|
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. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 |
