Gibson has "softened" Passion
 

Gibson Says He Has `Softened' Crucifixion Story in New Jesus Movie
Religion News Service ^ | August 13, 2003 | Kevin Eckstrom





Director Mel Gibson, under heavy fire from Jewish groups for his $25 million movie on the death of Jesus, has "softened the story" and made changes to make "The Passion" more palatable to critics, according to a spokesman. Scheduled for release next year during Lent, "The Passion" has some Jewish groups nervous it will resurrect old beliefs that Jews were responsible for the death of the Christian savior.

Paul Lauer, marketing director for Gibson's Icon Productions company, said Gibson has edited the film to show more "sympathetic" Jewish characters who were not calling for Jesus to be crucified. "We believe we have softened the story compared to the way the Gospel has told it," Lauer said in an interview. He pointed to Matthew 27:25, in which the Jewish mob calls for Jesus' blood "to be on us and on our children." "That's in the Gospel," he said. "It's not in our film." In addition, Lauer said the character of Simon of Cyrene, who was forced to carry the cross for Jesus, will be clearly labeled a Jew in the film. A shouting mob will include voices opposing the execution, Lauer said. Faced with vocal Jewish opposition, Gibson is mounting a pre-emptive public relations offensive to counter his critics -- all for a film that is still being edited. After regional screenings, Gibson has lingered with his audiences to listen to their advice. In an effort to soothe concerns, Gibson is also hoping to launch "The Jewish Initiative" to recruit Jewish and Christian leaders to discuss the film's effects on Christian-Jewish relations. "We've gone out of our way to accommodate this process because we felt it was necessary and important, and to show that we care and that we're not callously sitting back saying, `Screw you, we're going to make the film we want to make,"' Lauer said.

Jewish groups, however, remain unconvinced. Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said Gibson has been unwilling to preview his film for anyone but "pre-screened audiences." "The fact that Mel Gibson says this is a work in progress is something we welcome. I don't make light of it," Foxman said. "We respect his creative rights, but we also believe that creative rights come with a certain responsibility."

Invited Christian leaders who have seen the film offer near-universal praise. The Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, told The New York Times that Gibson was "the Michelangelo of this generation."

Lauer agreed that screenings were for "people closer to our circle of contacts," but told the Times that "there is no way on God's green earth" that critics like Foxman will be invited to previews. Foxman and others, he said, have been "dishonorable." The ADL first raised concerns in June after a group of nine Christian and Jewish scholars reviewed a draft script and concluded the film portrayed Jews as "bloodthirsty, vengeful and money-hungry."

Gibson threatened to sue after he said the draft script used by the scholars was stolen. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops arranged for the script to be returned and apologized to Gibson.

Rabbis who have screened the film say it threatens to undue decades of progress between Christians and Jews after the Vatican refuted the deicide charges in the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965.

Gibson, however, belongs to a conservative Catholic group that rejects the modern papacy and Vatican II, including its overtures to non-Catholics and Jews.

Rabbi A. James Rudin, senior interreligious affairs adviser for the American Jewish Committee, emerged from a Houston screening "troubled" by what he saw as the film's suggestion that Roman authorities were powerless to stop the murderous rage of Jewish leaders. "The emphasis should be more on what killed Jesus, not who killed him," said Rudin, also a columnist for Religion News Service.

Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, an Orthodox rabbi who has close ties to evangelical leaders as president of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, also voiced concerns.

"I don't think he's out to get the Jewish community, or attack it, or even be insensitive, frankly," said Eckstein, who was invited to a screening but could not attend because of other commitments. "But I'm not sure if he is aware enough, or sensitive enough, to the history of what has happened because of this deicide charge."



Looks like Mel caved in and has abadoned parts of the Gospel to appease his critics. Too bad...

As long as Peter keeps saying "I'm getting too old for this ****" I'll still see it!

I guess Jews really do run the media. Go fig.

So apparently even a movie attempting to be historically accurate about Jesus has to be changed in this day and age due to political correctness.

Director's Cut DVD please, thanks.

I don't like the way white Americans were portrayed in "Dances with Wolves" so I am going to demand a reedit from Kevin Costner and see what happens.

Or - I can try to rise above a dark chapter in my country's past, learn from both the good and the bad in American history, and try to make the world a better place.

Nah, on second thought I think I'll go ahead and demand that reedit instead.

grrr..

way ta cave Mel..

It's just a movie. These religion freaks are the worst.

P*U*S*S*Y :down:

I still love you Mel but this sucks.

But I bet no one cries CENSORSHIP this time. It's funny how CENSORSHIP whores don't say jack when it works for them :rolleyes: .....

:thumbsup:

I was thinkin' it, but didn't have the nerve to say it.

What's a "CENSORSHIP whore"?

I'm getting too old for this censorship ****, but somehow I doubt the same people who are mad about all the cuts in horror movies in order to secure an "R" are the same people who had objections to The Passion. But I could be wrong.

I'm definitely not a believer, but I don't understand why you'd make a movie based on the Bible and then "soften" it. Poetic license is one thing, but I thought the whole point of The Passion was that it was going to be unrelentingly truthful?

yep.....

...one would wonder now.....was all that was shown in Schindler's List real?....OR JUST.....another biased look at history!!

But it's only censorship if the government mandates it.

Not to get into debates on fact and religion, but even if the story is taken word for word from the bible, there's no real way to know if it's historically accurate.

However, I think the movie should strive to be accurate according to what is represented in the gospels.

you are making a very good point but then.....a lot of the atrocities depicted in films that present the Jews as martyrs for example are based on mouth-to-mouth "facts", wouldnt you say so?...how do you know that they are historically accurate?

I am not trying to take a side here however political, or religious for that matter, bias is flat out repulsive!!

Gibson shouldn't have changed the premise and historical "accuracy" of the film!

You haven't even SEEN the film yet, nor will you see the 'unaltered' version. -rolleyes-

Your comparison to the historically recent documented Jewish Holocaust is also ignorant at best and offensive at worst.

Every filmmaker has a "bias," even documentary filmmakers--films are not the truth, they are a viewpoint about the truth. Especially a film based on mythologized and conflicting writings that are thousands of years old.

Gibson.... I can't believe this to be true. What an ass. You could change the picture to a still frame of vanilla cake for the length of the film, and it's still going to attract controversy. He's passed the point of no return, so just make your ****ing film the way you want it. Jesus, and it's not like he's spending someone else's money. It's his! Is he afraid he won't find another job? Please, it won't be soon enough.

What someone said above was right. They're not crying CENSORSHIP for this thing, now are they?

This saddens me. Don't back down, Mel - it's your money, do whatever the hell you want to w/ it!

"OMG, they killed Jesus!"
"You bastards!"

Seriously, these groups really get on my nerve. It pissed me off when the Catholics bitched about Dogma, it pissed me off when Muslim leaders called for Salman Rushdie's death, and this pisses me off as well. It's one thing to openly complain about the idea, but to try to exert force and power to alter and prevent something...

"We respect his creative rights, but..."

Stop right there. The word 'but' negates everything before it. Yet another group that's all for freedom of expression, as long as it's saying what they want to hear. :(

I have to agree with majorjoe23.

Biblically Accurate =/= Historically Accurate.

That said, I do not think Mel should change the movie to appease critics, no matter who they are, even though I may agree with the critics (dunno, haven't seen the movie, of course).

Unrelenting truthful to an interpretation of the bible that even the Vatican has disavowed.

Maybe you people should find out a little more about Mel's "version" of the Gospel before attacking the people speaking out against it. Many of those people are Catholics. Actual Catholics. Not the fringe group that Gibson belongs to that does not even recognize the Pope's legitimacy! I haven't read the script or seen the movie, but it toubles me that people are taking Gibson at his word that the store adheres to the bible when he's part of an ultra-conservative anti-Pope splinter group of Catholics.

"Hey, the frigging Pope is a fraud! Here's my 'true' version of the Bible!" Bull*****.

Ok.

Here is an opinion of someone who likes to create things. Doesn't make this opinion any more credible than anyone else's but it is a perspective.

Mel Gibson fervently wants to make a film that makes a statement. Given his religious convictions, it happens to be on the crucifixion of Jesus.

Now, he wants to make a point. I DOUBT the point has to do with "Jews killed Christ". More likely, it is to draw attention to the crucifixion and maybe to get people to think more about it.

So, if the "Jews killed Christ" becomes the major issue (as it apparently has), then the film becomes less relevant toward what Gibson wants to achieve. If he can make some minor edits (like the ones mentioned in the article) to assuage some of the controversy, then he is HELPING himself and his purpose, not caving in.

The edits mentioned above do not sound like caving in, but adjustments to move the movie back to his intended purpose.

Actually (and I wish I had saved the article), I read an interview way back when Gibson was just starting this project and he quite clearly said that he was making a movie to convince people who didn't think that the Jews were directly responsible for the killing of Christ that they were wrong.

It is a clear tenant of his religious beliefs and he was adamant about it being the reason why he was making the movie. Since the controversy broke, he has very much back-pedaled on these initial statements.

I have a real problem with propaganda being passed off as historical accuracy.