The Passion - DVD Talk's Review Discussion
02-28-04, 06:06 PM
#226
New Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im sick and tired of people saying that this will cause anti-semitic tension
Im sick and tired of people saying that this will cause anti-semitic tension, obviously if you hate this film, have no care in the world about the Christian religion, have no positive care for Jesus Christ, then you shouldn't care that He had a group of haters in the Jewish religion during His time (it says in the Bible they persecuted him for blasphemy, this is shown in the movie) (and plus these were a group of Jews in a particular area of the globe during a particular period of history, not the all Jews, and especially not the Jews of today), therefore why would you care to persecute Jews, they did nothing to offend you. And if you're a proclaimed Christian you should know that Christ taught to love everyone including your enemies (this is SHOWN in the movie, in a small flashback), then obviously you try your best to follow his word, and love all, and if you had any sign of human intellegence you'd realize that the Jews portrayed in this movie and the Jews in the Bible do not refer to ALL Jews but only a small portion of the Jewish community in a particular area during the time of Christ. And to finish off, Jesus Christ was a Jew.
02-28-04, 06:19 PM
#227
Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Albany, New York
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk about *not* getting it at all.....scary...
************
This is from Jami Bernard:
New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com
Gore's the crime
of 'Passion'
Tuesday, February 24th, 2004
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. With Jim Caviezel. Written,directed and produced by Mel Gibson. At area theaters (2:07). Rated R for sequences of graphic violence. In Latin and Aramaic with English subtitles.
No child should see this movie.
Even adults are at risk.
Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of World War II.
It is sickening, much more brutal than any "Lethal Weapon."
The violence is grotesque, savage and often fetishized in slo-mo. At least in Hollywood spectacles that kind of violence is tempered with cartoonish distancing effects; not so here. And yet "The Passion" is also undeniably powerful.
Because of all the media coverage of this movie and the way it was shown only to handpicked sympathizers until yesterday's screening for movie critics, many questions hang in the air: Is it historically accurate?
Of course not. As with any movie, even a documentary, this one reflects the views of its filmmakers, who are entitled and expected to use their art persuasively. Gibson has been up-front about his own religious agenda.
But is it any good?
"The Passion" - once you strip away all the controversy and religious fervor - is a technically proficient account of the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus of Nazareth.
The movie is sanctimonious in a way that impedes dramatic flow and limits characterizations to the saintly and the droolingly vulgar.
That said, there are many things in its favor - a heroic physical effort by star Jim Caviezel; stunning cinematography by Caleb Deschanel, and the chutzpah to have the actors speak in the dead language of Aramaic (with some subtitles).
Is Gibson devout, or is he mad?
Had Gibson claimed Napoleon helped him direct, instead of divine spirits, the answer would be clear. Even so, a touch of madness is often a good thing in a director.
But "The Passion" feels like a propaganda tool rather than entertainment for a general audience.
Is it anti-Semitic?
Yes.
Jews are vilified, in ways both little and big, pretty much nonstop for two hours, seven minutes.
Gibson cuts from the hook nose of one bad Jewish character to the hook nose of another in the ensuing scene.
He misappropriates an important line from the Jewish celebration of Pesach ("Why is this night different from all other nights?") and slaps it onto a Christian context.
Most unforgivable is that Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov), the Roman governor of Palestine who decreed that Jesus be crucified, is portrayed as a sensitive, kind-hearted soul who is sickened by the tortures the Jewish mobs heap upon his prisoner.
Pilate agrees to the Crucifixion only against his better judgment.
The most offensive line of the script, which was co-written by Gibson with Benedict Fitzgerald, about Jews accepting blame, was not cut from the movie, as initially reported. Only its subtitle was removed.
"Passion" assumes the audience already knows Christianity 101, and plunges right into the aftermath of the Last Supper. Taunted by an effeminate, seductive Satan and anticipating betrayal, Christ suffers.
Oh, does He suffer.
The movie is a compendium of tortures that would horrify the regulars at an S&M club. Gibson spares not one cringing closeup to showcase what he imagines Jesus must have endured.
The lashings are so brutal that chunks of flesh go flying and blood rains like outtakes of "Kill Bill."
The Romans capture their prey with the help of a terminally regretful Judas, then haul Him around to be whipped, beaten, spat upon, mutilated and finally crucified - all with the cheering encouragement of a ghoulish mob of Jews. No one in the crowd speaks up for Jesus, not even, strangely, his mother (Maia Morgenstern).
Religious intolerance has been used as an excuse for some of history's worst atrocities. "The Passion of the Christ" is a brutal, nasty film that demonizes Jews at an unfortunate time in history.
Whatever happened to the idea that the centerpiece of every major religion is love?
****************
************
This is from Jami Bernard:
New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com
Gore's the crime
of 'Passion'
Tuesday, February 24th, 2004
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. With Jim Caviezel. Written,directed and produced by Mel Gibson. At area theaters (2:07). Rated R for sequences of graphic violence. In Latin and Aramaic with English subtitles.
No child should see this movie.
Even adults are at risk.
Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of World War II.
It is sickening, much more brutal than any "Lethal Weapon."
The violence is grotesque, savage and often fetishized in slo-mo. At least in Hollywood spectacles that kind of violence is tempered with cartoonish distancing effects; not so here. And yet "The Passion" is also undeniably powerful.
Because of all the media coverage of this movie and the way it was shown only to handpicked sympathizers until yesterday's screening for movie critics, many questions hang in the air: Is it historically accurate?
Of course not. As with any movie, even a documentary, this one reflects the views of its filmmakers, who are entitled and expected to use their art persuasively. Gibson has been up-front about his own religious agenda.
But is it any good?
"The Passion" - once you strip away all the controversy and religious fervor - is a technically proficient account of the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus of Nazareth.
The movie is sanctimonious in a way that impedes dramatic flow and limits characterizations to the saintly and the droolingly vulgar.
That said, there are many things in its favor - a heroic physical effort by star Jim Caviezel; stunning cinematography by Caleb Deschanel, and the chutzpah to have the actors speak in the dead language of Aramaic (with some subtitles).
Is Gibson devout, or is he mad?
Had Gibson claimed Napoleon helped him direct, instead of divine spirits, the answer would be clear. Even so, a touch of madness is often a good thing in a director.
But "The Passion" feels like a propaganda tool rather than entertainment for a general audience.
Is it anti-Semitic?
Yes.
Jews are vilified, in ways both little and big, pretty much nonstop for two hours, seven minutes.
Gibson cuts from the hook nose of one bad Jewish character to the hook nose of another in the ensuing scene.
He misappropriates an important line from the Jewish celebration of Pesach ("Why is this night different from all other nights?") and slaps it onto a Christian context.
Most unforgivable is that Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov), the Roman governor of Palestine who decreed that Jesus be crucified, is portrayed as a sensitive, kind-hearted soul who is sickened by the tortures the Jewish mobs heap upon his prisoner.
Pilate agrees to the Crucifixion only against his better judgment.
The most offensive line of the script, which was co-written by Gibson with Benedict Fitzgerald, about Jews accepting blame, was not cut from the movie, as initially reported. Only its subtitle was removed.
"Passion" assumes the audience already knows Christianity 101, and plunges right into the aftermath of the Last Supper. Taunted by an effeminate, seductive Satan and anticipating betrayal, Christ suffers.
Oh, does He suffer.
The movie is a compendium of tortures that would horrify the regulars at an S&M club. Gibson spares not one cringing closeup to showcase what he imagines Jesus must have endured.
The lashings are so brutal that chunks of flesh go flying and blood rains like outtakes of "Kill Bill."
The Romans capture their prey with the help of a terminally regretful Judas, then haul Him around to be whipped, beaten, spat upon, mutilated and finally crucified - all with the cheering encouragement of a ghoulish mob of Jews. No one in the crowd speaks up for Jesus, not even, strangely, his mother (Maia Morgenstern).
Religious intolerance has been used as an excuse for some of history's worst atrocities. "The Passion of the Christ" is a brutal, nasty film that demonizes Jews at an unfortunate time in history.
Whatever happened to the idea that the centerpiece of every major religion is love?
****************
02-28-04, 07:46 PM
#230
New Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously this person who reviewed the movie, this Jami Bernard of the new york daily news, didn't get the movie. Shes even refering to Lethal Weapon and Mel possibly being insane, what credible critic does so?
"The violence is grotesque, savage and often fetishized in slo-mo" - hmm, I didn't think so I thought the violence tried to portray what Christ went through during the last hours of his life (being tortured and crucified to die for mankind's sins and to show God's love for us (if you have any clue about whats in the Bible), not going to some lolly pop store, picking up a twelve gage shotgun and going on a shooting spree (an upcoming generic Hollywood plot coming soon to a theater near you!)), obviously this person due to their experiences sees the fetishization in this movie.
-"Is it historically accurate, of course not" - Yea Im glad the reviewer gives examples of whats not accurate.
-"Had Gibson claimed Napoleon helped him direct, instead of divine spirits, the answer would be clear" - Hmm is this critic reviewing the movie, or Mel Gibson, hmm...
-"But "The Passion" feels like a propaganda tool rather than entertainment for a general audience" - propaganda tool, I love, once again how the critic gives examples of the propaganda that this film is supposedly layered in, and jeeze this is a movie based on one of the most sacred and sad events in the Christian religion, how anyone could find "entertainment" in it is beyond me, maybe a person that is hardly familiar with the religion's values, beliefs, etc. Hmm...
-"Is it anti-semitic? Yes" - This is the critic's opinion, they give reasons such as "bad hook noses," to misappropriated lines from the Jewish religion being slapped in to Christian context. Well judging from their critique they dont seem to know much about the Christian religion, so what should make me believe that they know anything about the Jewish religion, unless of course, the person is biased and is Jewish. Also keep in mind the Jews portrayed in the movie and the Bible are a group of Jews in a particular area in a particular time frame, NOT all Jews, and especially not the Jews of today, jeeze do we blame the Germans of today on the Holocaust, NO. Also in the Bible this small group of Jews persecuted Christ because He said He was the Son of God and they charged Him of Blasphemy, who else would persecute a man that says that he is the son of your god.
-"Most unforgivable is that Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov), the Roman governor of Palestine who decreed that Jesus be crucified, is portrayed as a sensitive, kind-hearted soul who is sickened by the tortures the Jewish mobs heap upon his prisoner" - I agree that in the movie that Pilate is portrayed kinder in than is actual history, but hey, if you read the Bible, he did say that he washes his hands clean of the event and he did give the crowd the choice of the proven murder (I'll let you look up his name if you know dont know who he is, or if you're not familiar with scripture) to be freed or Christ, the crowd chose the murderer. and to say that he is portrayed as "sickened by the tortures the Jewish mobs heap" upon Christ is completely devoid of knowledge because isn't it the Roman empire who too tortured and crucified Christ to appeal to the people? Hmm if you're intellegent, I'll let you be the judge of that question.
-"tortures that would horrify the regulars at an S&M club" - I don't know, do S&M infatuated individuals crucify eachother, wear a crown of thorns that could actually scar ones head? I didn't think so. I think everyone would be shocked to see this, more so people that are not acquanted with the scriptures of the Bible. I don't think communist dictators would be horrified though.
-"The lashings are so brutal that chunks of flesh go flying and blood rains like outtakes of "Kill Bill" - Oh really, so are they like outtakes of Gladiator, Saving Private Ryan, etc.?
-"The Romans capture their prey with the help of a terminally regretful Judas, then haul Him around to be whipped, beaten, spat upon, mutilated and finally crucified - all with the cheering encouragement of a ghoulish mob of Jews. No one in the crowd speaks up for Jesus, not even, strangely, his mother" - Urgh this part of the critique is extremely aggravating, first of all when this critic mentions "all with the cheering encouragement of a ghoulish mob of Jews," did they forget that this is what happens in the Bible, these particular Jews hate Christ so much since He goes against their beliefs, so when they see Him go through this I'd think that they'd be happy. It'd be like if the U.S. caught Bin Laden and wanted to execute him, which Americans would object? Also "No one in the crowd speaks up for Jesus, not even, strangely, his mother," did this reviewer forget about the particular Jew (that was helping Jesus carry His cross) that defend Him when he was being beaten by the Romans when He fell on the way to the crucifiction site; and to even question why Mary (Jesus's mother) didn't speak up for Christ is pure ignorance, if you know anything in the scriptures you would know that Mary knew that Christ HAD to die (this was God's message to her), jeeze, and it makes her sound like she had no remorse for him (she followed Him every step of the way, when she was permitted to, during the tortures and crucifixion).
-"Religious intolerance has been used as an excuse for some of history's worst atrocities" - I agree, but don't give me that Holocaust nonsense that Hitler hated Jews because they contributed the the crucifixion of Christ, Hitler used them as a scapegoat to get into power, Hitler himself was a Jew. I must say though, that the Holocaust was a horrible ideal, and I not only feel sorry for Jews, but also the gays, jypsies, political figures, and mentally handicapped that had to suffer through the atrocity.
-"Whatever happened to the idea that the centerpiece of every major religion is love?" - This critic failed to get the whole message of the movie. If this individual knew anything about scriptures, the whole point of Christ's death (His last 12 hours as portrayed in the movie) was to let everyone know that this is what Christ went through tortures, crucifixion and all just to show everyone that He loved us so much that He'd willfully lay down his life for us and die for our sins. Obviously someone that is not acquainted with the Bible would see the film as this, if they have no real idea why Christ went through this, all they see is the violence and brutality (which I must say, violence and brutality is easily featured in many meaningless films, yet no critics have ever really complained about these movies), and plus if they don't believe in the religion why would they care about Christ's sacrifice. They don't see the sacrifice, but just the violence and brutality. Wouldn't it be ashame if in the future many people didn't believe the Holocaust occured, a movie is put out on the subject in realistic form, and it is accused of being anti-German, a pornography of violence and gory, etc.
"The violence is grotesque, savage and often fetishized in slo-mo" - hmm, I didn't think so I thought the violence tried to portray what Christ went through during the last hours of his life (being tortured and crucified to die for mankind's sins and to show God's love for us (if you have any clue about whats in the Bible), not going to some lolly pop store, picking up a twelve gage shotgun and going on a shooting spree (an upcoming generic Hollywood plot coming soon to a theater near you!)), obviously this person due to their experiences sees the fetishization in this movie.
-"Is it historically accurate, of course not" - Yea Im glad the reviewer gives examples of whats not accurate.
-"Had Gibson claimed Napoleon helped him direct, instead of divine spirits, the answer would be clear" - Hmm is this critic reviewing the movie, or Mel Gibson, hmm...
-"But "The Passion" feels like a propaganda tool rather than entertainment for a general audience" - propaganda tool, I love, once again how the critic gives examples of the propaganda that this film is supposedly layered in, and jeeze this is a movie based on one of the most sacred and sad events in the Christian religion, how anyone could find "entertainment" in it is beyond me, maybe a person that is hardly familiar with the religion's values, beliefs, etc. Hmm...
-"Is it anti-semitic? Yes" - This is the critic's opinion, they give reasons such as "bad hook noses," to misappropriated lines from the Jewish religion being slapped in to Christian context. Well judging from their critique they dont seem to know much about the Christian religion, so what should make me believe that they know anything about the Jewish religion, unless of course, the person is biased and is Jewish. Also keep in mind the Jews portrayed in the movie and the Bible are a group of Jews in a particular area in a particular time frame, NOT all Jews, and especially not the Jews of today, jeeze do we blame the Germans of today on the Holocaust, NO. Also in the Bible this small group of Jews persecuted Christ because He said He was the Son of God and they charged Him of Blasphemy, who else would persecute a man that says that he is the son of your god.
-"Most unforgivable is that Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov), the Roman governor of Palestine who decreed that Jesus be crucified, is portrayed as a sensitive, kind-hearted soul who is sickened by the tortures the Jewish mobs heap upon his prisoner" - I agree that in the movie that Pilate is portrayed kinder in than is actual history, but hey, if you read the Bible, he did say that he washes his hands clean of the event and he did give the crowd the choice of the proven murder (I'll let you look up his name if you know dont know who he is, or if you're not familiar with scripture) to be freed or Christ, the crowd chose the murderer. and to say that he is portrayed as "sickened by the tortures the Jewish mobs heap" upon Christ is completely devoid of knowledge because isn't it the Roman empire who too tortured and crucified Christ to appeal to the people? Hmm if you're intellegent, I'll let you be the judge of that question.
-"tortures that would horrify the regulars at an S&M club" - I don't know, do S&M infatuated individuals crucify eachother, wear a crown of thorns that could actually scar ones head? I didn't think so. I think everyone would be shocked to see this, more so people that are not acquanted with the scriptures of the Bible. I don't think communist dictators would be horrified though.
-"The lashings are so brutal that chunks of flesh go flying and blood rains like outtakes of "Kill Bill" - Oh really, so are they like outtakes of Gladiator, Saving Private Ryan, etc.?
-"The Romans capture their prey with the help of a terminally regretful Judas, then haul Him around to be whipped, beaten, spat upon, mutilated and finally crucified - all with the cheering encouragement of a ghoulish mob of Jews. No one in the crowd speaks up for Jesus, not even, strangely, his mother" - Urgh this part of the critique is extremely aggravating, first of all when this critic mentions "all with the cheering encouragement of a ghoulish mob of Jews," did they forget that this is what happens in the Bible, these particular Jews hate Christ so much since He goes against their beliefs, so when they see Him go through this I'd think that they'd be happy. It'd be like if the U.S. caught Bin Laden and wanted to execute him, which Americans would object? Also "No one in the crowd speaks up for Jesus, not even, strangely, his mother," did this reviewer forget about the particular Jew (that was helping Jesus carry His cross) that defend Him when he was being beaten by the Romans when He fell on the way to the crucifiction site; and to even question why Mary (Jesus's mother) didn't speak up for Christ is pure ignorance, if you know anything in the scriptures you would know that Mary knew that Christ HAD to die (this was God's message to her), jeeze, and it makes her sound like she had no remorse for him (she followed Him every step of the way, when she was permitted to, during the tortures and crucifixion).
-"Religious intolerance has been used as an excuse for some of history's worst atrocities" - I agree, but don't give me that Holocaust nonsense that Hitler hated Jews because they contributed the the crucifixion of Christ, Hitler used them as a scapegoat to get into power, Hitler himself was a Jew. I must say though, that the Holocaust was a horrible ideal, and I not only feel sorry for Jews, but also the gays, jypsies, political figures, and mentally handicapped that had to suffer through the atrocity.
-"Whatever happened to the idea that the centerpiece of every major religion is love?" - This critic failed to get the whole message of the movie. If this individual knew anything about scriptures, the whole point of Christ's death (His last 12 hours as portrayed in the movie) was to let everyone know that this is what Christ went through tortures, crucifixion and all just to show everyone that He loved us so much that He'd willfully lay down his life for us and die for our sins. Obviously someone that is not acquainted with the Bible would see the film as this, if they have no real idea why Christ went through this, all they see is the violence and brutality (which I must say, violence and brutality is easily featured in many meaningless films, yet no critics have ever really complained about these movies), and plus if they don't believe in the religion why would they care about Christ's sacrifice. They don't see the sacrifice, but just the violence and brutality. Wouldn't it be ashame if in the future many people didn't believe the Holocaust occured, a movie is put out on the subject in realistic form, and it is accused of being anti-German, a pornography of violence and gory, etc.
02-28-04, 07:52 PM
#231
New Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Korters -- thank you, I appreciate the detailed presentation of your take on Bernard's article. As someone who is not at all familiar with Christian scripture, this is very helpful for me to understand some of the discussion surrounding the film.
02-28-04, 08:04 PM
#232
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by korters
...
-"Religious intolerance has been used as an excuse for some of history's worst atrocities" - I agree, but don't give me that Holocaust nonsense that Hitler hated Jews because they contributed the the crucifixion of Christ, Hitler used them as a scapegoat to get into power, Hitler himself was a Jew...
...
-"Religious intolerance has been used as an excuse for some of history's worst atrocities" - I agree, but don't give me that Holocaust nonsense that Hitler hated Jews because they contributed the the crucifixion of Christ, Hitler used them as a scapegoat to get into power, Hitler himself was a Jew...
Hitler was a Jew????There have been reports that he may have had a Jewish grandparent (I think that's it but, as far as I know, there is no conclusive proof of that). Hitler was a baptized a Roman Catholic.
I don't mean to pluck this out of a long post that, for the most part, I can agree with (I did not think the film was very good but I do think Jami Bernard missed the boat), but this is so glaringly false I had to respond.
02-28-04, 09:17 PM
#235
Mod Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Gone to the islands - 'til we meet again.
Posts: 19,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by korters
my bad, i heard it from school or on the history channel
my bad, i heard it from school or on the history channel
One of Hitler's henchmen, Hans Frank, declared during the Nuremberg Trials in 1945-46, that Hitler's grandmother had worked in the town of Graz as a servant in the home of a Jewish family named Frankenberger. He further claimed that she was seduced by the head of the household and that Hitler's grandfather was the result of that liaison.
A subsequent analysis of Frank's statement by Simon Wiesenthal disclosed that there was no evidence of any Jewish family named Frankenberger ever living in Graz. What is more, Jews had been driven out of Graz in the 15th century and had not been allowed to return until 1856, nearly twenty years after Hitler's grandfather had been born.
A subsequent analysis of Frank's statement by Simon Wiesenthal disclosed that there was no evidence of any Jewish family named Frankenberger ever living in Graz. What is more, Jews had been driven out of Graz in the 15th century and had not been allowed to return until 1856, nearly twenty years after Hitler's grandfather had been born.
02-28-04, 09:19 PM
#236
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by chanster
I would like to know what school you went to if they told you that Hitler was a Jew.
I would like to know what school you went to if they told you that Hitler was a Jew.
EDIT: I now see Dead's post. Good call. Here is a link with more info if anyone is interested:
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar...itler/born.htm
Last edited by drjay; 02-28-04 at 09:26 PM.
02-28-04, 11:35 PM
#237
New Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who cares? I don't
So much fuss over a movie about some person that led some cult 2000 years ago. Tons of people everyday face more torture than the main character in this movie did, and it is usually done by dictators that your tax dollars pay for, thanks to our wonderful government. If jesus was really some supreme being, then who cares what he went through? He frickin brought it on himself! And all these devout "christians" who claim to be so horrified by what he allegedly went through, wouldn't even have some made up person to worship in a sick and twisted way unless he did get tortured. Nothing in the movie is historically accurate because nobody knows what really happened. The bible is some mishmash of stories written years to decades after jesus' death primarily by people who never knew him, and learned the information 10th or 100th hand. All any sane person has to do to realize what a load on nonsense relying on the bible or any religious text for that matter as "the word of god" is think about that game where you whisper a phrase in the ear of the person next to you, and they do the same. it goes around in a circle, and by the time it gets back to the first person, it's totally different than what was said in the first place. Most of us learn this in, what, 3rd grade? Common sense people. All you religious blind faith people are lemmings.
02-28-04, 11:44 PM
#239
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Who cares? I don't
Originally posted by rrrob
Tons of people everyday face more torture than the main character in this movie did, and it is usually done by dictators that your tax dollars pay for, thanks to our wonderful government.
Tons of people everyday face more torture than the main character in this movie did, and it is usually done by dictators that your tax dollars pay for, thanks to our wonderful government.
02-29-04, 12:25 AM
#241
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by chanster
Hello? The specific part people referring too as not tranlated is the part where it says the "guilt will be on their children" referring to the Jews. There was controversy about the line because it is often used to justify anti-semitism. There were various versions of the film shown prior to release that had the line transalated, the final version did not
Here is another article that I though was a good read on the movie
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/ar...wanted=1&8hpib
he Passion of the Christ" is not just another movie. No one in America is saying, "What do you want to see this weekend, `The Passion of the Christ' or `50 First Dates'? " None of us can see it innocently. If audiences were juries, there is no possible viewer of this film who would not be rejected by either the defense or the prosecution.
Whether or not we like the 21st century, it is where we live, and we can view this film only as citizens of our time and place. That means me, too. I can look at "The Passion of the Christ" only as a woman who defines herself as Catholic, who also defines herself as someone for whom the creation of story has been a crucial locus of self-understanding, and as someone for whom the Gospels have been crucial texts. So I respond to it as a person formed by my history, as Mel Gibson has been formed by his.
I'm older than Mel, but not by much, and we were both brought up by Catholics who would define themselves as conservative. And yet our visions of both the nature of history, the role of story and the experience of Jesus are miles apart.
So, no, I didn't like the movie. But I didn't like Mr. Gibson's "Braveheart," either. I don't do spectacle. I don't do graphic violence. I didn't lose any sleep, though, about not liking "Braveheart." I didn't care about "Braveheart"; I didn't care who liked it because nothing important was at stake. I didn't imagine that "Braveheart" could do any damage in the larger world. The story of "Braveheart" wasn't precious to me. But "The Passion" has been, for me, a cause of deep distress.
My distress has two sources. The first is my anxiety that it will have the effect of fanning the flames of a growing worldwide anti-Semitism. I accept Mr. Gibson's assertion that he didn't mean to make an anti-Semitic film, but he has to be aware of the Passion story's role in the history of the persecution of the Jews, a story whose very power to move the human spirit has been a vehicle for both transcendence and murder. To be a Christian is to face the responsibility for one's own most treasured sacred texts being used to justify the deaths of innocents.
What, then, is one to do with that knowledge? I believe that one bears witness to it, in one's life and in one's work. Certainly one does not take the risk that one's life or work might contribute to the continuation of a horror.
Can this be read as political correctness with a theological twist? As a writer, I am certainly sensitive to the specter of censorship. But as one who has made a life's work of studying narrative, I wonder why Mel Gibson's vision of the Passion — its importance to him, he says, is that it shows exactly what Jesus did for us — must depend on a portrayal of Jews as a bloodthirsty mob headed by a sadistic and politically manipulative leadership?
Mr. Gibson's defense is that he tells it like it is. Or like it was. But that is not precisely the case: the film's screenwriter, Benedict Fitzgerald, has added extra-Scriptural details: the character of Claudia, Pilate's wife, is much amplified from the Gospel hint; Pilate is given a sympathetic psychological complexity that is nowhere found in the Gospels; details of Jesus' childhood have been invented for dramatic purposes. Caiphas, the high priest, is a cipher in the Scripture; in the film he is, compared with Pilate, a one-dimensional monster, a shrewd rabble-rouser who rejoices in the shedding of his enemy's blood.
It is true that the Roman flagellators are portrayed as viciously sadistic, but there are two good Romans, Pilate and Claudia, to add a counterweight to our understanding of Romanness. There is no counterweight to the portrayal of the Jews. And arguably a writer who is concerned about the effects of a work that will have enormous popularity might be more worried about a negative portrayal of Jews than of Romans. No one has tried to set fire to the Pantheon; Hadrian's Villa has not been ransacked.
Hello? The specific part people referring too as not tranlated is the part where it says the "guilt will be on their children" referring to the Jews. There was controversy about the line because it is often used to justify anti-semitism. There were various versions of the film shown prior to release that had the line transalated, the final version did not
Here is another article that I though was a good read on the movie
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/ar...wanted=1&8hpib
he Passion of the Christ" is not just another movie. No one in America is saying, "What do you want to see this weekend, `The Passion of the Christ' or `50 First Dates'? " None of us can see it innocently. If audiences were juries, there is no possible viewer of this film who would not be rejected by either the defense or the prosecution.
Whether or not we like the 21st century, it is where we live, and we can view this film only as citizens of our time and place. That means me, too. I can look at "The Passion of the Christ" only as a woman who defines herself as Catholic, who also defines herself as someone for whom the creation of story has been a crucial locus of self-understanding, and as someone for whom the Gospels have been crucial texts. So I respond to it as a person formed by my history, as Mel Gibson has been formed by his.
I'm older than Mel, but not by much, and we were both brought up by Catholics who would define themselves as conservative. And yet our visions of both the nature of history, the role of story and the experience of Jesus are miles apart.
So, no, I didn't like the movie. But I didn't like Mr. Gibson's "Braveheart," either. I don't do spectacle. I don't do graphic violence. I didn't lose any sleep, though, about not liking "Braveheart." I didn't care about "Braveheart"; I didn't care who liked it because nothing important was at stake. I didn't imagine that "Braveheart" could do any damage in the larger world. The story of "Braveheart" wasn't precious to me. But "The Passion" has been, for me, a cause of deep distress.
My distress has two sources. The first is my anxiety that it will have the effect of fanning the flames of a growing worldwide anti-Semitism. I accept Mr. Gibson's assertion that he didn't mean to make an anti-Semitic film, but he has to be aware of the Passion story's role in the history of the persecution of the Jews, a story whose very power to move the human spirit has been a vehicle for both transcendence and murder. To be a Christian is to face the responsibility for one's own most treasured sacred texts being used to justify the deaths of innocents.
What, then, is one to do with that knowledge? I believe that one bears witness to it, in one's life and in one's work. Certainly one does not take the risk that one's life or work might contribute to the continuation of a horror.
Can this be read as political correctness with a theological twist? As a writer, I am certainly sensitive to the specter of censorship. But as one who has made a life's work of studying narrative, I wonder why Mel Gibson's vision of the Passion — its importance to him, he says, is that it shows exactly what Jesus did for us — must depend on a portrayal of Jews as a bloodthirsty mob headed by a sadistic and politically manipulative leadership?
Mr. Gibson's defense is that he tells it like it is. Or like it was. But that is not precisely the case: the film's screenwriter, Benedict Fitzgerald, has added extra-Scriptural details: the character of Claudia, Pilate's wife, is much amplified from the Gospel hint; Pilate is given a sympathetic psychological complexity that is nowhere found in the Gospels; details of Jesus' childhood have been invented for dramatic purposes. Caiphas, the high priest, is a cipher in the Scripture; in the film he is, compared with Pilate, a one-dimensional monster, a shrewd rabble-rouser who rejoices in the shedding of his enemy's blood.
It is true that the Roman flagellators are portrayed as viciously sadistic, but there are two good Romans, Pilate and Claudia, to add a counterweight to our understanding of Romanness. There is no counterweight to the portrayal of the Jews. And arguably a writer who is concerned about the effects of a work that will have enormous popularity might be more worried about a negative portrayal of Jews than of Romans. No one has tried to set fire to the Pantheon; Hadrian's Villa has not been ransacked.
02-29-04, 12:30 AM
#242
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by aroney
How many Hollywood films are/have been offensive to Christians?
Maybe one or two, huh.
How many Hollywood films are/have been offensive to Christians?
Maybe one or two, huh.
02-29-04, 12:41 AM
#243
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to hate the movie, it seems you find flaws in it - Jesus' hair is too short, I don't know Christianity 101, Jews are depicted as evil, Mel Gibson is a anti-semite and if you want to like the film, it was accurate, it depicted the passion perfectly, Jews are like any men - both good and evil, and Mel Gibson is my hero!
The point being that this thread is a perfect example of our divided country and those leaning to the left and right simply going through the motions of defending your viewpoint. Some of the arguments are strong and in detail and some are simply ignorant thread crapping, like rrrob's ridiculous and inflamatory statements.
I wonder, are there any among us who can truly view the film as it is? There was a definite intention and that was to show Jesus' suffering and sacrifice for all mankind. How do I know? It came from the horse's mouth, Mel Gibson himself. Was it filmed, acted and directed well? Yes. To say otherwise seems to indicate you will say anything to denegrate the movie. Where the Jewish leaders depicted in a bad light? Yes they were, as they were more concerned with their power base than their religion. Were all Jews depicted badly? No, there were several Jewish heroes - Simon, both Marys, many in the crowd decried the crucifixion. Was Pontius depicted in a good light? I believe Mel went soft on him, but at the same time was accurate in showing his own political distress - how to handle this problem and keep his own head? Were Romans depicted in a good light? No, not at all. They beat and tortured Jesus and other Jews for fun. As with the Jews, some Roman soldiers and Pontius' own wife were depicted as 'good' Romans. Was it historically accurate? Who knows? None of us were there, so any movie about the past uses the best knowledge they have and then make up the rest. Who killed Jesus? All mankind killed him, not just one group! God sent Jesus to Earth to die... Not the Jews! Not the Romans! All mankind! Please take note...
Look in the mirror and ask yourself why you say the things you do when you post. Are you being honest or pushing your own agenda...?
The point being that this thread is a perfect example of our divided country and those leaning to the left and right simply going through the motions of defending your viewpoint. Some of the arguments are strong and in detail and some are simply ignorant thread crapping, like rrrob's ridiculous and inflamatory statements.
I wonder, are there any among us who can truly view the film as it is? There was a definite intention and that was to show Jesus' suffering and sacrifice for all mankind. How do I know? It came from the horse's mouth, Mel Gibson himself. Was it filmed, acted and directed well? Yes. To say otherwise seems to indicate you will say anything to denegrate the movie. Where the Jewish leaders depicted in a bad light? Yes they were, as they were more concerned with their power base than their religion. Were all Jews depicted badly? No, there were several Jewish heroes - Simon, both Marys, many in the crowd decried the crucifixion. Was Pontius depicted in a good light? I believe Mel went soft on him, but at the same time was accurate in showing his own political distress - how to handle this problem and keep his own head? Were Romans depicted in a good light? No, not at all. They beat and tortured Jesus and other Jews for fun. As with the Jews, some Roman soldiers and Pontius' own wife were depicted as 'good' Romans. Was it historically accurate? Who knows? None of us were there, so any movie about the past uses the best knowledge they have and then make up the rest. Who killed Jesus? All mankind killed him, not just one group! God sent Jesus to Earth to die... Not the Jews! Not the Romans! All mankind! Please take note...
Look in the mirror and ask yourself why you say the things you do when you post. Are you being honest or pushing your own agenda...?
02-29-04, 12:54 AM
#244
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by korters
Also keep in mind the Jews portrayed in the movie and the Bible are a group of Jews in a particular area in a particular time frame, NOT all Jews, and especially not the Jews of today, jeeze do we blame the Germans of today on the Holocaust, NO.
Also keep in mind the Jews portrayed in the movie and the Bible are a group of Jews in a particular area in a particular time frame, NOT all Jews, and especially not the Jews of today, jeeze do we blame the Germans of today on the Holocaust, NO.
Also, your point about the Jews in the film not being representative of all the Jewish people of that time is valid but the distinction is not clearly made in this film (in my opinion). Likewise, there are many elements that could have been included to portray a more balanced and accurate portrayal of the context in which these events occur. (i.e. explain that the high priests were Roman apointed and not the Religious leaders of the Jewish people, show more instances where the Jewish people supported and/or empathized with Christ-as is written in the gospels-etc.).
02-29-04, 12:59 AM
#245
DVD Talk Special Edition
Originally posted by dave-o
I think there might be slight difference between a film being anti-Christian and a film possibly fueling anti-semitsim, and I am not saying either is right, but how many times has a presentation of an anti-Christian story lead to pogroms, massacres, murders, etc. (and I am not saying that this hasn't happened somewhere, but let's be honest here).
I think there might be slight difference between a film being anti-Christian and a film possibly fueling anti-semitsim, and I am not saying either is right, but how many times has a presentation of an anti-Christian story lead to pogroms, massacres, murders, etc. (and I am not saying that this hasn't happened somewhere, but let's be honest here).
02-29-04, 01:01 AM
#246
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually I have read from multiple places that Hitler was a quarter Jewish (and if you're familiar with the one-drop rule, if that rule is applied, that means he was a Jew),
02-29-04, 01:07 AM
#247
DVD Talk Special Edition
Originally posted by dave-o
Also, your point about the Jews in the film not being representative of all the Jewish people of that time is valid but the distinction is not clearly made in this film (in my opinion). Likewise, there are many elements that could have been included to portray a more balanced and accurate portrayal of the context in which these events occur. (i.e. explain that the high priests were Roman apointed and not the Religious leaders of the Jewish people, show more instances where the Jewish people supported and/or empathized with Christ-as is written in the gospels-etc.).
Also, your point about the Jews in the film not being representative of all the Jewish people of that time is valid but the distinction is not clearly made in this film (in my opinion). Likewise, there are many elements that could have been included to portray a more balanced and accurate portrayal of the context in which these events occur. (i.e. explain that the high priests were Roman apointed and not the Religious leaders of the Jewish people, show more instances where the Jewish people supported and/or empathized with Christ-as is written in the gospels-etc.).
Spoiler:
Or is it your honest belief that the Priests were able and encoruaged to act COMPLETELY INDEPENDENTY of their Jewish bretheren. No reasonable Christian blames Jews for the death of Jesus, then, never mind in 2004, and if they do, it's done outside of the teachings of Christ AND this film. Whether or not you chose to believe in Jesus is your business, but in this film, the message couldn't be more evident ALL man is to blame for this since he died for the sins of ALL men. And the final words spoken by Jesus in the film are
Spoiler:
Last edited by The Nature Boy; 02-29-04 at 02:24 AM.
02-29-04, 02:00 AM
#248
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 3,807
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stop short of calling the film anti-semitic, but I do feel there are some things in it that can fan the flames of those already heading down that road. Yes, there are quite a few Jewish characters in the film that come off as good people, but the vast majority of Jewish characters in this film are seen as bloodthirsty people willing to see Jesus tortured and killed. The crowd before Pontius of Jewish people behind the high priests were clearly bloodthirsty. The majority of the priests were too. When Pontius literally washes his hands of the situation, he says that Jesus' blood is on them and not himself. While there are some people who are crying for mercy and helpful to Jesus along his route, we see many more Jewish people kicking, hitting and throwing rocks at him in between the savage beatings from the Roman guards. These things didn't give anybody pause? I mean, yes, there are some very sympathetic Jewish characters who did what they could and would have spared Jesus' life if they could, but they were far outnumbered by many more Jewish characters painted with a broad brush and that kind of made me uncomfortable from time to time.
But I too would stop short of calling the film anti-semitic. However I have to disagree with anybody who doesn't think the way the vast majority of Jewish characters in this film are portrayed puts them in a very bad light and places a lot of the responsibility for the death of Jesus on their heads. A few noble characters doesn't make up for the broad brush strokes of the rest of the Jewish characters in my book.
At times I started to feel the way the Roman guards were portrayed was too much of an exaggeration, but after I reflected on it for a while, I guess not. At times i felt they were almost too bloodthirsty and took way too much joy in the beating of Jesus, but considering they were the occupying power and they likely saw themselves as being better than the Jews, maybe that wasn't too far off. But that's another story all together I guess.
But I too would stop short of calling the film anti-semitic. However I have to disagree with anybody who doesn't think the way the vast majority of Jewish characters in this film are portrayed puts them in a very bad light and places a lot of the responsibility for the death of Jesus on their heads. A few noble characters doesn't make up for the broad brush strokes of the rest of the Jewish characters in my book.
At times I started to feel the way the Roman guards were portrayed was too much of an exaggeration, but after I reflected on it for a while, I guess not. At times i felt they were almost too bloodthirsty and took way too much joy in the beating of Jesus, but considering they were the occupying power and they likely saw themselves as being better than the Jews, maybe that wasn't too far off. But that's another story all together I guess.
02-29-04, 02:08 AM
#249
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 3,807
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Kerborus
I wonder, are there any among us who can truly view the film as it is? There was a definite intention and that was to show Jesus' suffering and sacrifice for all mankind. How do I know? It came from the horse's mouth, Mel Gibson himself. Was it filmed, acted and directed well? Yes. To say otherwise seems to indicate you will say anything to denegrate the movie.
I wonder, are there any among us who can truly view the film as it is? There was a definite intention and that was to show Jesus' suffering and sacrifice for all mankind. How do I know? It came from the horse's mouth, Mel Gibson himself. Was it filmed, acted and directed well? Yes. To say otherwise seems to indicate you will say anything to denegrate the movie.
It is possible to not have an agenda and still think this film was poorly made and doesn't deliver on its promise. Are there people out there who do have that agenda and will do anything to knock down the movie? Sure there are, but to say stuff like this is simply ludicrous.
So can we stop with the bashing of people who did not like the film? Some people have stated their opinions and done so very eloquently, only to be bashed for daring to say anything negative about this film. I'm sorry, even with the topic of the film, I don't see this as any kind of "sacred cow" that it has to be treated with kid gloves. People are free to have whatever opinion they want on this film, just as they are with any other film. Period.
02-29-04, 02:31 AM
#250
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oldchuckles has been a Christian for 56-years, and was shocked by the blood-soaked horrific depiction of the Crucifixion presented by Mel Gibson. I found the film to be less than truthful, inflammatory, manipulative, propagandistic, twisted, and unbalanced. I cannot understand how some of the Christian community can embrace his film as a divine inspiration (as some of the leading evangelicals stated). His film has turned Christian against Jew and Jew against Christian, as demonstrated in this thread and elsewhere. Gibson's "vision" is being touted by the religious right as practically an "eyewitness account" of the Crucifixion because of its bloody and gruesome depiction. Folks, this was just a movie, and not a live broadcast. If Gibson wanted his movie to be more realistic, then he should have eliminated the soaring musical score which I know did not accompany the real "Crucifixion." For 2,000 years, "Passion Plays" have been used as motivation to lynch, torch, and gas Jews. Beginning in grade school in this country, Jewish children have been called Christ-killers because of the Crucifixion. As reported, Mel Gibson is a member of a small religious sect which does not forgive the Jews (dead Jews, living Jews, or Jews not yet born) for Jesus' Crucifixion. Obviously, he intended his "Passion Play" to inflame the true-believers. I would love to see his original cut of this film. Apparently, it was so vindictive against the Jews that the Christian leadership had to convince him to "lighten up" a bit. Maybe, we'll be fortunate enough to see the original director's cut on DVD which further vilifies the Jews. Also, I am hoping that Mel Gibson will make a movie of Custer's last stand at the Little Big Horn. Obviously, we all know the story so no beginning act or middle act is necessary. All I want to see is two hours of vivid and bloody scalping action! Then, as Christians, we can deride the Native Americans. Also, I look forward to Mel Gibson's remake of the Alamo which should focus only on what happened to the Alamo defenders when they ran out of ammunition (the long knives came out). That will be a chilling and blood-soaked movie. Then, as Christians, we can deride the Mexicans. The list could go on and on...Mel could do movies about the Japanese and German soldiers torturing American prisoners-of-war in WWII, and many more historical events...but please Mel, focus only on mutilation and mayhem for 120 minutes of the 127 minute films. Also, Mel, please bring back the identical "Satan" from the Jesus movie for use in the Little Big Horn and Alamo remakes. I think Mel's "Satan" is what gave "The Passion of the Christ" its highest credibility in historical and biblical accuracy. This will be my last posting on this subject. I hope that even though I have sided with the Jewish community on the merits of the "The Passion," my fellow Christians will not "crap" on me for not staying on your side of the fence.