This is topic "The Passion" anti-semitic? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=032004

---

Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
 
Note: I edited the title since this thread has gotten pretty firmly stuck in the anti-semitism rut.
I'm sorry if this is even more of a re-post than I intended it to be, but as someone who didn't see The Passion the first time around but who was encouraged to by a lot of people, I was weighing my interest in this.

I mean, I'll probably wind up seeing it to go along with my husband. I realize the same people who thought I was judgemental for not seeing it when it was rate R will think I'm a sellout for seeing it in the edited version.

Maybe they should dub it into English while they are at it. I wonder if dyslexics find the subtitled format difficult to follow. My husband is a tad on the ADD side and doesn't prefer movies with subtitles.

But apart from the R rating, I was reticent to see the film because I had previously thought Mel Gibson was agnostic. The claims of anti-semitism were quite strong just prior to it first coming out. Probably most importantly, I doubted the capacity of the film to capture my own feelings about the suffering and death of Jesus.

But I can see value in sharing an experience others have found inspiring and in supporting filmmakers recognizing that they can attract more people by scaling back the violence. Some make call it dumbing down. I guess the opening weekend will tell.

[ February 21, 2005, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
[Oz] Huh. [/Oz]
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Hmm, that's interesting. We chose not to see it because of the excessive violence. It still sounds fairly violent to me, but I suppose the story is a violent one. Hmmm. *considers*
 

---

Posted by Tater (Member # 7035) on :
 
It was violent, it was good. I, myself, understand stuff better when I SEE it, so this movie worked wonders for me. Now when I study about Jesus and the way he died, I can actually imagine how terrible it was for him.
I admit, though, I cried in theaters. Luckily there were a lot of grandmas in there, and they cried with me.

p.s. thanks, grandmas.

the point was, you should see it. =)

[ February 19, 2005, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: Tater ]
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
I'm Jewish, I watched it, I thought Pilate got off really well while anti-Semitism could have been sparked if so much attention hadn't been drawn to the subject before the movie was released, and I thought it was unnecessarily violent. I swear I understood that he was beaten like no has ever been beaten before half way through the beating, I didn't need it to go on as long as it, it got to the point where the gore was boring.
 

---

Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
 
I always thought the crucifixion event was supposed to be a humiliating event for Christ.

With that in mind, the Passion wasn't too violent, it wasn't violent enough.

Yeah yeah, he got beaten up.

Real violence? They should have showed a soldier or jew pissing on him (or something equally transgressive). That would have been real violence, not the totally generic and cardboard whippings that we saw.
 

---

Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm Jewish, I watched it, I thought Pilate got off really well

---

quote:

---

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them.

---

quote:

---

In the end Jews make much more convenient scapegoats than Roman occupiers.

---

Yeah, too many Christians don't understand their doctrine well enough to appreciate the irony of this sentence. Which is really too bad. (the irony being that the scapegoat of the Mosaic law is symbolic of the Messiah). I know the idea of a sacrificed messiah is a whole other can of worms that Jews and Christians don't agree on...

I remember a debate my oldest siblings were having (in their teens) on whether the Romans or the Jews killed Jesus. The trump was "Jesus only died because he decided to, and he was a Jew so it was a Jew who killed Jesus."

Anyway, I do think the anti-Semitic concerns were timely, perhaps not so much because of the movie itself but because there is, as nfl says, always a bit of anti-Semitism floating around. There has been more since September 11th, which is really unfortunate.

Also, I was invited to a passion play at a friend's church a couple of years ago. I didn't go in for the simulated blood. I believe Jesus really bled, but I knew that wasn't what I was seeing so it sort of broke my suspension of disbelief.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
It might have been the Romans who put Jesus to death, but it was the Jews who said "Go for it" and pointed the Romans in the right direction. I believe the New Testament, and those who say the Jews didn't put Jesus to death are really arguing with the NT and thus Christianity.

That said, I agree that too many Christians don't understand their own theology as taught by the Jesus they claim died for them. He would never, I believe, sanction anti-Semetism.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
Well its the belief that the Jews said, "Go for it" that's lead to the deaths of countless millions. Hence, having that sentiment portrayed on screen is likely to revive those not so forgotten feelings of hatred.
 

---

Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
 
No, nfl, it is the failure of Christians having any grasp of their own doctrine that has resulted in the deaths of millions of Jews over the millenia. Don't go blaming the victims. It is fairly certain that none of the actual Jews that endorsed his execution were ever retaliated against. To lump all who share one aspect of their identity with those people is simple prejudice. I mean, they were all men, too. The men killed Jesus!

P.S. I don't know why I spell prejudice with two d's.

[ February 19, 2005, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
 

---

Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
 

quote:

---

He would never, I believe, sanction anti-Semetism.

---

quote:

---

Well its the belief that the Jews said, "Go for it" that's lead to the deaths of countless millions.

---

quote:

---

No, it isn't.

---

Then what is it? As long as you say "the Jews" killed Jesus, as opposed to "a mob" or "some priests," you're blaming an entire group of people past and present for action worthy of mass murder.

In case you haven't noticed, the "vast hatred" of Muslims toward Jews is relatively recent and due to Zionism. If Jews never wanted a homeland the Muslims and Arabs would have been perfectly happy to leave them alone.

The Romans didn't target Jews specifically. They targeted whoever happened to be in their colonies, so of course when it came to Israel/Palestine they targeted the Jews, especially when the zealots rose up in revolt. There are reasons why Jews become the scapegoat as opposed to other groups, they only are convenient because they're "Christ killers," "money grubbers," and "controllers of the media."
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Hmmm.. maybe they will cut the whiping down to a more acurate 40 lashes this time instead of 140. I still think they should never have put the subtitles in.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
holes, nice painting huge groups of people with a single brush. Thanks.

I apologize for linking to this thread, and I don't want to start this whole kerfuffle up again -- it made me physically ill the last time. But I do feel it necessary to link to this.

[edit: wrong preposition]

[ February 20, 2005, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
 
Hey guys!

It is highly doubted whether the Romans would truly allow anyone in their realm to appeal against their decision for crucifixtion.

It was the Romans who saw Jesus a rebel, it was the Romans who crucified him. The Romans didn't care about the Jews or what they thought. If the priests didn't like Jesus or feared that his actions would lead to violent collective punishments on the entire Jewish community (something that happened around ~30 years later when the Jews rebelled the Romans), and therefore enabled his arrest, the blame still lays on the Romans.

However, I don't see anyone with torches and pitchforks coming to slaughter the Italians.

The truth is, the Christians (I'm not exactly sure how Paulus called them at the time), besides believing in ideologies that I sincerely respect, wanted more supporters - so they removed the "difficult" parts of conversion: circumsition and conserving sabboth. Moreover, they couldn't convert any Romans if the Romans were blamed for killing the messiah, so heck - why not blame the Jews?

The movie was violent and gross, and dreadfully antisemetic. Not only was history distorted, but most characters that aren't Jesus's supporters or the Romans, in the movie are grotesque and filthy. I am not aware of any part in the New Testament mentioning a similar discription.

Sincerely yours,
A proud Jew, Zionist, Israeli, Scoutgirl.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 

quote:

---

The truth is, the Christians (I'm not exactly sure how Paulus called them at the time), besides believing in ideologies that I sincerely respect, wanted more supporters - so they removed the "difficult" parts of conversion: circumsition and conserving sabboth. Moreover, they couldn't convert any Romans if the Romans were blamed for killing the messiah, so heck - why not blame the Jews?

---

I take it you are not a believer in Christianity. I must admit that is the first time I have heard the "convenient" argument for revelation within ancient Scripture.

quote:

---

If the priests didn't like Jesus or feared that his actions would lead to violent collective punishments on the entire Jewish community (something that happened around ~30 years later when the Jews rebelled the Romans), and therefore enabled his arrest, the blame still lays on the Romans.

---

quote:

---

The truth is, the Christians (I'm not exactly sure how Paulus called them at the time), besides believing in ideologies that I sincerely respect, wanted more supporters - so they removed the "difficult" parts of conversion: circumsition and conserving sabboth. Moreover, they couldn't convert any Romans if the Romans were blamed for killing the messiah, so heck - why not blame the Jews?

---

quote:

---

holes, nice painting huge groups of people with a single brush. Thanks.

---

 

---

Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 
/derail
Occasional, I think you should change your name to Often.
/rerail
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
Only today (its a day off), and only when I turn 1000.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Zionism is, at core, a philosophy of self-determination. It goes something like this "Every other people around us has the right to live in a nation where they can be sure of being represented by the government. Why not Jews? We're a people too, and like all people, entitled to our own government."

Zionism has been twisted, primarily by the paletinians, to have connotations of racism. Zionism is no more racist then the idea that Nepal should be an independant nation.
 

---

Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
 
"The Passion" is Mel Gibson�s attempt to immortalize his name, read any of the 4 biblical accounts of the story and you'll find that Satan is never mentioned, the Jewish priest takes responsibility for Christ�s death (he does this in the movie, but Mel didn't put it in the sub tittles for fear of being accused of being like his father) over all Mel Gibson took a sacred story and made a billion or so people feel that they needed to see it in order to call themselves Christians. Further more, all of the controversy over it was started by his own production company in order to promote the film and to help people remember that Mel Gibson is not only a great actor, but a good director too, too bad he is a terrible human being who has no problem twisting a religious story to sell tickets.

Needless to say, I think if he re-releases it, it's for money, not religion.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Why are people so comfortable slinging such accusations around? Did you get hold of a copy of Gibson's journal? Find the secret meeting minutes on "how to drum up controversy"?
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 

quote:

---

read any of the 4 biblical accounts of the story and you'll find that Satan is never mentioned

---

quote:

---

the Jewish priest takes responsibility for Christ�s death (he does this in the movie, but Mel didn't put it in the sub tittles for fear of being accused of being like his father)

---

quote:

---

over all Mel Gibson took a sacred story and made a billion or so people feel that they needed to see it in order to call themselves Christians

---

quote:

---

Further more, all of the controversy over it was started by his own production company in order to promote the film and to help people remember that Mel Gibson is not only a great actor, but a good director too, too bad he is a terrible human being who has no problem twisting a religious story to sell tickets.

---

Think you might be giving him a little too much credit? Seriously, all I saw that might be seen as "spin control" from the Gibson camp was a statement by the Jewish actress who played Mary, saying that in no way did she think that the film was anti-semitic.

[ February 21, 2005, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
 

---

Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
 
I know he suplemented it with "folklore", but I don't think the movie is a "sincere work". It is a movie, not scripture. I'm probably just blowing off steam (at the people who have never read the story) and giving Mr. Gibson too much credit. However, his PR did a great job of publishing the Pope's comments on the film.

Article one

Article two

Article three

All three of those articles cite Producers from the film as their source. They all also mention that the Vatican refused to comment when asked about the quotes.
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
You know, Thomas S. Monson came to see the BYU production of Music Man (I was working on it backstage), and his bodyguard came backstage to talk to the ASM about the end of the show. the last thing he said to the crew and cast was "we'd just like you all to know that President Monson has been laughing." We all had a good over that comment.

[/derail]

All those articles do is use the Pope's comment as a lead-in for the anti-semitism debates.

And I didn't say the movie was scripture. Hence my disgust at the "Watch this movie if you love Jesus" crowd. As for wether or not its sincere...if you were a christian painter, would your depictions of Christ be sincere? What if you were a poet or a writer? How about a director of films? Who says you have to make something equivalent to scripture to be sincere?

[ February 21, 2005, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
 

---

Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
 
Poets, writer and more often than not, painters do what they do for love of their art, If nobody buys it, then they have to pick up a second job. Very few feature film makers have another job, if their movie flops, they don't say, "Hmmm i guess the world is not ready for me." They say," You know what, I bet if <insert random famous person> says they loved my movie, then tickets will sell." True there are many independent film makers who couldn't care less about making a profit, they just want to break even. Mel Gibson is not one of these directors, he is in it for the money, and he knew that religion would sell.
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
I don't see how three articles citing a tiny quote from the Pope would sway every single person who watched it. Where I'm from whole congregations of *Southern Protestant churches*, some of whom hadn't been to a movie theatre in years, gathered to see it. Do you think they care what the Pope had to say about it?

And did Mel Gibson magically know that it would be so successful? Seriously, everyone in Hollywood was expecting it to crash hard. Mel Gibson put up a whole bunch of his own cash just to produce and distribute it.

[ February 21, 2005, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Mel Gibson is not one of these directors, he is in it for the money, and he knew that religion would sell.

---

Again, any proof for your assessment?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
(I'm not here.

I'm staying out of this thread. I did this already, and I didn't enjoy it the first time.

But digging_holes seems to not understand what I meant in my other post -- isn't dh you also? If so, reread your post from February 19, 2005 06:49 PM.)
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 

quote:

---

I don't see how Jesus being put to death by Jews can be construed as anti-semitic. The film goes out of its way to show that many Jews (indeed, since the rigged trial was held at night, probably most Jews who cared one way or the other) opposed the radical, corrupt and power-obsessed faction who wanted him put to death. I get the impression that those flinging accusations of anti-semitism at the film are doing it to hide their own deeply anti-christian bigotism.

---

quote:

---

I get the impression that those flinging accusations of anti-semitism at the film are doing it to hide their own deeply anti-christian bigotism.

---

If so, perhaps I should clarify. I am not saying that all those who did not like the Passion are anti-christian bigots. I am not saying that all those worried that it may be anti-semitic (or arouse feelings of anti-semitism) are anti-christian bigots.

What I am saying, however, is that the overwhelming majority of the most vocal critics of this film, especially when it came out, seemed to have something entirely different from critiquing a film in mind, and seemed to jump on the issue of anti-semitism as simply a convenient excuse to attack it. The sheer viciousness and hatefulness of most of the attacks shocked me, at a time when I was not myself yet a christian.

See, I am not generalizing or painting everyone with a single brush. I am simply describing an impression I got from what I personally observed. I have no trouble believing that there are those people who believe the film to be anti-semitic, who do not also hold the view that all christians are inherently anti-semitic hatemongers. I think such people are deeply mistaken, but I bear them no ill will. However, I have not heard very much from these people, and I have heard much hostility from the other camp.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
That was not at all clear (to me, and judging by other posts, to some others) from you initial post.

Might I recommend some qualifiers and/or a more detailed explanation (as in your most recent post) the next time you post something like that?
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
I, on the other hand, will stick by his statement even if I didn't say it. Most of what has been said about this film in regard to anti-semetism is subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) anti-Christian fever pitch. Those who are Christian who have also talked about the anti-semetism are considered minimal Christians in their beliefs.

Regardless of what some people have said about talking about the anti-semitism cooled things off; my own impression from Christians is that it made relations worse. In the short term it might have helped. In the long term, however, Jews made a lot of simmering enemies in people who otherwise would not have even considered one way or the other.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
Jews made enemies? You're really naive to believe that Jews don't have enemies. The trick is to find them and distinguish between those who have evil intended and who are just ignorant of what they do. Why is it difficult to believe that a film depicting Jews calling for the death of Jesus, which supposedly had its most blatant scenes removed, which was made by a director who opposes Vatican II and whose parents are openly anti-Semitic is itself anti-Semitic in nature? Clearly the film was capable of rousing anti-Semitic sentiment in its uneducated audience members, the question then becomes did Gibson want that to happen or was he just not thinking with common sense.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

The trick is to find them and distinguish between those who have evil intended and who are just ignorant of what they do.

---

quote:

---

You're really naive to believe that Jews don't have enemies.

---

quote:

---

If the NT says Jews, not a mob or some Jews, are responsible for the death of Jesus then I'm perfectly willing to claim that the NT is anti-Semitic.

---

quote:

---

By the way, the Torah is pretty equally anti-semitic, as well as anti-Gentile. Have you read the things G-d said He would do to Israel?

---

First, its the Bible, the Torah is one of only three parts. Since for you the Bible includes the New Testament as well, you can refer to it as the Jewish Bible or the Tanach. Second, that statement pretty much destroyed any credibility you had in this discussion.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
Didn't know I had any credability with you on this discussion.

For me, you not reading the NT showed a lack of credability on this subject. After all, how can you compare Gibson's version of things compared to other Christians if you aren't familiar with the source for information on the Passion to start with.

[ February 22, 2005, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
I'm not criticizing the source or the interpretation except with how the latter conflicts with current Catholic doctrine. Since I saw the movie I feel prefectly capable of voicing criticism of its intentions considering its author and the history of anti-Semitism.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 

quote:

---

Since I saw the movie I feel prefectly capable of voicing criticism of its intentions considering its author and the history of anti-Semitism.

---

quote:

---

I just don't think you understand how calling this film anti-semitic is the same as attacking the New Testament.

---

• The five books OR
• Tanach as a whole OR
• The entirety of the Written and Oral Law OR
• Pretty much any subset thereof

We now return you to your scheduled trading of insults.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
I can single out Mel Gibson when his parents are openly anti-Semitic and he denounces his church's doctrine which condemned anti-Semitism. How many times do I need to say "Vatican II?"
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
What you don't get is that many Christians don't see the difference as far as they are concerned. You AREN'T DEALING WITH JUST MEL GIBSON, no matter how much you're argument might be aimed at him in particular.

[ February 22, 2005, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
Which of course makes them right.
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
nfl, I'm not entirely convinced that rejecting Vatican II is directly related to being an anti-semite.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
Questions that should be asked. Forget about Mel Gibson's motive and past for a moment. Is Mel Gibson's film The Passion anti-semitic?

Is The Passion Scripturally accurate?

Does those who support the movie, and its a vast number of the viewers, see a difference between the N.T. and the Passion Film?

And, just for Nlogics sake, are the vast number of supporters Catholic (and the Vatican II comes into this), or Protestant (where they could care less what the Vatican says)?
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
what I am saying is that a vast number of Christians (of ANY Sect) see The Passion movie as almost completely linked to their beliefs as they interpret from the N.T. events they hold Sacred. Thus, any attack on The Passion movie for them (and its a vast number of MANY sects of Christianity) is seen as an attack on their sacred beliefs and thus anti-Christian.

You might call that silly. You may say that is nonsense. However, it IS how the Passion is viewed by a large number who watched the film. It is a devotional film and statement of Faith, and not just entertainment or "based on a book by the best selling author" variety.

I am not saying that being against The Passion is in itself anti-semitic. What I AM saying is that by going against The Passion as vehemently as some did for its supposed anti-semitism, looked like a direct attack on Christian Faith.

[ February 23, 2005, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
Though I think it is a devotional film and statement of faith, I think it is presumtuous and wrong to equate it with scripture. Mel Gibson is no apostle, and I don't think he tried to set himself up as one. I haven't encountered anyone yet who makes a 100% connection between the New Testament and the movie, but if I do I'll be sure to attempt to correct them.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 

quote:

---

nfl, I'm not entirely convinced that rejecting Vatican II is directly related to being an anti-semite.

---

quote:

---

Forget about Mel Gibson's motive and past for a moment. Is Mel Gibson's film The Passion anti-semitic?

---

quote:

---

And, just for Nlogics sake, are the vast number of supporters Catholic (and the Vatican II comes into this), or Protestant (where they could care less what the Vatican says)?

---

quote:

---

Thus, any attack on The Passion movie for them (and its a vast number of MANY sects of Christianity) is seen as an attack on their sacred beliefs and thus anti-Christian.

---