listen to word of mouth comment...so I can decide whether or not to risk my ten bucks and my time on a particular movie. On that basis, I went to see the following movies recently: LOTR-Return of the King, The Last Samurai, Cold Mountain, Brother Bear, the Disney one about the little fish, Pirates of the Caribbean, Master & Commander. They all turned out to be enjoyable and quite good as far as I was concerned. I don't think I'd enjoy this latest movie of Mel Gibson's, based on what I've heard about it. That's it, period. Some others might enjoy it just fine. The idea of a movie about Jesus doesn't offend me in the least, I like Jesus and I believe in his message and teaching. I would enjoy seeing "The Gospel of John" anytime, but haven't as yet, because it hasn't shown in any local theatre here. I am unconcerned about the anti-semitism issue (I can't imagine how anyone could tell the whole story of Jesus without someone finding what they choose to call anti-semitism in it...given the fact that a whole lot of Jewish people wanted him crucified at the time, and got their wish...but how does that implicate all Jews then and now??? As far as I'm concerned it doesn't.) What does concern me is simply this: I don't think I would enjoy sitting through 2 hours of a man being tortured and beaten to a pulp. It just doesn't appeal to me. It is not needed in order to increase my faith. If it increases someone else's faith, well that's okay for them. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Kim C Date: 26 Feb 04 - 04:30 PM That is a good point, LH. Of the people I have talked to who have seen the movie already, no one has said they "enjoyed" it. I don't think it's that sort of a movie. Obviously anyone who would be disturbed by graphic scenes of violence probably shouldn't see it. This may not be a good analogy, and if so, then I apologize. But let's talk about Saving Private Ryan for just a second. Here's a pretty graphic and violent movie. It was hailed by the critics for its realistic, unsanitized depictions of the horrors of war. The public loved it. It won awards. It made a pile of money. And I don't remember hearing anyone fretting that it would foment anti-German sentiment, or that the moviemakers were schlocky or greedy or anything like that. Not all movies are purely for entertainment. I think it's very interesting that this movie has generated so much public discussion. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Hollowfox Date: 26 Feb 04 - 05:25 PM Bobert, regarding your last post (yesterday)...God Bless Ya!! I recall my father telling a story years ago to the effect that there was talk in the 1920's of filming the life of Jesus for the silent screen. Someone said seriously that the best man for the leading role would be Charlie Chaplain because he was an athiest and a Jew. I don't know whether the story is true, and I don't know if he was either a Jew or an athiest, but it would have been interesting to see Chaplin in a non-comic part. I bet he could have pulled it off. As for Mel movies..well, there was that nice chain mail outfit in one of the Mad Max movies. And how could you not enjoy his onscreen draw-&-quartering in Braveheart? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Charley Noble Date: 26 Feb 04 - 05:30 PM I wasn't raised in any church and thus missed out on the opportunity of rejecting a religion. I do have a historical interest in rabble rousers but from what I've read about this movie, betrayal and execution is the focus. I'm sure a whole lot of people will be impressed with this movie and I'd hardly advocate censorship to "protect" them from it. Now with regards to the Old Gods, I do have personal knowledge of their power from my work in Ethiopia in the early 1960's and I do wonder from time to time how they are faring: Another time in a land so fair, With sacred groves in mountain air, I'd ride my horse down a village green, Round houses lined each side. Where the Thunder God still reigned supreme, And people danced upon the green; They offered gifts to the temple priest, And drank their honey wine. But now, where have the Old Gods gone? Do the sacred groves still ring with chants and song? Perhaps, I'll journey once again, Listen in the evening wind, And pour a horn of honey wine At the foot of some old tree. Salam, Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Feb 04 - 05:47 PM Yeah, Kim, "Saving Private Ryan" is an interesting case to compare, all right. I went to see it because I'm very interested in war history, and it seemed to be a pretty accurate film. There was one thing in it that was not too accurate, and it bugged me...namely, the general incompetence of the German troops in the film (following the initial landing scene...they were fairly competent in that one). The Germans shown in the film continually exposed themselves to heavy losses by making what I would call pretty poor tactical moves. A real German assault unit would likely have done a lot better in attacking Ryan's company at the bridge, and not lost its tanks so carelessly. This clumsiness was anything but typical of the German army in World War II...although it did happen on occasion. And when a wall falls down between a bunch of Germans and a bunch of American G.I.'s...and they all panic and start shooting...how is it that only the Germans get shot? Are Americans really that much better at the "quick draw"? This is comic book stuff, as far as I'm concerned. I was probably one of the few moviegoers in North America who had that particular objection to the movie, but it's nitpicking. In general, I thought it was a pretty good film. Somebody ought to make a movie about the Canadians or the Australians or the New Zealanders in WWII for a change. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST Date: 26 Feb 04 - 05:54 PM "If it were about someone other than Jesus, would your opinions be different?" No. Mel Gibson sucks as a director and producer in my opinion. It wouldn't matter what the subject matter was, I don't go to films made by him because the last one I saw, Braveheart, was so awful. Also, the execution of the subject matter he chooses for films I find stultifyingly dull and ignorant. As a rule, I don't go see films with a lot of gratuitous violence. That pretty much rules out films with Mel, Arnold, and the usual suspects anyone here can recite. The last really violent film I went to was Dead Man Walking, and it haunted me for days. It was really well done, but I doubt I would do it again. Even films like the Hannibal Lecter series, some of which apparently are well done, I won't go see because they just seem like glossy & slick slasher flicks, which I've never enjoyed. But I have to say I think the hype around this particular Mel movie has been nauseating. Or did all of you forget that this is sweeps month for the networks? Jesus sells. Especially Jesus controversy. BTW, plenty of folks take a risk and bankroll their own creative projects. I don't admire anyone for it. I just wish I had the ability to do it myself. It doesn't require risk at all, just a desire to creatively do your own thing, instead of hording all your millions int he bank. I don't think what Mel has done involved any risk whatsoever, to be honest. It's kind of like writing books for an academic audience. At least you know the university and college libraries will buy your book, because they are the ready made audience. There will always be a ready made audience for this sort of film. It doesn't mean that is A Good Thing, or that films catering to that audience should be given special treatment, like this one has received. I mean c'mon people--the acorn doesn't fall far from the "there was no Holocaust" tree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: katlaughing Date: 26 Feb 04 - 07:58 PM I think there is a difference between Saving Private Ryan and the Passion. The Passion is completely religious in its intention. Charley, thanks for poem/song. It touches my heart. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Kim C Date: 26 Feb 04 - 08:22 PM You're right - there is a difference between the movies. But if you haven't been to see The Passion, how do you know it's completely religious in its intention? If it makes people think, and opens up discussions, how can that be a bad thing? GUEST, at least Mel didn't make his movie under an anonymous pseudonym. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST Date: 26 Feb 04 - 10:14 PM Well, first day of release, and it has only killed one person watching it so far. A woman apparently met her rapture and had a heart attack during the crucifixtion scene. That story is sure to sell lots more tickets. And the Passion merchandising is going like gangbusters too, I hear. Lookeee here! "The Nail" pendants only $12.99 at SharethePassion.com! Yeah, this movie of Mel's really makes you think all right. About the utter depravity of it all. My review of the most violent major motion picture in history? A few beads short of a rosary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Feb 04 - 11:38 PM
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: LadyJean Date: 26 Feb 04 - 11:57 PM Here I am talking up my town again. If you want inspiration, I reccomend you visit St. Anthony's Chapel on Troy Hill, here in Pittsburgh, which has beautiful Stations of the Cross, and the world's largest collection of holy relics. The review I read said that a crow lands on the cross where the unredeemed thief is hanging, and eats his eye. That's not in the gospels. It is revolting. I am NOT going to see "The Passion". Bleah! We also have a nice passion play here, "Veronica's Veil". The Jewish community likes it. The Catholic Church is somewhat embarassed by it. But it's a local tradition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Amos Date: 27 Feb 04 - 12:04 AM An interesting review of the film, its late-medieval mindset and its obsession with bloodiness and blood can be founf here. As far as I am concerned this whole shtick is something we were supposed to have outgrown about 8 centuries ago. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Seamus Kennedy Date: 27 Feb 04 - 12:23 AM Just got back from seeing it. Screwball comedy it ain't. Not even a British drawing room farce. Extremely violent, relentlessly so, but also extremely thought provoking. I got from it that the the Sanhedrin were very much like the Taliban and didn't want their power usurped by this upstart, so they went to the leader of the occupation army who refused to do things their way. They then threaten to go over his head to Rome and tell Caesar that Jesus is an insurrectionist, a threat to Roman authority, and that Pilate isn't doing anything about it. Pilate, ever the politician, washes his hands of the matter, turning him back over to the Sanhedrin for crucifixion. Using Roman soldiers of course. The crowd scenes of people chanting 'Crucify him." struck me as mob mentality common in many areas of the world, including my homeland - Northern Ireland - and the scenes of the crowds stoning Jesus and beating him (as well as the Romans) reminded me of and incident in my hometown not that long ago where two British soldiers were stripped and beaten to death by an angry mob. My growing up in Belfast also confirms that armies of occupation can be particularly brutal with a suspected rebel leader when they get ahold of him. Not much has changed since biblical times, has it? Seamus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Metchosin Date: 27 Feb 04 - 12:25 AM Well, I'm not going to see it!.....................I read the book....and that's the truth.......pfffwwwttt! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Shanghaiceltic Date: 27 Feb 04 - 12:26 AM I think the only way I will see this movie is on a dodgy DVD from the local bootleg market in Shanghai. Why? I have the feeling it will be banned in China as all religion here is state controlled. That said I will watch it as I have read an awful lot of comments about it and I want to see whether MG has made (for once) a good movie. As for the historical accuracy, the gospels were written well after the event and would be based very much on word of mouth and hearsay. So how can there be accuracy? It will be 'accurate' only from the directors point of view (based on his beliefs) plus a bit of pandering to the audience and whatever seems to be in his mind. As for extreme religious groups of different ilks highjacking the movie to help state their views then this is pretty bad. But there again all fundementalist religious groups are prone to intolerance of any that might differ from them. Gibson has already said that he has no anti semetic feelings, but some people will believe and infer other meanings in what they see in the movie and get over passionate to the point of obsession. The historical period in which the movie was set was a violent one. The Romans were quite happy to bloodily put down revolts and use crucifixtion as a method of instilling terror. So why not expect violence to be shown. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: InOBU Date: 27 Feb 04 - 08:40 AM "I got from it that the the Sanhedrin were very much like the Taliban ..." <- Hi Seamus... THAT'S THE POINT! They WEREN'T! Jewish society was - for its times, very tolerant and civilized at that time. In order to have a prisoner subjected to corporal punishment, there had to be a unanimous vote of the judges, so the view of Christ being beaten before craven judges... well... it ain't so Mel... Cheers (Happy St. Patrick's day S.K.!) Larry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST Date: 27 Feb 04 - 08:52 AM On that slut tv show, Entertainment Tonight, they showed a "The Passion" NASCAR race car. Like I said, they have marketed this thing with sheer brilliance. Every tv station in the country has given this film free advertising. This is just the sort of violent film the NASCAR set can sink it's teeth into, so I'm sure "The Passion" car will be one of the big draws on the ciruit this spring. I've already heard reports that "The Nail" pendants are selling like hotcakes, macabre as they are. It sure does look like the merchandising alone will earn Mel his investment back. But I'm curious as to why everyone is ignoring the hyped merchandising and marketing aspects of this movie. It can't be long before we have the Jesus and Mary and Pilate and Roman army and Jewish patriarch action figures for the kids. Apparently, people are talking pretty young children with them to teach them a lesson or two. As Seamus has pointed out, every age is a brutal age. I fail to see how the relentless use of gratuitous film violence is necessary to get the point across. However, considering how non-religious most people are, I suppose the gratuitous film violence is necessary to sell tickets to the movie. I'm sure this film will move us right back into the Dark Ages. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST Date: 27 Feb 04 - 09:06 AM BTW, on Leno last night, The Mel was saying he doesn't understand all the fuss about the movie being violent. He says it is R rated for a reason, but there are far more violent movies out there than this one. Odd, that isn't what many of the critics (both pro and con) are saying. Many are saying that it is the most violent film they've ever seen. And they see a lot more movies than we do. Is Mel Gibson really so out of touch with reality that he honestly can't perceive just how violent this film is on the spectrum of violent films? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Big Mick Date: 27 Feb 04 - 09:42 AM I think I will take a counter point on the violence. This should not be seen as an approval or disapproval of the film or Gibson's politics. I remember the hue and cry about the violence in Braveheart, also The Patriot, but very little (on the discord front) about the violence in Saving Private Ryan. I suspect that is because that was from "The Good War". I must tell you that I want people to see violence as it actually is. I want the scourging to make you sick to your stomach. I don't want war flicks that show combat death as a sterile, valiant thing. You may take it from me. It is not pretty, nor valiant, nor honorable. I want Joe and Jane America to understand what it is like to watch someone scared, babbling, blowing bubbles, and crying for their families as they breath their last. It is in the horror and revulsion that one understands the cost. And when one does, then they are not so quick to send these beautiful young people off to face it. When I watch Braveheart, or The Patriot, and I suspect, The Passion (which I am not sure that I will see) I imagine I will see battle and death as it was in those days. Seems to me that, in the context of Christ's Passion (used in the Greek context of suffering) that if one understands what a scourging is and it's effects, they will have greater understanding of what Our Lord's gift to us was. I suspect much of this discussion is spawned by those who just don't like Gibson's politics. Fair enough, I dislike them as well. But I see much of the discussion getting bogged down on issues that are phoney. For example, the whole anti-semitism piece. I hear one side implying the Sanhedrin had nothing to do with the killing. The other side acting like they were the sole reason. The simple truth of it is that the Sanhedrin (as opposed to "the Jews"), according to the Gospels, were absolutely involved. Hence they had culpability. Further, there is no question who did the killing. It was the Romans. And they had culpability. But any serious scholar of faith also knows that this was preordained. It was an act by God. It was set in motion with the birth of the beautiful child. It could as well have been the Irish, the English, the Maori, doesn't matter a whit to Christian who "pulled the trigger". It had to happen to provide for wo/mankind's redemption. It was the ultimate expression of love and delivered the ultimate message. Love one another, as I have loved you. Seems like good salts to me. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST,Judah Date: 27 Feb 04 - 06:01 PM Mr. Gibson has been in many movies I've seen and enjoyed. But I think this latest project of his has anti-semitic elements, and he is the man primarilly responsible. He was brought up by his father into a, for want of a better word, break-away movement of the Roman Catholic Church, the point of departure being the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) presided over by Pope John XXIII. One of the results of the Council was for prayer in the vernacular rather than a full Latin Mass; more germane to this thread was a reversal of over a thousand years of Catholic teaching, that the Jews killed Christ. If you went to Catholic school before Vatican II, the words 'perfidious Jews' were likely in your textbooks. Pope John XXIII and like minded Catholic leaders initiated a top-down change that encompassed Roman Catholic scholastics and liturgy. Traditionalist Catholics reject these changes, which means that they subscribe to the theory that the Jews killed Christ. Many Jews have the feeling that they are once again, to put it blungly, in the cross hairs as Christ-killers, a long time historical burden of huge proportions which you run into again and again throughout history. When Mr. Gibson has been interviewed by Diane Sawyer, and last night on Leno, he makes no move to allay those fears. He speaks in circumlocutions, such as alluding to various over-reactions, and lack of support, without naming names or enumerating why certain people might have very good reasons for not being in support of him. The movie itself has done nothing to contradict Mr. Gibson's background and Traditionalist Catholic beliefs (which are in contradiction of current Roman Catholic beliefs). Pilate is among the more sympathetic characters, and the Jews are mostly distinct from Jesus, who I don't recall as being hardly presented as a Jew. The spoken line (from one of the gospels) where the Jews take responsibility for the execution and also for their descendants, is included in the movie and simply left out of the subtitles. I am NOT disturbed at the movie's release in the US. Mr. Gibson has every right to have his movie shown wherever he can get it out there. He also has to take the criticism as a free and open society. I am more concerned with the life of this project in subsequent incarnations as a recording which can go anywhere, where it will get much less of a critical response. In short, Mel Gibson, with knowledge aforethought, has released into the world a product which has a high likelihood of hurting people I care about. Also, considering his participation in a movement counter to the established Roman Catholic Church, I'm thinking that there will be other disputes out there which have nothing to do with the Jews. P.S. I don't know that much about Vatican II, so if I got something wrong up there, please correct me. I've been raised believing it was one of the most important religious events of the last century. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: DonMeixner Date: 27 Feb 04 - 06:38 PM I haven't seen The Passion and I probably won't. I already know how the story ends. I do think if this is to be considered the story of Christ's last hours I think it should end with the resurrection. That is what defines Christianity more than anything else I believe. And without seeing the film I have no reason to offer any criticism whatsoever about the film or the director. I've seen some Mel movies I liked and some I didn't. Absolutely no way to know how this one will be unless I see it. Just an opinion. Don |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Rustic Rebel Date: 27 Feb 04 - 09:53 PM Pope John Paul had these words to say after watching it... "It is as it was." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 27 Feb 04 - 10:27 PM The twelve "stations of the cross" are a Catholic Church mantra.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: LadyJean Date: 28 Feb 04 - 12:34 AM Anything, including Catholicism, can be taken to excess. I didn't know Assyrians spoke Aramaic. I've met my sister's friend the Assyrian grocer in Chicago. I did not know he was speaking in Aramaic when he talked on the phone. (He flirted with us in English.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Nerd Date: 28 Feb 04 - 02:50 AM Kim C wrote: If it makes people think, and opens up discussions, how can that be a bad thing? Not to get hysterical, but the holocaust (for example) made people think and opened discussions, so things that are in themselves evil can have that effect. If we restrict the question to talking about works of art, any piece of art will inevitably make some people think and open up some discussions. Do a google search on Gilligan's Island and you'll see what I mean. So to use this as a criterion merely eliminates any possibility of any work of art being bad. That's a viable perspective, but it doesn't make this work of art any different from any other. You could defend a porno movie or a slasher movie or a snuff film on the same grounds. Big Mick wrote But I see much of the discussion getting bogged down on issues that are phoney. For example, the whole anti-semitism piece. [...] The simple truth of it is that the Sanhedrin (as opposed to "the Jews"), according to the Gospels, were absolutely involved. Hence they had culpability. Further, there is no question who did the killing. It was the Romans. And they had culpability. Big Mick, I trust you understand that "the whole anti-semitism piece" is a serious issue. The charge that the Jewish people were responsible for the murder of Christ was the basis for much of the anti-semitism of the Middle Ages, when Jews were subject to oppression and pogroms for it. This is not a "phoney" issue, but has been, as recently as the 1940s (and perhaps in Europe today) a matter of life and death. Your claim that "The simple truth of it is that the Sanhedrin (as opposed to "the Jews"), according to the Gospels, were absolutely involved." is not quite right. In fact it is the entire crowd that calls for Jesus' crucifixion, in all four gospels, not just the priests. (eg Luke 23:18-21 "They all cried out together...Crucify! Crucify him!" So all the Jews who had a say in the matter, not just the Sanhedrin, called for the death of Jesus. (In some gospels, it is stated that the priests incited them to call out, in others not.) In Matthew 27:25, the Jews ALL take the blame on themselves and on their children. And for this reason all Jews have historically been blamed. Even though this line occurs in only one of the four gospels, Gibson put it in the movie, and then cravenly did not subtitle it, revealing that he knew precisely how divisive it was. So he KNEW it would be perceived as hurtful by pretty much all Jews, he KNEW it was in only one gospel and thus could have made just as faithful a movie without it, and yet he chose to put it in. It does not sound to me like anti-semitism is a red herring. Even this does not get to the heart of the matter for people who don't take the New Testament as absolute truth. That heart is: are the gospels even telling the truth? The synoptic gospels were all written by people who were not there to witness the events they described. In any case, they are evangelical documents, whose goal is to convert people to Christianity, not history books written for accuracy. Indeed, the idea of accuracy for its own sake had rarely if ever been applied even in historical writing at the time. The only reason the synoptic gospels resemble each other as much as they do, scholars believe, is that Matthew and Luke are both based on Mark. Thus, there is no reason to assume that the gospels are telling the truth about what happened. Since they are essentially ideological and not historical, there is no reason to assume their ideology did not include anti-Semitism, and the "facts" reported in the Gospels were not invented by Mark or by his source (Peter, some believe) to make the Jews look bad. In that case, just as the gospels are anti-semitic documents, this is an anti-semitic movie. Whether Gibson hates Jews or not can't be determined from the movie he made. But he clearly didn't care enough about their feelings to omit the offending line from Matthew. That's at best callous, at worst hateful. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: katlaughing Date: 28 Feb 04 - 11:17 AM Nerd, always good to hear your "voice." Thanks for your posting. Well said. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Frankham Date: 28 Feb 04 - 12:24 PM Jesus as a slasher film. I saw some previews and nearly threw up. Does anyone have to be reminded that the Gospels are not historical documents but articles of "faith" subject to individual interpretation? Interesting to see a film where Mel Gibson plays God. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Feb 04 - 12:37 PM Interesting post there, Judah... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Big Mick Date: 28 Feb 04 - 01:47 PM Nerd, In your typical type of response, you start by making a preposterous statement, then move on to ignoring a central point, then fill up your response with cites to give it legitimacy. To wit: You start off by comparing this film to the Holocaust. Are you serious? The Holocaust, IMO, was the penultimate example of man's inhumanity to man. To provide any comparison to the two is irresponsible and shows your lack of judgement. Second, the whole point you conveniently chose to ignore in your post was the closing statement. It does not matter what group of people were responsible for the death of the Christ. It could have been any group of people. If one is a modern Christian, they understand that. I completely agree as to what has happened historically, and I believe the Jewish people have every right to take many of the actions they take to stop the type of discrimination, and even genocide they have faced. That does not change the culpability of the parties to the act being described. What I really object to is the idea that somehow, because I dislike the man's politics, It is OK to build a phoney argument to take him down. There is plenty about him and his film to go on about. The involvement of the Sanhedrin and the Jew's at the crucifixion is not one of them. The story is there to read. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Nerd Date: 28 Feb 04 - 05:44 PM Whoa there, Mick! No need to get angry and accusatory. These are my real opinions, I assure you. Sorry if the citations to the Bible put you off. I am a professional scholar in real life, and if I'm going to talk about what the Bible says or doesn't say, I'm going to reach for the Bible to support my contentions. I don't think this is trickery, it's just part of my makeup by now. I was, after all, about to contradict you, and I wanted to be sure I was right. As it turns out I was right; the Gospels all say that the entire crowd clamored for the death of Jesus. Matthew and Mark say that the priests incited the crowd, Luke and John do not. To say, "it was just the high priests" is fine, but that ain't what the bible says. The comparison to the holocaust was of course intentionally outrageous, which is why I said "not to get hysterical, but..." before it. (The internet does not communicate such subtleties well, I guess.) The point was not that the film was evil like the holocaust (that would be preposterous, I agree), but that just because something provokes thought and conversation does not mean it's a societal good. The holocaust was just a way-out example, but you can say, as I said next, slasher films, gilligan's island, etc. Bad art and bad events have provoked thought and conversation without making the world a measurably better place. (Sorry, Gilligan's Island fans! Just my opinion!) I think this was pretty clear above, but in case it wasn't: hey, folks, this film isn't anywhere NEAR as evil as the holocaust, ok? It is, however, slightly more evil than Gilligan's Island :-) As to the other stuff, I do agree with what you say, that according to a modern Christian world-view, the crucifixion was pre-ordained, and the Jews were simply the agents of God's action. That has not stopped anti-semitic Christians from blaming the Jews before. Why would it be impossible for Mel Gibson, who has explicitly rejected the "modern" changes in Chrisitan world-view, to blame the Jews? In your own words above, "If one is a modern Christian, they understand that." Okay, but what if one is a very retro Catholic? So I didn't comment on that statement, but that was not intended as disrepect to you. I just don't think it applies to Mel Gibson. I also think we both know there is still anti-semitism among some Christians, and that the term "Christ-Killers" is not dead. I've heard it myself. So just because you are a good and enlightened person doesn't mean we can assume everyone else is. Finally, in your last paragraph, you do one of the things you accuse me of doing. You ignore about half of what I said: That does not change the culpability of the parties to the act being described. That's theoretically true, but in my last five paragraphs, I point out that no one knows what the culpability of any of the parties really was, because the Gospels may be anti-semitic documents which lie about what happened. We don't know this for a fact, but it's pretty likely. I know that for a believing Christian this would be a heretical statement, but for a Jew (or an atheist. Muslim, Buddhist, etc) it's a fact of life. I grant that Gibson, as a believing Catholic, was bound to represent the Gospels accurately. But there was no need, as I think I pointed out, for him to include the inflammatory line where the Jews admit their guilt and pass it on to their children; that line was in only one gospel and he could have followed any of the other three at that point instead. By not subtitling that one line, he showed that he knew damn well what he was doing. So we have a story which everybody knows has been the excuse for anti-semitism for centuries. We have four different versions of that story. There is a particularly inflammatory line, and Mel Gibson knows it's particularly inflammatory (which he signals by leaving the subtitles off just that one line). That line is in only one version of the story. Mel Gibson decides to include it. What conclusions do you think Jews will draw besides these three possibilities: 1) he is anti-semitic 2) he isn't actively anti-semitic, but he doesn't really care if the movie is inflammatory and incites anti-semites. 3) he isn't anti-semitic, and he does care, but he exhibited really poor judgement. I think these conclusions, which are in fact the conclusions drawn by most Jewish organizations and individuals, are pretty logical. I have no desire (or ability) to "take Mel Gibson down," and I don't care too much about his politics in general, though like you I don't like them. I liked the Lethal Weapon movies, liked the Mad Max stuff in my younger days, and even thought he did an okay (but not brilliant) job at Hamlet. He's a good actor (especially at slightly insane roles) and I'm sure I'll see more of his movies in the future. I do think this movie, and particularly its handling of that scene, was ill-considered at best, intentionally anti-semitic at worst. I do not think this is a phony or trumped-up charge, and oddly enough I think most of the considered commentary out there in the press is in agreement with me. At the same time, I'm not calling for a boycott or anything. Most of the people who might be inflamed to anti-semitism by this film aren't on Mudcat anyway! So see it if you want to, 'catters! Then come back here and let us know what you thought of this question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST,pdc Date: 28 Feb 04 - 05:55 PM I haven't seen the film, nor will I. A friend of mine saw it and noticed that Christ was white, and all the "good" Jews (disciples, etc) were Aryan in appearance. The Jews who were calling for the death of Christ were all swarthy, hook-nosed people. Gibson also included money secretly changing hands among the Jews who wanted the crucifixion. I think Gibson has done an evil thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Rapparee Date: 28 Feb 04 - 09:46 PM Corinthians 15:17. The film is irrelevant to the Christian redemption. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: MAG Date: 28 Feb 04 - 10:34 PM I wish I knew how to make a blicky from another site, and could bring this really god adtiicle on storytell to your attention. To the best of my recollection, it raised the following possibilities (plus probably more I don't remember): The gospels have the crowd which adored Jesus (not yet the Christ) on Palm Sunday call for this death on -- Thursday? not bloody likely. possible, but not likely. why would the entire Sanhedrin meet in the dark of night at the high priest's house in the middle of the night AT PASSOVER? If it happened at all, it was more likely a meeting to try to figure out how to save this popular rabbi (and this is what he was) from the romans. If the Sanhedrin decided that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy, they didn't need the romans to kill him. They had the authority to do it. On the other hand, if the romans want to kill him ("king of the Jews"), they needn' ask anybody. and they usually didn't. I have already noted elsewhere that Pontius Pilate in recorded history crucified about 10,000 Jews while he governed Judah. I understand that even Rome was taken aback by his brutality. By the same token, why was this supposed crowd gathered DURING PASSOVER? not bloody likely. If it happened -- which it probably didn't -- they were rounded up, and a lot probably were not Jews. I care because of my goody uncle (who is a ranking military retiree, I might add) who once tried to convince me of the holocaust hoax theory. I have refused to speak to him since. AND to feel some responsibility to counter this kind of garbage. On yet ANOTHER discussion group Julius Lester most eloquently explained why, if all the Jews you know say something is anti-Semitic, believe it. He got trashed there, on a literature discussion group, by these suspicious new members. One accused JULIUS LESTER |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: MAG Date: 28 Feb 04 - 10:37 PM OK, I can take a hint. no more rant, dear computer. I AM heartily sick of every discussion group to which I belong, without exception, being filled with this discussion. I hereby deal myself out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Big Mick Date: 28 Feb 04 - 11:17 PM Nerd, I find myself in the position of having to apologize. I have reread my comments and found the tone to be something less than respectful. I apologize. Happens sometimes when I am aggravated about other issues. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the issue of his anti semitism. I just am not in favor or rewriting the history of this or any story because of concerns about sensitivity. It seems to me that the world can only move in a progressive fashion when it acknowledges the past for all its beauty and ugliness. Whether it be African, Jewish, Arab, Irish, South African, American, First Nations etc, we must see that all people are capable of great evil, and more are capable of great good. The lessons are universal. I am rambling here. Your points are well taken, and I hope you will forgive my ungraciousness. It has been happening too much lately and I need to work on it. MAG, for people of faith, there is no discussion of the why's. You attempt to debate the story, but that isn't what the debate is about. Whether you believe the Biblical recount of the events is another discussion. The issue here is whether Gibson was faithful to the recalling of the events as written, whether it was necessary to use the gore in the way he did, and in doing so does that make him anti semitic. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: DonMeixner Date: 29 Feb 04 - 11:23 AM pdc, I was probably not going to the movie either. But I made my choice out of my own hand and because someone said it was good, bad, or evil. Now maybe I'll go so I have better information. Your message caused me to wonder. Do you never read books that some one tells you are evil or of bad taste? Do you not eat tomatoes because they don'y look like potatoes? Do you rely on someone else to direct your path through the day? If that is the case don't discover the thought that provokes ideas or your own opinions. Don't discover the one taste that makes you want more. And for Christ's sake do get lost on the way to the mall and find the waterfall. Don |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Big Mick Date: 29 Feb 04 - 11:25 AM Yeah, Don, I feel the same way. I am debating this thing without knowledge provided by having seen it. I decided, based on a PM with my friend MAG, that I will see it and go from there. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST Date: 29 Feb 04 - 11:52 AM There is a huge difference between criticizing the film if you haven't seen it, and criticizing the marketing of the film (we've apparently all seen the marketing and hype), or questioning the motives behind the making of a film (it is perfectly legitimate to question why Gibson chose to focus on this particular story as opposed to so many others he also could have chosen to tell about Jesus), or discussing the religious cult of which Mel Gibson is a not only a member, but major benefactor of, along with his father. It also isn't invalid to discuss the perfectly orchestrated "anti-Semitic" controversy surrounding the film. The timing of his father's blatantly anti-Semitic comments to the mainstream press the week before the film opens. And discuss Mel Gibson's refusal to enter into an honest dialog with those who will be directly effected by the film and/or the film's marketing being perceived as pandering to pre-Vatican II anti-Semites, which is Jews. All of those subjects are legitimately open for for debate without seeing the film. As many people are aware, the film isn't what is at the center of this firestorm, the controversies generated by the filmmaker himself, is what is at the center of it. And it isn't beyond the pale of reasonableness to suggest that it is being orchestrated to sell tickets and tie-in merchandise, as well as being used as a recruiting tool for religious fundamentalists who will undoubtedly enter the cult as a result of all of this. To suggest that people have to go see the film to discuss the film is bullshit. To critique the film nitself, yes, one must see it. But to critically discuss the hype, Mel Gibson's motives, the calculated orchestration of controversy as a marketing tactic, etc. it isn't necessary to see the film. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: DonMeixner Date: 29 Feb 04 - 12:56 PM "To suggest that people have to go see the film to discuss the film is bullshit. To critique the film nitself (sic), yes, one must see it." Exactly right. Don |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST,pdc Date: 29 Feb 04 - 01:10 PM I never go to see films that are notorious for their violent content. Why do we have film reviewers if not to help us decide whether or not to see a film? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Peace Date: 29 Feb 04 - 03:08 PM pdc: We need film reviewers to tell us how much we did or didn't enjoy the film. At least it's seemed to be that way for years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Nerd Date: 29 Feb 04 - 03:16 PM Big Mick, I totally understand. As you know, I've been there myself. No hard feelings! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Nigel Parsons Date: 29 Feb 04 - 04:04 PM I have yet to decide whether to see it myself. But the question was raised very early in the thread "Why would anyone want to see this film?" (paraphrased) I think the last verse of the hymn "There is a green hill far away" may answer that: "We may not know, we can not tell, What pain He had to bear. But we believe it was for us He hung and suffered there!" Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Kim C Date: 29 Feb 04 - 04:32 PM GUEST, the marketing of religious-themed merchandise is absolutely nothing new. There are t-shirts, bumper stickers, figurines, jewelry, wall art, you name it - they have been around for YEARS. There's a market for that stuff, and it isn't just Christians. If you have an issue with the merchandising, take it up with the people who want to buy those things. The people producing them are simply taking advantage of a desire in the marketplace. I want to see the movie and make up my own mind what I think about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Ebbie Date: 29 Feb 04 - 08:08 PM While I'm visiting family in North Carolina I have been attending their church with them. Today, during the congregational prayer request and comment section of the service, a man brought up the movie. He himself has not yet seen the film but a couple of his family have and he proposed a prayer of thanks for a man "like Mel Gibson who dares to make movies counter to the products of the decadent movie makers of today". I will not see the film. I do not like gore nor do I like rabble rousing, so I won't see it for even those reasons alone. But also one would think that a religious movie made by a believer, would be made to exemplify and explain the core of their beliefs. That, for Christians, I would think would be the resurrection of Jesus, not his death. I fail to see the point of this film. Of course, I understand that my take on the death of Jesus is different from that of most people. Given the events, I don't believe that it was the crucifixion of Jesus that was particularly noteworthy. After all, many people had been put to death in that manner. To me, it was the withdrawal of God from Jesus that is a heartbreaker. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Nigel Parsons Date: 29 Feb 04 - 08:45 PM To go back to just before the movie? Jesus is praying in the garden of Gethsemane, "Father, if this chalice may not pass me by, but I must drink of it, then Thy will be done" I.e. Jesus wanted to get out of the pain and torment which was pre-ordained for him, but realising that this was the atonement for the sins of the many, accepted that God's will would be done. Jesus knew the scriptures. In several parts of the New Testament it is stated that things were done "that the scriptures might be fulfilled" He knew, at the last supper that He would be betrayed. And Judas, having eaten from the same bowl went out to betray Him. Judas is much maligned. Jesus knew he must be betrayed in order to achieve his purpose. Judas helped that purpose, else someone else would have needed to. Judas was a Zealot, one who was active to promote that which was promised. His action (though circumscribed) helped forward the predicted end. Christ's late cry from the cross "Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani" (my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me) can be seen as desperation. Possibly an acceptance that His belief in His resurrection was slipping. However. For Christians, there can really be no acceptance of the idea of a blood debt for the crucifixion. (Hence no view of the Jewish people as Christ killers) Christ's earlier words from the cross (Which I assume are in the film!!) "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!" Nigel (religious proselytising over!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Nerd Date: 01 Mar 04 - 03:52 AM Nigel, it's all very well to say that "For Christians, there can really be no acceptance of the idea of a blood debt for the crucifixion. (Hence no view of the Jewish people as Christ killers)," and indeed it's nice of you to say it. But there have been, and are today, people who call themselves Christians, and who believe in the blood debt and think Jews are Christ-Killers. All you're doing is defining the people you want to define as Christians and calling the others something else. That won't make them disappear, though, nor will it stop them from seeing this film and having their feelings confirmed... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Nigel Parsons Date: 01 Mar 04 - 04:30 AM Nerd: All I'm doing is putting forward a view. I know it won't change everyone's view of the situation. By the same token, there is nothing I can say which will change the views of all those who believe all Germans/Christians bear some responsibility for the Holocaust Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Rustic Rebel Date: 01 Mar 04 - 04:56 AM Frankham-you said,"Does anyone have to be reminded that the Gospels are not historical documents but articles of "faith" subject to individual interpretation? Interesting to see a film where Mel Gibson plays God." Exactly. It is a personal interpretation. So why not except each person's interp. on the subject including Mel Gibsons? I don't believe he was playing god anymore than anyones interpretation of the stories that led to the writings of the new testament. Ebbie, the death of Jesus did play an integral part in his life. It was when he gave up being a 'god' to suffer a human experience. It was perhaps a lesson he and we had to learn about human vulnerability. How scared and unknowing the people were and are. If the stories of Jesus are an acurate display of his life, it's too bad we haven't learned the loving message no matter where it came from. It's to bad we haven't learned the other lessons that were right there and still are, to learn about how we can work energy, use and manipulate it, just like he did.(Ha!) But then Nigel summed up his belief and it is scripture orientated and that is just fine. It is what ever you believe that makes your existance happen. To say if it is right or wrong to see a film based on someones belief that is different from yours, I can't go for that. Who said it here (I apologize for not remembering off hand) that it is an art. Exactly. Any interpretation of belief put out into the world is a form of your art. Art is a form of your belief. Your belief is a form of you. Rustic(just going beyond the discussion a bit) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST Date: 01 Mar 04 - 08:51 AM I believe Mel Gibson's motives for making the film are less than pure. I believe Mel Gibson set out to proselytize and propagandize with this film, and make a lot of money doing it, pure and simple. Jesus sells. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Big Mick Date: 01 Mar 04 - 09:16 AM So, GUEST, what was your view of the movie with Ben Kingsley about Gandhi? Point being that, of course Gibson is out to proselytize. Aren't they all? And selling merchandise? C'mon, you spit that out like an oath. Of course they want to sell merchandise, it's a movie for crying out loud. If it were an anti war movie and they sold merchandise, would that be OK? My point is that there is plenty to find fault with in the man's politics and views. There is no reason to try and dummy up things or create false issues. Merchandising and proselytizing are there in every single movie with a point of view. It is not unique to this one. But ivory tower intellectuals with an axe to grind like to try and act like it is just this one. I call that politics of convenience. When you do this, you just give ammunition to your adversaries. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Amos Date: 01 Mar 04 - 09:46 AM Interesting remarks from the reviewer at SLate magazine on line: "So let us not be euphemistic about what is staring us in the face. Last Wednesday, the Lovingway United Pentecostal Church in Denver posted a sign on its roadside marquee. It read "Jews Killed the Lord Jesus." This pigsty of a church has, I think you will agree, an unimprovable name. But its elders, or whatever they call themselves, can't have had time to see the movie, which only opened that same Ash Wednesday. Nor, I think it safe to say, had they chosen the slogan only on the spur of the moment. No: They had been thinking this for quite a long time and were emboldened to "come out" and say so under the cover of a piece of devotional cinematic pornography. Some of us saw this coming. In America, I hope and believe, the sinister effect will be blunted by generations of civilized co-existence. But think for a moment what will happen when Gibson reaps the residual and overseas profits from screenings of the film in Egypt and Syria, or in Eastern Europe, where things are a bit more raw. Who can believe that he did not anticipate, and intend, this result? Apparently seeking to curry favor, Gibson announced a few weeks ago that he had cut the scene where a Jewish mob yells for the blood of Jesus to descend on the heads of its children (a scene that occurs in only one of the four contradictory Gospels). Gibson lied. The scene is still there, spoken in Aramaic. Only the English subtitle has been removed. Propagandists in other countries will be able to subtitle it any way they like. This is all of a piece with the general moral squalor of his project. Gibson's producer lied when he said that a pope Gibson despises had endorsed the film. He would not show the movie to anyone who might object in advance. He will not debate any of his critics, and he relies on star-stricken pulp interviewers to feed him soft questions. Now, as the dollars begin to flow from this front-loaded fruit-machine of cynical publicity, he is sobbing about the risks and sacrifices he has made for the Lord. A coward, a bully, a bigmouth, and a queer-basher. Yes, we have been here before. The word is fascism, in case you are wondering, and we don't have to sit through that movie again." Regards, A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Big Mick Date: 01 Mar 04 - 10:01 AM Amos, Rush Limbaugh uses that tactic as well. It is called demagogery (sp?). Trying to validate an argument by finding an example, and then predicting what will happen. We don't know if this movie will raise anti semitic feelings. My opinion is that it will not. To suggest that only Americans will rise above it because it "will be blunted by generations of civilized co-existence" and then suggest that other countries will react, Syria, Egypt and Eastern Europe being the examples, is ludicrous, not to mention xenophobic. Those that already hate jews will simply go on hating. This film is not going to cause anyone to convert to antisemitism. To suggest otherwise is paternalistic at least. It seems to me that there is a certain amount of herd mentality at work here. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST,Larry K Date: 01 Mar 04 - 10:41 AM Best line I heard- "Anybody who doesn't like the movie probably didn't like the book either" I have no intention os seeing the movie- but 117 million box office through the first weekend for a religous move with subtitles. Obviously, he has touched a nerve. I hope it brings out real dialog and discussion. I hope the hate mongers are exposed and rejected. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Amos Date: 01 Mar 04 - 10:52 AM I am sure it is not going to make anti-Semites out of anyone. I despise what I know of the movie and its origins, not because it will make anti-semites of anyone, but because Gibson has inherited and promotes indirectly the vicious myth of the non-Holocaust, and because I think the whole issue arouond which the movie is built is fraudulent and way outdated to boot -- kind of like the lady who complained of her hotel that the food was poisonous and the portions too small. :>) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Nerd Date: 01 Mar 04 - 11:47 AM Big Mick, "This film is not going to cause anyone to convert to antisemitism. To suggest otherwise is paternalistic at least." I'm not sure why this should be so. Some event or moment in a person's life makes them hate, or at least makes them realize they hate. For plenty of people in history it's been the gospels themselves, (interpreted by a zealous sermonizer of course, since for centuries most people couldn't read them). Why is it either ridiculous or paternalistic to suggest that this film might be such an event or moment, since it is after all just the gospels interpreted by another zealous sermonizer? It sounds pretty plausible to me. I also think you dismissed Amos's quote from Slate a bit too easily. The evidence presented there suggests at least that this film IS helping along a revival of anti-Semitism in some places in the US. As for predicting what will happen in other countries, it's true that these predictions are never certain. But to suggest that claiming Syrians might engage in anti-semitic violence is xenophobia is a little strong. I assure you, open anti-semitism is far more prevalent there than here. It's true we may be off-base predicting anti-Jewish violence as a result of this film. The herd mentality does tend to arise when your grandparents (or great-uncles) were herded into stockades before being gassed to death. Jews and Jewish organizations tend to want to err on the side of safety when it comes to anti-semitic propaganda. It IS possible to take this too far, but I'm not convinced it's going too far with this example. Another important question asked by Slate was: do you think Gibson worried about the possibility of anti-Semitic violence when he made the movie? If so, why not really cut out the line about the blood being on the heads of Jewish children? As I said above, I think he either didn't care or he's an active anti-Semite. Or, possibly, he just has really bad judgement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST Date: 01 Mar 04 - 11:54 AM Mel Gibson looks like Jesus. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST,pdc Date: 01 Mar 04 - 11:57 AM Two comments. First, Nigel posted: "We may not know, we can not tell, What pain He had to bear. But we believe it was for us He hung and suffered there!" It is appropriate to note that Mel Gibson cannot know or tell either. Second, William Safire had a column in this morning's New York Times, in which he claimed that Gibson's use of a religious theme finally allowed him to go over the top in portraying violence and cruelty. He said that some people in the audience he was in were gasping at the blatant, lingering shots of utter savagery in the film. I still think Gibson has a perspective on torture and pain that is a little off the wall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Kim C Date: 01 Mar 04 - 12:08 PM Likewise the Romans had a perspective on torture that was a little off the wall. They ruled their own army through fear of death. They thought it was "entertainment" to pit humans against large animals and see who would win. Were there not some Jews who turned against Jesus? Others who were afraid of him? So be it. But that's ancient. That should not have anything to do with how People of Today behave toward one another. I don't hear anyone saying this movie will foment any anti-Italian sentiment. When Pearl Harbor came out, I don't remember anyone saying they expected anti-Japanese sentiment to rise. It occurs to me that any anti-Semitism would go against Jesus' teaching of forgiveness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST Date: 01 Mar 04 - 02:13 PM I had no idea we had so many biblical scholars here on the Mudcat. That's encouraging. To knock a movie you have never seen, though, makes little sense to me. How anyone could envision a scene of crusifiction that was not violent is well beyond me too. I do plan to see the movie but will wait until all the hubbub subsides. I wouldn't stand in line to see the greatest movie ever made. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: katlaughing Date: 01 Mar 04 - 07:25 PM Kim, possibly because Japanese are not identified as a specific religious group, as "Jews" are in general society's perception. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Strick Date: 01 Mar 04 - 08:19 PM katlaughing, I remember vivid, racist, anti-Japanese sentiment in this part of the world not that many years ago. Religion is not the only source of bigotry in the world. It took some people 50 years to get over Pearl Harbor, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Amos Date: 01 Mar 04 - 08:22 PM William Safire offers some food for thought on the film: "...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." Full essay here A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Bobert Date: 01 Mar 04 - 09:07 PM Upon his first place finish in the Halliburton 500, Stroker Ace crawled out of his NASCAR race car and said, "Yep, this Passion of the Christ, Viagra, Walmart Chevy just wouldn't quit today..." Bobert |
|
Subject: I didn't like it.... From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Mar 04 - 01:04 AM As many of you know, I'm a leader and teacher in my Catholic parish, and I spent 8 years in the seminary. Here's what I wrote to my pastor this afternoon:
But then, I don't like Mel Gibson movies anyhow. On the other hand, I didn't see anything in the movie that could be construed as being particularly anti-Semitic. But then, I don't see the Gospels as anti-Semitic. I figure the line, "May his blood be on us and on our children" applied to those who supported the crucifixion, not to all Jews. I couldn't tell Hebrew from Aramaic, but I thought it was interesting that when Pilate spoke to the crowd, he spoke one of those two languages. When he spoke with Jesus, they both spoke Latin. No Greek at all - and as somebody pointed out in another message, somebody in the film should have spoken Greek. I actually understood the Latin, even though the last time I took a Latin class was 1968. -Joe Offer |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: katlaughing Date: 02 Mar 04 - 01:34 AM Strick, I understand that and have worked agaisnt bigotry and racism for all of my life. Kim said, When Pearl Harbor came out, I don't remember anyone saying they expected anti-Japanese sentiment to rise. I believe she meant the movie, Pearl Habor and I was simply making the observation that in today's age, perhaps religion was more of a flashpoint than ethnicity, in this instance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: catspaw49 Date: 02 Mar 04 - 02:30 AM So is there a set of action figures coming out to go with the movie? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Amergin Date: 02 Mar 04 - 02:45 AM Well, Spaw...there is this click here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Kim C Date: 02 Mar 04 - 11:02 AM I have a dashboard Jesus on a Spring in my car, which I got from Archie McPhee. Why? you may well ask. It is to remind me that the Creator made humans as the only beings who laugh, and not to take myself too seriously. (They also make a little Buddha on a spring.) Yes, I meant the movie Pearl Harbor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Amos Date: 02 Mar 04 - 11:27 AM I believe chimps also laugh, Kim, but maybe that's close enough!! :>)) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Coyote Breath Date: 02 Mar 04 - 12:12 PM I'll see it. I think I need to to understand what the fuss is all about. I suggest that, if possible, 'catters also see "The Gospel of John" It is a "feature length" film based completely upon John's Gospel. It has been produced by VBI (Visual Bible Iternational) with 75 principal actors and 2,000 extras. It depicts John's account of the ministtry, death and resurrection, neither borrowing from other gospels or shying away from complex passages. I don't know what it's schedule of release is. It is a Canadian production so it's nominally available on the NA continent. If I can find out where it will be playing I will post it here. CB |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: DonMeixner Date: 02 Mar 04 - 01:15 PM Do you suppose that Mel Gibson should make a film of the Spanish Inquistion? I wouldn't expect so but certainly the Inquisition needs as much explaining from his Catholic viewpoint as does the Crucifiction. Don |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Kim C Date: 02 Mar 04 - 01:35 PM Well you know, Don, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Amos, I think the deal is something like, chimps "laugh" but it isn't the same kind of reflex/reaction as when humans laugh. It isn't a laugh so much as just a sound they make, like a laughing hyena. But I'm just an unfrozen caveman. I don't know about all that scientific stuff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Amos Date: 02 Mar 04 - 02:02 PM Don: I think he should give the whole thing a rest. He isn't getting anyone any nearer transcendence with all this malarkey, ya know. It is a gigantic red herring. No-one's gonna get off the wheel watching Mel Gibson movies, and that is fer sartain shore! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST Date: 02 Mar 04 - 02:20 PM The only part of this whole thing that is really disturbing, IMO, is that many of the Christians going to see this film believe it to be historical fact, rather than their religious belief about a man who may or may not have lived at one time in the geographic region where the story takes place. Then, when you point that distinction out to a Christian believer, they start arguing with you that their sacred document, the bible, is historical fact. The same is true, of course, of many believers in organized religion. It is just that right now, it is the Christian sorts of believers who are fucking everything up in the US with their religious wars. I'm real tired of the Taliban White House pushing the Taliban Christian Values (tm). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: DonMeixner Date: 02 Mar 04 - 02:30 PM I must admit to chuckling when ever I hear an avowed, wear it on your sleave Christian mention the Bible as the true word of God. Baloney! It is the word of many people who may have seen and heard some things, some of which is second hand. Then add to the mix the editorial skills of Good King James and we have the Word of God for all the world to see. I am in fact a Christian who believes in Jesus and in God but if you ask if I trust the Bible to be the last word I do not. Thanks to KIng James there are more than a few books missing from the Word of God. Who is to say they aren't the real story.... Don |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Amos Date: 02 Mar 04 - 02:56 PM Chacun a son mauvais gout, I always say. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: InOBU Date: 02 Mar 04 - 05:51 PM Hi Joe Offer... I feel much as you do in your letter. In Private Ryan, the violence was a meaningful part of the film which expressed a great humanity, fear and duty and human frailty. You'd think that the story of Christ would be a good vehicle for those eliments as well, but Mel's use of graphic violence seemed to me to be like sculpting butter with dynomite. Yours in the light Larry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 02 Mar 04 - 06:39 PM Let all the poisons that are in the mud hatch out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 02 Mar 04 - 08:22 PM I have no stand on this movie, but I just was wondering.. I can understand why people doubt the accuracy of a book that was carried on by aural tradition for 60-90 years before anything was written down, has gone through many translations, exclusions of some books and inclusion of others. If only we could read it in actual reports of the day, like our newspapers. Haw Haw. How many people who can't believe the accuracy of the bible believe everything they read in the newspapers? I think that the truth is that just about everything that is reduced to print has the personal "spin" of the writer on it and is only one perspective of the "truth." Including this post... Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Peace Date: 02 Mar 04 - 08:41 PM Google the following for more. appian way, crucifixions |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: DonMeixner Date: 02 Mar 04 - 09:17 PM I would enjoy reading a solid discussion regarding the accuracy and history of the bible as written document. I imagine if it were anyone but Christ involved in the telling more people would call it folk lore. My distrust of the tellings accuracy comes from the lack of The Gospel of Thomas in the New Testament. A few books that are more mystical being left out of the Old Testament. And the fact that Judaic telling of the death of Christ was because of his trangression as a Rabbinical student and his punishment was in the accepted manner of being thrown from a high place and then hung from a "T" shaped cross beam. I haven't read of a Roman or Greek account of the death of Jesus but I assume there must be such. The geo politics of the time are fascinating and probably worth more study from an academic stand point. Don |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: dick greenhaus Date: 02 Mar 04 - 10:43 PM Jes' wondering--since the Romans had at least a major contributory role in this affair, isn't it just as reasonable to say that the Italians killed Christ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Peace Date: 02 Mar 04 - 11:27 PM Listen, and listen good. There is no such organization. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: katlaughing Date: 03 Mar 04 - 12:58 AM One thing that is most interesting to read or use at reference is the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary by Charles Filmore in which he gives the literal and metaphysical meanings from the actual Aramaic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Genie Date: 03 Mar 04 - 05:05 AM Gonna go out on a limb an post my reactions to the movie before finishing reading all of yours. (Partly it's a time thing, partly it'll leave my own impressions less influenced by yours, for the moment.) My dad, a retired preacher, wanted to see the movie (with the group from his church), but my mom knew she wouldn't like it, so Dad asked me to go with him. First thing we noticed was that a couple seated in front of us had a huge tub of popcorn. Though the flic hadn't started, neither of us could quite fathom munching on snacks during this type of film. Here are my main reactions to the film: --The brutality of the Romans toward Jesus was IMO way OTT, even for a "savage" time like that. Larry (InObu), my mom pointed out the same thing you said: both the Jews and the Romans had some rules about punishment -- e.g., you did not flog prisoners on their underbellies with a cat-o-nine-tails, and there was a prescribed # of lashes to be delivered. Gibson had the soldiers beating Jesus and throwing him over a bridge in chains en route to Pilate from Gethsemane and pretty much being kicked and scourged for the next 2 hours (i.e., whole day). --Not only was the beating that Gibson portrayed longer than probably occurred, it would have KILLED the prisoner long before the crucifixion. Anyone who had half his skin beaten off him like that and then had to carry a whole cross a few miles would have bled to death before they got there. --More importantly, the OTT scourging amounted to "overkill" and IMO began to lose some of its impact halfway through. --I went to the film expecting the audience to get a glimpse not just of blood and guts but of the real suffering of Jesus (and any torture victim) and his loved ones. But in stark contrast to the extreme violence of the scourging and crucifixion, I saw amazingly little horror and agony on the faces of Mary, John, and Mary Magdalene. (We've all seen real life reactions of murdered people's friends and family, either in person or in news footage -- or in more realistic films like "Schindler's List." These 3 of Jesus's beloved were freakin' STOICS!) --None of the characters seemed really 3 dimensional. (OK, maybe Judas.) Jesus was very poker-faced in most scenes (while admittedly displaying truly agonized reactions in others), the Roman soldiers were mostly not unlike the villains in a Conan film, and Jesus's "beloved" disciple John showed about as much emotion as a cardboard poster. --Watching this "intensely realistic" portrayal of the passion of Christ, I did find the images disturbing, but aside from one brief moment where something in Caveziel's face nearly brought me to tears, I never once forgot that I was watching actors in a movie. (By contrast, when I thought Ben Kingsley's character in "Schindler's List" was gonna get shot by the Nazi guy, I reacted as if a gun were at the head of my best friend.) (OK, OK, I'll give you that in Gibson's movie I already knew how it turns out.) ;) Yeah, I cringed in a few places, like when "Jesus" actually cried out when nails were pounded into his feet, but what amazed me is that such explicit and prolonged depiction of brutality did not have a stronger impact on my gut. I have no doubt that was because this movie, kind of like "Gladiator," focused too much on the physical rather than the emotional aspects of torture. --Gibson threw in some unnecessary "Hollywood" stuff, like having the Roman soldiers ripping Jesus's robe off him at the cross and deliberately tearing it apart. (This is the same "seamless garment" that those soldiers cast lots for, as something of value.) Gibson also portrayed "the woman taken in adultery" and forgiven by Jesus as the same person as Mary Magdalene -- another large excursion into poetic license. Anyway, I probably would have appreciated ("enjoyed" isn't the right word) the movie far more had there not been such hype about it beforehand, complete with many clips of the scourging and crucifixion. As for the "anti-semitic" aspects, phfffbbbtt! The Roman soldiers were brutes, Pilate and Herod were wimps, Jesus's friends and family were jews, and there was a MOB calling for and revelling in his torture and death, (Ever see pics of American lynch mobs?) Nothing about the film made me pinpoint Jews as more brutal than anyone else. For anyone wavering about seeing the film, I suggest waiting till it comes out on DVD (letterbox format) or to the cheap theaters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Mar 04 - 11:19 AM Sounds like a pretty good summation to me, Genie. You have just described about what I expected to see, which explains why I have not gone to see it. And like you say, as for anti-semitism...phbhbbbttt! There are a fairly large number of people out there who can find antisemitism under the head of the tiniest pin with no difficulty at all. All you have to have for them is anything at all that has any Jewish person in it bearing any character flaw whatsoever...even if there are numerous other Jews in it who are fine, upstanding individuals. It's overreaction, due to past assumptions of martyrdom, and it's self-centered chauvinism. I've seen the same thing occur in other groups who have experienced great historical trauma...such as Native Americans (good friends of mine) and blacks. If you look constantly for offense on every hand, you WILL find it even if it isn't there in the first place. You can counter that, of course, by saying "even paranoids have enemies"...and yes, they often do. Extreme paranoia tends to create new enemies as time goes by. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Strick Date: 03 Mar 04 - 12:24 PM "I haven't read of a Roman or Greek account of the death of Jesus but I assume there must be such." The best example I've heard of was from Tacitus in his Annals written in 115 A.D. I'd point out that Romans as a rule didn't discuss the execution of minor criminals in their histories. (Spartacus was a notable exception. At that there are only 3 mentions of Spartacus in Roman histories and he was Rome's worst nightmare, starting a slave revolt and defeating some of their best legions. Jesus was a lot less flashy.) "The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was Emperor, by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus." That's it. Josephus, the Jewish historian turned adopted son of a Roman Emperor, mentioned Jesus twice in books written between 70 and 98 A.D. (amended bits excluded): "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, for he was a performer of wonderful deeds, a teacher of such men as are happy to accept the truth. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the leading men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day." Antiquities, Book 18, 63-64. (Speaking of High Priest Ananias in reference to Jesus's brother James the Just) "Convened the Sanhedrin (the highest Jewish religious court / governing body). He had brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, who was called James, and some other men, whom he accused of having broken the law, and handed them over to be stoned." Antiquities, Book 20, 200. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Metchosin Date: 03 Mar 04 - 01:12 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Metchosin Date: 03 Mar 04 - 01:25 PM Further to a previous comment, with regard to the hope that movies which, rather than depict a sanitized version of violence, attempt to depict the reality and horror of death and violence a means of shock therapy to dissuade the audience from sending their young off to face the reality of war, I'm not entirely convinced that that is, or ever has been effective. Hollywood may shock and awe in it's attempt to persuade the audience to suspend disbelief for a brief while and the technology might advance to a point where movie makers even consider adding "surround smell" to the fray, so amidst the bubbling and the bleeding and the crying, one can also experience the odor of involuntary defecation and urination as well. Even the visceral reality of such experiences has done little to stop man's inhumanity to his fellow man, even in the places where it is not a "movie", but the everyday stark raving truth of existence. Most humans have a defense mechanism which is strong and hard wired, that provides the ability to compartmentalize and numb the being to the full experience of horrific events, in order to enable the human organism to continue to function and survive, rather than disintegrate into the puddle of stark raving lunacy. If it wasn't so, there were never be a soldier left on the battlefield or anywhere else. I have no desire to actively volunteer for this "privilege". One of the better anti-war movies I ever attended depicted slaughter, allegorically, with a poppy. I won't attend this kind of crap for a number of reasons: I don't find the depiction of bloody violence particularly entertaining or educational. I hate surround sound; it is a disconcerting and an annoying distraction, when my attention is focused on the screen and I have no desire to pay a premium for the smell of popcorn intermingled with farts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Big Mick Date: 03 Mar 04 - 01:26 PM Well done, Genie. I expect my take will be much the same. Your review pretty much confirms what I feel about this. I don't care a whit for Mel Gibson, or his politics. But I also hate it when people get into this "purity of thought" attitude, where we all must agree with the worst about the man. I don't by into the anti semite piece. The whole bit about his making money is so much crap as well. He put up $30 million of his own money, took the risk, accepted that he might lose money, and it appears that he will make money. That's capitalism, folks. Don't like it? Change the system. I am leaning towards not seeing the movie again. I know the story, how it ends, don't need to see gore cause I have experienced it first hand, and don't care to support this endeavor. But that is not the same as saying that it is OK to pillory this man for bogus stuff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Cluin Date: 03 Mar 04 - 01:29 PM "I hate surround sound; it is a disconcerting and an annoying distraction, when my attention is focused on the screen and I have no desire to pay a premium for the smell of popcorn intermingled with farts." The latter is termed "Surround Smell". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: InOBU Date: 03 Mar 04 - 01:30 PM Hi Genie: I was one of those with a big tub of popcorn... and frankly and truthfully, I'd have fallen asleep without it and a big soda. The film making was not compelling enough to keep me awake! Yours in the light Larry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Metchosin Date: 03 Mar 04 - 01:37 PM Cluin, yeah I know, hence my previous reference to it.*BG* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Mar 04 - 01:48 PM I don't mind people eating at the movies, as long as they aren't too noisy when they do it. There was a guy 2 or 3 seats over from me at Cold Mountain who seemed to be there primarily TO eat, rather than to watch the movie. He was seedy looking, bored, and distracted. He ate like the proverbial pig, spilling popcorn all over the place and snorting now and then between wiping his face with his sleeve. Eventually he got up and shambled out. He returned with a large Pepsi, and spent the next few minutes consuming that noisily. He then sat disconsolately for a few more minutes (Not enough explosions?) and finally got up and left...the movie had about 3/4 of an hour to go at that point. So why was he there at all? One wonders. My bet is that he will not go to see "The Passion of Christ". - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST,pdc Date: 03 Mar 04 - 02:22 PM I wonder how much better it might have been to make a film called The Compassion of Christ. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Kim C Date: 03 Mar 04 - 02:34 PM PDC, that's an excellent idea. However you know as well as I, that even in a "nice" movie, people will find something to complain about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST Date: 03 Mar 04 - 03:12 PM Genie: I'd be interested in what your Dad thought of the movie. Did he feel as you do? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 04 Mar 04 - 04:01 AM The way I understand the usual Christian belief, it wasn't the Jews, or the Romans, or even "all of us" who killed Christ. His blood is on His Father's hands, His Father Who would not let that cup pass from him, and Who left Him forsaken on the cross... That's the part of the Book I don't like, and I don't know as I'd like to see a movie about it. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 04 Mar 04 - 04:53 AM --well, I could take it as a tragic myth, like Odin, hung on a wind-tossed tree, sacrificed, himself to himself, but there's lots of people who think it's literally true, and they rejoice, and I can't take that. I cannot believe in blood sacrifice of animals, humans, or of the more than human. Especially sacrifice by torture to the death. A God Who demands that cruelty is not worthy of worship. clint. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST Date: 04 Mar 04 - 08:16 AM Good points clint. I'd add that the crucifixtion, sadly, wasn't an extraordinary form of torture. Many were put to death using that method. So why only make note of but one persecution and death, when so many were being persecuted and put to death in the same way? But then, I don't view the bible as historical fact. I, like many, view it as myth and folk tale. "...for the bible tells me so" never held much sway with me, even as a child. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Sam L Date: 04 Mar 04 - 10:52 AM The most important question that all this stuff about Mel and his dad has raised is whether the Pope is, in fact, Catholic, because this is not just a religious question, but one on which many other questions and issues are often hung. If Brother Bear had the same kind of courage to address the controversial issue of bears pooping in the woods, the effect would be like dna testing. Many cases could be overturned, cleared, the truth discovered. I don't mind violence in movies, but I'm not very interested in this one. Maybe eventually I'll see it. I don't mind things that people call "depressing" or "disturbing" but I could never get in the mood to watch Pollock, for example, and The Hours bored me out of my skull--might as well see the play Night Mother for the fifteenth time. Die already, please. Somebody shoot that woman. Prolonged death scenes are almost always inherently cheesy, whether it's Jesus or the bad guy who keeps getting up again. Or the good guy who keeps being dead, then not dead, like in the Lord of the Rings, jesus. Early Shakespeare is pretty gross violent, but at least it's in english. I had mixed feelings about Private Ryan--enjoyed it, but the true story issues make me queasy about whether an artist is exploiting material to sell their bag of tricks. It bothered me how similar the bridge tank-shot scene was to the scene in Jaws with the oxygen tank shot. But it was clearly an invented story, which helps a little. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: InOBU Date: 04 Mar 04 - 05:38 PM Hi Little Hawk... I agree, and eat VERy quietly. However, I am told by Mudcat's Popular Halfwit, that when we saw the film about Vasily Zaitev, Stanlingrad... it was the only time he saw me not finish a bag of popcorn at the films... Well... I went through the whole bucket at Passion, and a big diet Coke as well... Cheers Larry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Mar 04 - 07:05 PM Regarding the guy at Cold Mountain, I suspect he was one of those movie-surfers who goes to a multiplex, purchases a ticket for one show, then wanders around and catches half of that movie, 2/3 of another, and 1/4 of a third, while consuming junk food, finally finds a show he can really relate to (Dumb and Dumber-er) and settles back, only to find out he's run out of junk food money!!! AAARGH! He finally reels out at 1 AM, totally pie-eyed from watching 5 different films for 7 hours and runs a red light and T-bones a cop car. In the prison 3 months later he gets to see Dumb and Dumber-er again, but on a much smaller screen. His life is filled with disappointment and anticlimax. When he finally is released he will do it all over again. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Nerd Date: 04 Mar 04 - 07:52 PM People can be so impolite sometimes... several people on this thread (okay I'll admit I'm one of them) have given pretty good arguments why Mel Gibson's actions in making this movie were anti-Semitic, primarily that he includes a controversial moment where the Jews accept responsibility for the murder of Jesus and say that "his blood is on us and our children." This point is ignored completely in later posts, LH says that "some people will find Anti-Semitism anywhere," and Big Mick says our opinion is crap. Okay, so why include that line? Why remove the subtitle? I'm waiting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Nerd Date: 04 Mar 04 - 07:55 PM Oops, I just realized Mick said it was the moneymaking objection that was crap, not the anti-semitism part! Sorry Big Mick! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Big Mick Date: 05 Mar 04 - 12:29 AM Poor choice of words on my part, Nerd. My post does imply that the anti semite piece is crap. What I meant is that, in my opinion, it is crap. I say this because folks seem to be looking for ways to turn this into that. I hear a lot of comments from folks that aren't Christians attacking this thing. They call our beliefs myths and fairy tales. Intellectually I understand their position, but if I made these comments to those I know to be Wiccans, they would accuse me of being intolerant. Like I said, it is that old purity of thought stuff. I detest anti semitism, because historically it has caused some of the greatest suffering ever endured. But I don't see this as anti semitic. I see it as one mans view of The Passion, based on a book of holy scripture. In that book, it was the ruling elite (the Sanhedrin) that was culpable in instigating the death. The Romans did the deed. As I said before, it doesn't matter that they were Jewish, but that is what the scripture says. I wonder if he left that portion of the subtitle out because of the changes he was making to avoid this charge. Based on what I am reading here, he stayed with a fundamentalist view of The Passion, and didn't edit out anything because he believes it to be the way it is. I don't think that passes the smell test of an anti semite. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST Date: 05 Mar 04 - 01:15 AM Ok, Nerd, I'll bite. I have no idea what is in Gibson's heart, so I couldn't begin to say what his motivations were in any part of making the movie, but offer this as food for thought. Is there any room for the possibility that he felt the inclusion of that line was an attempt to portray the story as close as possible to what he believes to be historically accurate? (I'm not debating the accuracy here, I'm just saying that could have gone into his desicon to include it) I understand from earlier posts that that line is mentioned in only one of the Gospels. That doesn't mean that it did or didn't happen. If he did think that that line was historically accurate, and chose to include it for that reason, could it be that he chose not to subtitle that line out of sensitivity to those who might find it hurtful or offensive? Prior to reading this thread, I had never heard or read that line in the Bible. Hearing it now caused me to wonder if it may have been uttered by a sincere person, as an expression of sorrow and mourning over all that had transpired, rather than one assigning blame. And that that sorrow would be shared by the generations. The whole thing is so NOT about blame. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: MAG Date: 05 Mar 04 - 01:16 AM Has anyone tracked down the facts on the "The movie the Jews don't want you to see" ad?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Big Mick Date: 05 Mar 04 - 01:26 AM HERE is what Truth or Fiction.com has to say about the film and some of the rumors surrounding it. MAG, I couldn't find anything spefically on your question. Where did you hear it? Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Nerd Date: 05 Mar 04 - 03:57 AM Well, Mick, my reason for reacting hastily was embarrasing: I had to rush downstairs to tape "Survivor" for Mrs. Nerd... GUEST, What you say is theoretically possible. But not subtitling the line does not sound to me like something you would do out of sensitivity, especially because apart from ethnic Assyrians, Jews are the most likely people on earth to understand the line without subtitles. It sounds more like an attempt to keep the general public from realizing what is being said. It's easy for you to say that the whole thing is "so not about Blame." It's less easy for Jews, who have been blamed for centuries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST Date: 05 Mar 04 - 08:18 AM When speaking to members of any organized religion or alternative religions, I always make it quite clear I believe it all to be myth and folk lore (no one has referred to any religion here as fairy tale). In the case of alternative religions like the Wiccans, I would refer to their belief system as invented traditions. I really don't know what the "politically correct" claim is about regarding how secularists refer to religion. When one is a secularist, it really isn't all that difficult to be perfectly polite in conversations with religious believers. To suggest that one group or the other not be able to freely speak their minds about is silly. Though I do agree that believers in organized religion are the ones most often going over the top when faced with people who don't believe their religion is "truth" or "sacred". They start holy wars, create bogus political agendas, fly airplanes into buildings, have inquisitions, burn churchs, synagogues, etc, and generally do a whole lot of damage in the world, trying to prove how right and real their god is, and how evil and vile any non-believer is in their worldview. In my experience, many religious believers are among the most intolerant and ignorant people on the planet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Amos Date: 05 Mar 04 - 08:47 AM Hear, hear. Never met a Guest Post I agreed with more. Of course it isn't easy being a religous believer -- juggling two world views back and forth at an awful clip can wreck your nervous system if you don't handle it well. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Sam L Date: 05 Mar 04 - 08:49 AM I don't want to sound anti-christian, but one of the things I remember being struck by, many times, in the new testament, was Jesus being surprised by the lack of understanding of his disciples. This fits an ancient literary formula similar to the Socratic dialogues, in which one recognizes a higher mind through the reportage of a lower one. My point about this is that hair-splitting, line quoting, and interpretting points to pieces has never seemed to me a very spiritual enterprise. It seems to me that the overwhelming sense of the thing is that to be good is very hard, and that most interpretation tends to lead rather predictably to an easier version, more like the way half-decent people tend to live our compromised lives. I don't know what's in Gibson's heart or much care. If I see the movie it won't be to eat his heart. No amount or kind of subject matter makes a movie anything more than a movie, and even if it were a documentary of the event it would still be somebody's version. It's bound to be anti-Jewish to the extent of not sharing that faith, but what matters more than the intent is the effect, and whether Christians and others are taking guidance about hate and faith from Mel Gibson movies or from within. Whether it's a good movie is a question of movies, fiction, theatre, and such, not a theological question or a historical question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Nerd Date: 05 Mar 04 - 02:11 PM I agree with Fred that ultimately what Mel Gibson wanted to say is less important than what people understand the film to have said. Time will tell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Mar 04 - 03:39 PM Well, Nerd, some people WILL find anti-semitism anywhere. That doesn't necessarily mean that I think you are one of those people, however. I don't know about that one way or another, cos I don't know you that well. I've known some Native Americans who could find anti-Indianess (or whatever you would call it...) anywhere. It made them very difficult to be around. They were fanatics. Still, I am very fond of Native American traditions and values. I have met some blacks who were equally difficult to be around, because they seemed to assume that all whites were their persecutors. That kind of attitude is based on hatred and fear. It doesn't win friends and influence people, unless those friends are other similar fanatics who share your own particular obsession. If you have to walk on eggshells around people, just because of their skin color or their religion or their cultural identity then you will probably avoid them for the sake of your own peace of mind. Now, my feeling about this particular movie is that it is mainly offensive in that it attempts to push a twisted fundamentalist view of Christianity through a barrage of ridiculously violent scenes, and delivers an essentially useless message about Jesus. I think that's more offensive to Christians than to anybody else, and that looking for anti-semitism here is a rather secondary or tertiary matter...but I understand that you see it differently. Maybe you're right to see it as you do. I don't hold any patent on Truth. I just do the same as you, and say what seems to make the most sense to me, that's all. And like you I interpret reality based on my own life experience...which is different is some ways from yours. I was raised as an atheist, and I am not Jewish. I later became spiritually minded, and I greatly respect and admire Jesus and his teachings, but I don't belong to any traditional church. That gives me a certain perspective on things which is probably different from yours in key areas. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Sam L Date: 05 Mar 04 - 04:07 PM Darn, in my last post I missed a good opportunuty to make fun of the media hype being just as though watching this movie was some sort of eucharist, whereby we partake of the mel, and of the looney father. I coulda used my favorite spelling-bee word, which I've waited twenty years to use--praetertransubstantiationalisticism. Darn. Thanks Nerd. But of course people are susceptible to influence, no matter how cheesy, and people who are anti-semitic would like to find a sign that it's acceptable to be so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST Date: 05 Mar 04 - 05:02 PM praetertransubstantiationalisticism I entered the word at my trusty www.m-w.com and got this: "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary." Definition, please. This looks like one for the absurd word category. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah Date: 05 Mar 04 - 05:51 PM With regard to the sufferings of Jesus - nasty but nowhere near as nasty as being burned alive, a punishment dealt out with great enthusiasm by his deluded followers. Worth remembering too that these sufferings were shared by thousands of Roman crims as well as Jesus. Being nailed to a tree was a very common punishment then. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: freightdawg Date: 05 Mar 04 - 07:55 PM Nerd, (and others who feel the film is anti-semitic) I have really tried to stay away from theological arguments, especially discussions of this film. What I have to say comes from the background of about 7 years in theological training. I have an undergraduate, two masters, and about half of a doctorate in theology. This is not to brag, but just to let you know that there is some real serious scholarship that would refute your claims. The line you object to is found in the gospel of Matthew. It is important to note that Matthew is the most Jewish of all the gospels. It is written in a style that the original readers would recognize as being loosely based on Jewish structure of the Old Testament. The author includes some really obscure references to Jewish life and thought, and it is particularly in Matthew that all the events in Jesus' life are accomplished to fulfill what was "written." It is clear when you study the gospels comparatively that Matthew was written primarily for a Jewish audience, probably a group of Jewish Christians in the mid to late first century who were dispersed from Jerusalem following the outbreak of persecution and the destruction of Jerusalem. As Jews, their faith at that time would have been shaken by the destruction of Jerusalem, as Christians they would have wondered about the claims of Jesus - the messiah that many assumed was going to build a worldly kingdom based in the Holy City. Thus, when the author (whom we refer to as Matthew) included the line he was not being anti-semitic. He was pointing out to a mainly Jewish readership that it was not just the Romans, but it was the people of faith as well, that crucified Jesus. But it was the people of faith that were blinded, or who were so absorbed in the power that leadership had given them. Matthew also made it abundantly clear that the masses of the Jews had just welcomed Jesus as an arriving Messiah just a few days earlier. He also pointed out that Jesus laid down his life of his own accord, and that it was done to fulfill what was written. To point out that a few corrupt leaders were behind the crucifixion hardly indicts someone as being anti-semitic. The overall message of the gospel is that Jesus was misunderstood by virtually everyone - followers and enemies alike, and that his kingdom is not of this world exclusively but also of the world to come. Why did Gibson remove the line? Because of pressure from Jewish groups, who, perhaps correctly, maybe incorrectly, believed that its inclusion would be inflammatory. I say perhaps correctly, because with the film focusing solely on the last hours of Jesus' life the entire context of why the Jewish leadership was so outraged is completely lost. The crucifixion followed three years of a public ministry, not just a few hours in the garden. It has been said, and I believe correctly, that the gospels were written from the cross backwards. That is to say, each of the gospel writers was writing to explain to their primary audience what the crucifixion and subsequent resurrection meant to them in their particular surroundings. To take just the crucifixion is to distort the whole narrative. I refuse to see the movie. I don't need to see two hours of blood to know that it happened. Besides, the crucifixion is not the focal point of my faith, the resurrection is. We must know that Jesus died, but the main image of the gospels is not the bloody cross but the empty tomb. It is sad that some do see the movie as anti-semitic. But Jesus was a Jew, the 12 apostles were Jews, the early church was virtually all Jewish until some time later, and only then after some real theological arguing by later Jewish Christians (Paul, to name one). I feel christians have slighted their own faith by denying the connection to Judaism, but that is another theological argument. But please, don't focus on one line and condemn the whole movie because of it. Especially unless you take into account the vast background that underscores its inclusion in the gospel, and the purpose of that one line in the entireity of the gospel message. respectfully submitted, Freightdawg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST Date: 05 Mar 04 - 09:46 PM Nerd, you said, "It's easy for you to say that the whole thing is "so not about Blame." It's less easy for Jews, who have been blamed for centuries. " I understand what you mean, here. Your experience is different from mine, obviously. I hope you understand that I didn't mean that as a cutting remark. I meant it sincerely, that it isn't about blame, and shouldn't be. I think those who are looking to blame and who embrace that line of thinking are in the very small minority. I personally have never known anyone who believes that way. I don't say that to diminish in any way, the hurt that you may have experienced, I just don't think most people hold any one group of people responsible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: MAG Date: 05 Mar 04 - 10:20 PM Here are a few choice q Oh, never mind. I said I was dealt out and I'll stick to that. I read that on another listserv I belong to, Mick. That's why I was asking. Good ol' Foxnews was celebrating the comeuppance of all the "atheist scholars and intellectuals" who didn't get to vet the script. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST,pdc Date: 05 Mar 04 - 10:43 PM A friend of mine who saw the film said that some of the anti-semitism that he perceived was subtle rather than blatant. All the "good" Jews looked Aryan; all the "bad" Jews who were calling for the death of Jesus were swarthy hook-nosed stereotypes verging on caricatures. Christ also looked Aryan. There was also money changing hands among the "bad" Jews that did not occur in the Gospels. (Nor did the crow plucking out an eye, btw.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Sam L Date: 06 Mar 04 - 12:17 AM Praetertransetc. Sure it's in the dictionary. And the Guiness book of records, where I got it in 4rth grade. If I remember right it's a belief in, or pertaining to a belief in ritual trans--whoops! might be two s's? maybe--substantiation, as in the bread and wine turning into flesh and blood. I'm sorry, I shouldn't post when I'm bored. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Mar 04 - 02:18 PM Very good post, freightdawg. Well said. You have articulated the broader context, and that must be understood in order to understand anything about Jesus. For me too, the vital matter is the empty tomb and the resurrection, not the man suffering on the cross. I arrive at my faith through love, not through unearned guilt. I don't believe in "original sin". - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Sam L Date: 06 Mar 04 - 06:45 PM I'm still trying to invent an original one LH. Will keep you posted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Amos Date: 06 Mar 04 - 06:50 PM Unearned guilt is the fraud of the ages. Usually thrust on those of lesser age by those of greater age. Anywhich way it is a granfaloon. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: robomatic Date: 07 Mar 04 - 09:46 AM FWIW: I will not see The Passion, even when it comes to TV, wonder who'll advertise it? I did not see the Patriot, because of the way I heard it characterized the English. I saw and 'enjoyed', if that is the right word for it, We Were Soldiers, but noticed a tendency in Mel Gibson's films where he is a hero, he is a pretty total hero, and the bad guys are total bad guys. It wasn't a Gibson flick, but I didn't watch the latest Pearl Harbor movie because it looked like a cheap shot - using special effects to spectacularize the action elements while trivializing the historical import and the real sacrifices of the people who died there. That doesn't make me right and everyone else wrong, we all make choices. A book, a play, a movie is a work of art in which the author, playwright, director emphasizes elements which make it his or her vision. I really like South Pacific because it incorporates an anti-racist message which is appropriate to the context. Getting back to the subject of the thread, Mel Gibson has put together his vision of The Passion. He stands by it, as is his right. I have heard enough about it to regard it as a questionable vision by either Jewish or Christian standards of today. I think in those countries where people are educated enough to review and discuss movies, such as we are doing here, the overall effects will be positive, and in venues where people want to fan existing flames of prejudice, this will be fuel for the fire. It has affected my opinion of Mel Gibson as a person. I think he's a headcase. I just hope his next self-produced effort isn't his take on the blood libel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST,pdc Date: 07 Mar 04 - 01:17 PM Column from the New York Times confirms what my friend saw in the film -- stereotypes of Jews. The rest of the column is excellent as well. "Start with the movie itself. There is no question that it rewrites history by making Caiaphas and the other high priests the prime instigators of Jesus' death while softening Pontius Pilate, an infamous Roman thug, into a reluctant and somewhat conscience-stricken executioner. "The more benign Pilate appears in the movie, the more malignant the Jews are," is how Elaine Pagels describes Mr. Gibson's modus operandi in The New Yorker this week. As if that weren't enough, the Jewish high priests are also depicted as grim sadists with bad noses and teeth — Shylocks and Fagins from 19th-century stock. (The only Jew with a pretty nose in this Judea is Jesus.) Yet in those early screenings that Mr. Gibson famously threw for conservative politicos in Washington last summer and fall, not a person in attendance, from Robert Novak to Peggy Noonan, seems to have recognized these obvious stereotypes, let alone spoken up about them in their profuse encomiums to the film." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/arts/07RICH.html?th |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Frankham Date: 07 Mar 04 - 05:06 PM It seems to me that this film was particularly timed to meet a political objective, that of consolidating the Pseudo-Christian Right Wing agenda. Anyone willing to bet that Ralph Reed didn't endorse this flick? The Pope bowed out gracefully. "It was what it was" but he didn't say Gibson got it right. The fundamentalist part of the film is about how Jesus died for our sins, assuming of course that mankind is somehow devilishly debased and needs Jesus to be beaten for mankind to become pure. The depravity and the fall of man is inherently stated in this film. The Religious Right has hi-jacked Christianity for it's own political purposes and the Gibson film bolsters that ideology. It's fitting that it was released in an election year. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Mar 04 - 05:26 PM Well, good luck there, Fred! :-) Let me know how you make out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: katlaughing Date: 07 Mar 04 - 09:54 PM Steve Martin has a satirical piece in New Yorker Magazine according to this article, in which he suggests it should have been called Lethal Passion! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Peace Date: 07 Mar 04 - 09:57 PM Whatever way he makes out will likely hurt his back if the sin is gonna be all THAT original. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Rustic Rebel Date: 08 Mar 04 - 03:54 PM I saw the film yesterday and I thought it was a very powerful film. In my opinion an epic. Knowing the story of Jesus helps in this movie. For someone to say Pontius Pilate should have been made to look like the evil doer, hasn't read the book, according to the apostles, because it portrayed just what it should have in that scene. The music, set, wardrobe were right and the stong performance by James Caviezel was exceptional. I didn't go to the film to pick it apart and decide if it was anti-semitic, but, I didn't see that anyway. I didn't go and analize who had the bigger nose. It didn't matter. It wasn't what the movie was about. The movie did make me cringe at the brutality toward Jesus but it also had many touching and heartwarming lessons in love. As I walked away from the theater my last impression was that the movie was more about love than the brutality suffered. Who produced the movie, also had no impact of my opinion of the movie, just that it was done brilliantly. An intense, thought provolking, heart wrenching film, bigger than any other film on Jesus I have seen, and I think I've seen most.It left me weak from emotional upset. Those of you on the teetering end of going to see it or not, I recommend going. Bring your kleenex! (I am glad I saw it at the theater instead of waiting for TV.) Peace, Rustic |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Amos Date: 08 Mar 04 - 03:57 PM RR Thanks for a counter-weight, RR! :>) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Nerd Date: 09 Mar 04 - 01:38 AM RR, you definitely shouldn't analize anybody's nose. Unless you like that kind of thing. Could this be the "Original Sin" Fred is searching for? :-) (Sorry, it was petty, but I just could not resist...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Rustic Rebel Date: 09 Mar 04 - 01:51 AM Nerd, Your absolutely correct, you know what they say.... The size of a man's nose... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST Date: 09 Mar 04 - 01:04 PM I think that people are reading far too much into this film. To find it anti-semetic is a streatch, I think. To find it violent ...well, it IS a violent story. To take it seriously as religion, art or politics is to elevate it way above it's station. It is entertainment...you are all seem to have your arse out of shape because you take yourselves too seriously, Mel has nothing to do with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 09 Mar 04 - 07:46 PM It's not that I take the film itself seriously; it's that I'm spooked by the people who do. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: mg Date: 09 Mar 04 - 08:24 PM One thing that amazes me, semi following these discussions, is not the gap between Christians and Jews, but the gap between Catholics of a certain age and non-Catholic Christians. Yes, in my growing up days, the emphasis was on the crucifixion, way more than the resurrection. We could not enjoy Christmas because we were warned that God was going to suffer later on. We could not participate in Easter Egg hunts that took place before Easter Sunday. We did not eat meat on Friday because Christ died on Friday. We all had crucifixes in our living rooms; the truly faithful had them all over the house. We also had lots of glow in the dark statues. We had no pictures of the Resurrection. I can't remember ever seeing one. I have no idea what happened way back when. I do not know if the film is true to the Bible or not (we also did not read the Bible much..the priest or nuns would pass on what information we needed). We looked at holy cards and pictures of Christ with crowns of thorns on his head, made the stations of the cross (which if you make on Good Friday you get a plenary indulgence for so please do not miss it). I will say that whatever came down from history, through our families, through a church that went through, and/or conducted traumas such as the Inquisition, Crusades, black plague, and for many of us, the defining potato famine..the movie is very very faithful to that message...perhaps it is the folklore of the religion that we were raised in. If you looked at lots of holy cards and pictures of the Sacred Heart and were given all sorts of stories about the lives of the saints being tortured etc., and had Irish nuns teaching you besides..you would probably make that movie. If you were a Baptist, you would make another movie. Episcopalian another one. Wiccan another one. Jewish another one. I don't see the anti-Semitism in everything that people have said..but I do see some..that was pointed out by Krauthammer I think..of the children turning savage and abusing Judas..and later one at least turned into a devil. That was just plain wierd. It is faithful to everything I was taught, which may or may not be so. My brain is in constant conflict with my upbringing... I am glad it was not made when I was a teenager..they would have had us watching time after time. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Amos Date: 09 Mar 04 - 08:29 PM My brain is in constant conflict with my upbringing... I hear you, Mary -- that very duress is why I bailed out on the Episkies so many years ago. I just couldn't believe -- and still do not -- that the truth should be unintelligible and miserable-making and confusing. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: katlaughing Date: 09 Mar 04 - 10:23 PM I read news reports of churches buying up tickets to this for their parishioners. I drove past a fundementalist church today which had a sign on their regular marquee which said "Go see The Passion, it will change your life." Clint, it is frightening, I agree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST Date: 09 Mar 04 - 10:54 PM "FIRST LADY REASSURES CRANKLEPUSS JEWS THAT THEY NEEDN'T FRET OVER THEIR FLATTERINGLY ACCURATE PORTRAYAL IN MEL GIBSON'S FANTASTIC NEW MOVIE" White House Newsroom |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Ellenpoly Date: 10 Mar 04 - 06:51 AM I almost thought to start a new thread, since this one started with mostly why people would or would not go see the film, and I am now far more interested in getting people's reactions who have seen it, since bottom line for me, past all the millions being made, and probing religious doctrine, and giving reviews about past Gibson films, is I want to know how it's affecting people. Below, I've posted a letter sent out by a friend of mine, who is in the "biz", and sees lot of films, and is also neither a Christian nor a Jew. He obviously had some strong thoughts, more gut than intellectual, and I found them interesting. My personal concern is how this film will be used, and used it will be. I worry that Christians watching this will feel it their duty to support it, offering no critisism even if they might have some. In this way, a piece of film work becomes a piece of film fact. This is so libel to happen given the ignorance of many who no longer read, or research, but take what they are given (along with their popcorn) at face value. Do I underestimate the public? Time will tell. Of course there are fanatics who will find an anti-something under every bed. But they are always going to be with us (along with the poor, so I've read, but would like not to believe either). But it's not those I'm concerned about. It's people who want to follow the doctrine of a loving prophet, and will be confronted by only his pain and those that caused it. If I can really believe that long, thorough discussions would follow to help put the one part of this multi-layered story into perspective, I'd be a lot less worried. I think Mr Gibson was probably coming from a place of real faith and devotion, but I'm still not sure of how that translates for him personally, and it does occur to me that he must have had some agenda in wanting to focus almost entirely on the crucifixion. If it was because he thought this was the part mostly left out or sanitised, well, he sure took care of that, didn't he??? Anyway, I will not be seeing this film because it goes beyond my violence limit, and I figured that one out just from watching the trailers!..xx..e "So I went to see Mel's the Passion tonight I went with an open mind and with the intention that everyone has the right to create the form of art they wish. And since there was controversy surrounding this film I felt I couldn't adequately comment without viewing the movie. I also have the right to respond to that creation. This movie "The Passion" is obscene in the extreme. I have never endured even in the height of the heady Peckinpah days, the degree of sado masochistic violence that this film displays under the guise of religious "entertainment." It is an S&M wet dream. A full two hours of neverending violence in the absolute most graphic, minute detail. Now I went to a SAG screening so I didn't have to pay for this film. At the end when the credits rolled some people applauded and some people booed. I chose to boo. I was approached by someone in the audience who informed me that I had had my time with movies about the holocaust and it was now their time. This is pretty scary coming from what would seem to be thinking artists. This film short shrifts any message of love, and the ressurection is given a scant 20 seconds, at best. No exaggeration. So... If you are intent on paying for this film and have any faith in my judgment, stand warned. As for me I will never, ever see another Mel Gibson movie again whether he directs it or is acting in it. This movie was such an assault on my senses, that I will have the struggle of my life to forgive. And I will pray that children who are forced to see this film as a religious experience will be someday able to recover." Fred |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Big Mick Date: 10 Mar 04 - 10:44 AM I have to preface these comments with the declaration that they only apply to me. I say this because (unlike some posts I have seen here) do not want to denigrate any other person's spiritual journey. Each is valid, in my view, and extremely personal. The ones I feel sad for are not those who have not arrived where I have, rather those who haven't arrived anywhere, haven't even begun the journey. It matters not a whit to me what you have found, be it Christianity or Wiccan or Buddhism or Islam or Kaballah orAgnosticism or even Atheism. All any of them need to be valid is that you have sought answers and arrived where you are by way of that quest. I will respect your beliefs, even if they don't concur with mine. For a long while, I focused on the Passion. As was pointed out above, it is what was taught. Next, I rejected the religion of my upbringing and sought out other disciplines to deal with the mysteries of infinity, immortality, death and life. One of those that I "studied" was the ancient religious practices of my people. Ultimately I returned to the religion of my upbringing. Then, for a good long while, I focused on the Ressurection and rejected the Passion. My comments were similar to LH's. Later, I focused not so much on the religious aspects as the community aspects of my religion. At this point in my journey, I know that the importance of the man from Galilee's teaching must include the fact that he "suffered, died, and was buried" and then he rose from the dead. One cannot understand the resurrection without understanding that his whole life, including the Passion, were necessary to lead him to that all important act of resurrection. The Passion,the incredible suffering,was necessary to demonstrate how much love that the Most Important One has for the children. Today, at this point in the quest, I know that there is a difference between religion and faith. My beliefs, my faith, include parts of all the rambles I have taken into spiritual expression. Like the early Celts, I see the Creator in all things, living and inanimate. Am I a practising Catholic? Sure, that is part of my religion. Do I believe the story of the Christ? Yep. Gibson's movie? I haven't seen it, but based on the things I have read, I think he missed a chance. He probably could have shown the Passion with a third less graphic violence, and spent that time on the things that the Christ did that led him to that point. He could have devoted more time to the Resurrection and the Love. Too bad, really. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Rustic Rebel Date: 10 Mar 04 - 02:33 PM Mick, I stated earlier, after I had seen the film that my last impression of the movie, was that of love. If you know the story, which I also said earlier, it helps you understand the movie. The reason I believe it was based on love is just because of the horror and torture Jesus went through, because of his 'Love' for humanity and for his father. A man as powerful as Jesus, would not have had to go through that if he chose not to, but it was for the love that he did, in my most humble opinion. The movie didn't get me all bent out of shape, nor did it change my life or my beliefs, it was just a powerful movie. Rustic |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Big Mick Date: 10 Mar 04 - 04:00 PM RR, unless I am reading your last post wrong, you think those comments were aimed at you. They were not. And I prefaced my comments by saying that mine were my personal observation and philosophy. Sorry for the misunderstanding, if there was one. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: dick greenhaus Date: 15 Mar 04 - 07:28 PM Is it true that "The Passion of the Christ" is a mis-translation of the Aramaic? I've been told that it really is "Good Friday the 13th" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST,pdc Date: 18 Mar 04 - 06:50 PM This is TOO funny! It's from the San Jose Mercury, but I didn't get the link. Doesn't matter. This really made me laugh: Couple Arrested After 'Passion' Debate SJMercury STATESBORO, Ga. - A couple who got into a dispute over a theological point after watching "The Passion of the Christ" were arrested after the argument turned violent. The two left the movie theater debating whether God the Father in the Holy Trinity was human or symbolic, and the argument heated up when they got home, Melissa Davidson said. ... "Really, it was kind of a pitiful thing, to go to a movie like that and fight about it. I think they missed the point," said Gene McDaniel, chief sheriff's deputy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Amos Date: 18 Mar 04 - 07:19 PM LOL!! Missed the point indeed -- no sense of context? Well, we can all have a blnd spot on a good day. I won't spend any money on this movie. I'd prefer to see it pass quietly away. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: Art Thieme Date: 18 Mar 04 - 11:26 PM Ever since I saw The Exorcist, I have resented when people make super ralistic films that rely on heartfelt things that real people actually believe for their way-over-the-top impact. It's just too easy for the faithful watchers to think they actually saw "TRUTH" up there on the 60 foot tall screen. In the Exorcist, demons spun the girls head around on a ratchet and she vomited pea soup all over the place. In this movie the color of the spewed liquid is red.---- And Mel has turned it into green and gold. The only miracle is that this may be the first actual case of documented alchemy. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Just saw Mel's film... From: GUEST Date: 21 Mar 04 - 01:55 AM All of you who have posted negative comments about Mel Gibson need to read his interview in the March 2004 issue of Reader's Digest. In the interview, he explains why he made the film and why it was so violent. As for the comments on the film being anti-semetic and who was responsible for the death of Jesus: Every human being who has ever lived long enough to commit the slightest sin is responsible. He suffered to show us that he was willing to take any punishment to save us from our sinful ways. He was willing to die for us and His blood is on the hands of all of us. The Jewish religion is based on the Old Testament. The Jews of Jesus's time believed that a savior would come and build a kingdom in Jerusalem and, since Jesus led a humble life, they did not believe that he was the savior who was prophesised. Jesus did convert some of them but the majority still did not believe that He was the Messiah. Therefore, it was necessary for Mel Gibson to portray them as calling for the crusifixion. As for the man who was chosen to portray Jesus, James Caviezel looks very much like the pictures of Jesus that are hanging in the homes of many people. Remember, Jesus was the son of God and, just maybe, God has a tiny nose. |
