| laborlitigator |
Just wondering if anybody has seen it and their opinions about the film?
Was it too graphic? Was it Anti-Jew? |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
| I'm looking for a "man on the street" opinion. I generally distrust movie reviewers. |
|
|
| Robyjo |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
I generally distrust movie reviewers.
I totally agree, and am looking forward to calculating my own review of the movie. I don't trust the newspaper critics--sometimes they're on, more times they're off ( :ucrazy: ). And many times the same is true for word of mouth...so should be interesting to do my own take... |
|
|
| robrecht |
I guess I will probably go see it because of the controversy but I'm already not inclined to like it if it is indeed a historicizing conflation of distinct biblical narratives.
The passion narratives are not as divergent as the infancy narratives, but the literary creation of each gospel narrative is usually destroyed when it is forced into a docudrama genre.
Somewhat similarly, I thought The Last Tempation of Christ was a wonderful novel but a ridiculous movie. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
I am going with my 16 year old and the Youth Group at church tonight; so I'll report back later.
However I believe that it will be a powerful emotional film that people will only want to see once! I do not expect this to be an annual Easter show ala Heston's "Ten Commanments" |
|
|
| manus1980 |
| I watched this interview of Mel Gibson's dad. For an old guy he has lots of fire, and spawned 10 klan members. No way can anyone grow up to be normal with this uncompasionate animal as a father. |
|
|
| csimo |
| I know you're looking for someone that has seen this "movie". I'm not the one. I am not interested in Mel Gibson's revisionst opinion of factual events. |
|
|
| HARDROCK |
Just spoke with my 16 year old son who saw it this morning as a school field trip with one of his teachers. When I asked him what did he think of it, he responded, "Powerful". We had talked yesterday about how he would handle the violence and he said he would be prepared to walk-out if it got too bad for him. Today he said that the violence itself was not the problem (compared to video games and most movies he sees) but what made it different was that it was all directed towards a single character - Christ. Said that about 1 full hour of the movie consisted of the torture of Christ.
We both expect the teacher who took his class to see it will face some questions about how appropriate it was to take his students (especially since he hadn't seen the film himself first), but my son said it won't really matter because the teacher has already announced he is retiring this year.... |
|
|
| csimo |
quote:
Originally posted by HARDROCK
Just spoke with my 16 year old son who saw it this morning as a school field trip with one of his teachers. When I asked him what did he think of it, he responded, "Powerful". We had talked yesterday about how he would handle the violence and he said he would be prepared to walk-out if it got too bad for him. Today he said that the violence itself was not the problem (compared to video games and most movies he sees) but what made it different was that it was all directed towards a single character - Christ. Said that about 1 full hour of the movie consisted of the torture of Christ.
We both expect the teacher who took his class to see it will face some questions about how appropriate it was to take his students (especially since he hadn't seen the film himself first), but my son said it won't really matter because the teacher has already announced he is retiring this year....
I think I'd question any teacher or school that would take 16 year old's to a "R" rated movie as a "field trip"... regardless of the subject. |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by csimo
I think I'd question any teacher or school that would take 16 year old's to a "R" rated movie as a "field trip"... regardless of the subject.
I thought field trips required parent's permission. Or do they happen when a teacher gets a bug up his rear? |
|
|
| HARDROCK |
| Parent permission was required (his mom signed for him but I would have also). The class that went is entitled "Comparative Religion" and while a public high school here in L.A., it was ranked number 10 in the nation by Newsweek. I am also a teacher here in L.A. but I don't think I would have taken my kids to see a film so controversial. |
|
|
| greatscot |
FWIW:
I haven't seen the full movie, but have been following the commentaries closely. Watched a 1 hour special on PAX last night.
Several thoughts came to me. I was intrigued how Satan was portrayed (actually by a woman with a man's voice) Gibson said he felt evil is not always as we think it is, it may actually appear appealing to us, a temptation if you will, and we are all tempted by different things. I agree.
While the movie focuses on the last 12 hours of Christ as a mortal being in the flesh, the film is only about His death. There is no real treatment of hope in the resurrection. No appearance to the apostles to show that great miracle. No triumph over death. No light to give meaning to the horrors of the pain and suffering that went before. The real message of the Gospel is not that Christ died, but that he defeated death. He rose from the grave.
All said and done, I will most likely go see it after some of the crowd dies down a bit. |
|
|
| robrecht |
| I really admire teachers that are willing to address controversial subjects. Parental consent was given. What's the problem? |
|
|
| XStatic |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
[B]The passion narratives are not as divergent as the infancy narratives, but the literary creation of each gospel narrative is usually destroyed when it is forced into a docudrama genre.
The infancy narratives were apparently written hundreds of years later than the time of the occurance (compared to less than 100 for the 4 gospels) and the names the authors used were not their own as they used biblical names to give their writing significance. Given that, it is not surprising that these stories are divergent as they likely have little basis in fact although they are probably somewhat based on oral tradition which may have some actual historical basis.
It is also clear many of these stories were written by Gnostics and the writing reflects their view that what was necessary to be close to God was to have knowledge. They didn't believe that acts of kindness, compassion, and love were part of the equation.
The 4 gospels were considered scriptural while they were being written and there were people around that could have questioned the story if it had not been basically correct. There is no indication that the infancy narritaves were ever considered as accurate and there is evidence that they were dismissed even at the time by many. |
|
|
| zafer |
Denies Film is Anti-Semitic
Actor Mel Gibson stirred controversy once more today, announcing that he would produce, direct and star in a major motion picture entitled “Lethal Rabbi.”
Mr. Gibson, who established himself as a producer-director-actor with the Oscar-winning “Braveheart,” told reporters today, “I’ll be wearing three hats on this film, and one of them will be a yarmulke.”
The film, about a rogue cop/Orthodox rabbi who goes on a killing rampage in Los Angeles, has already drawn the ire of several Jewish groups who have accused Mr. Gibson’s latest cinematic foray of being anti-Semitic.
Anti-defamation activists who have objected to the Gibson film especially take issue with the character played Mr. Gibson, Sgt. Shlomo Levenstein, aka “Dirty Shlomo.”
In one scene, for example, Sgt. Levenstein uses an AK-47 assault rifle to dispatch a drug dealer and then delivers the line, “Mazel tov, suckah!”
Mr. Gibson took time out on the “Lethal Rabbi” set today to defend the film, saying that he wrote the script only after extensive research into the world of Orthodox rabbis who were also rogue cops.
“This movie tells the truth about Orthodox rabbi/rogue cops in the hopes of fostering love and understanding around the world,” said Mr. Gibson, wearing Hasidic side curls and a shoulder holster.
Mr. Gibson also denied what he called “exaggerated” reports that Sgt. Shlomo goes on a nonstop killing spree in the movie.
“In the film, we take great pains to show that he takes Saturday off,” Mr. Gibson said. |
|
|
| XStatic |
quote:
Originally posted by greatscot
While the movie focuses on the last 12 hours of Christ as a mortal being in the flesh, the film is only about His death. There is no real treatment of hope in the resurrection. No appearance to the apostles to show that great miracle. No triumph over death. No light to give meaning to the horrors of the pain and suffering that went before. The real message of the Gospel is not that Christ died, but that he defeated death. He rose from the grave.
All said and done, I will most likely go see it after some of the crowd dies down a bit.
The Passion of The Christ = The Suffering of The Christ
Latin passio, means, simply, "suffering."
Don't Passion plays typically focus on the suffering and death of Jesus Christ?
I haven't seen the movie nor have I seen any other passion play so I don't know how it compares in the treatment of the resurrection. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by XStatic
The infancy narratives were apparently written hundreds of years later than the time of the occurance (compared to less than 100 for the 4 gospels) and the names the authors used were not their own as they used biblical names to give their writing significance. Given that, it is not surprising that these stories are divergent as they likely have little basis in fact although they are probably somewhat based on oral tradition which may have some actual historical basis.
It is also clear many of these stories were written by Gnostics and the writing reflects their view that what was necessary to be close to God was to have knowledge. They didn't believe that acts of kindness, compassion, and love were part of the equation.
The 4 gospels were considered scriptural while they were being written and there were people around that could have questioned the story if it had not been basically correct. There is no indication that the infancy narritaves were ever considered as accurate and there is evidence that they were dismissed even at the time by many.
I was only referring to the infancy narratives within the gospels of Matthew and Luke, which were also written less than a hundred years after the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. It is these infancy narratives that have often been conflated into a kind of historicizing docudrama genre. I wasn't referring to so-called gnostic gospels or infancy gospels that to my knowledge have seldom if ever been used substantially in major motion pictures.
Do you think the sheperds or wise men, or maybe the little drummer boy, were consultants in the writing of Matthew's and Luke's infancy narratives? |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by zafer
Denies Film is Anti-Semitic
Actor Mel Gibson stirred controversy once more today, announcing that he would produce, direct and star in a major motion picture entitled “Lethal Rabbi.”
...
This is hilarious, zafer! Can I use this? Should I cite you or someone else? |
|
|
| XStatic |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
This is hilarious, zafer! Can I use this? Should I cite you or someone else?
Agree, great job!:2: |
|
|
| XStatic |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
Do you think the sheperds or wise men, or maybe the little drummer boy, were consultants in the writing of Matthew's and Luke's infancy narratives?
Sorry I missed your intent.
My personal opinion is that these differences are the result of different oral traditions in the regions that the gospels were written. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
First the context from Isaiah 53 (NASB): He was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief ... He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; but He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so He did not open His mouth. By oppression and judgment He was taken away ... But the LORD was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; if He would render Himself as a guilt offering ... As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied ... My Servant, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities ... Because He poured out Himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet He Himself bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors.
More essential context from I Peter 2 (NASB): because Christ suffered for you ... "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. "When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
The Christian (Biblical) message is all people are sinners and condemned to death by a holy and righteous God. However God, in His mercy, permitted His perfect/blameless Son to die in our place. This was prophesied in the OT and confirmed in the NT. The Bible clearly says that Jesus had to suffer, be pierced, be crushed, chastened, scourged, and killed. Mel Gibson's movie shows that; this movie graphically depicts what was foretold to happen to Jesus and did happen to Jesus according to the gospels. Roman scourging and crucifixions were brutal and Gibson showed it.
In my next post I'll tell what I thought about the film and touch on its Biblical accuracy. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
... it fulfilled the point Mel Gibson intended - to show the Passion (suffering) of the Christ (see my above post). It was fairly close to biblical accuracy; particularly from a Catholic perspective (recall Mel Gibson rejects Vatican II). However it is NOT w/o some speculation, enhancements/embellishments, and outright gospel error! For the most part the speculations and enhancements do not detract from the message, although some did and of course in my opinion the errors certainly did.
The film opened with Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane agonizing over the upcoming events (biblically accurate); however it included tempting from Satan (certainly plausible but not biblical). I thought the way Satan was portrayed throughout the film was the BEST of the several speculations/embellishments to the gospels Gibson included (the two allusions to Gen 3:15 were very well done in my opinion)! The arrest scene that followed was embellished beyond gospel accuracy and was a trivial distraction. From a Protestant perspective the "deification" of Mary was subtle and not too distracting (but the Catholic adoration of Mary was clearly present and not scriptural).
I thought the scourging scene borderlined on gratuitousness; however the Mosaic law forbid more than 40 lashes and in an effort to prevent mistakes they would punish with "40 less 1" or 39 lashes. Mel Gibson showed them all! This was the toughest scene in my opinion. Biblical yes, but tough to watch. However having Mary come in afterwards and clean up the blood is totally fictitious according to the gospel witnesses.
My biggest complaint was the carrying of the cross down the Via Dolorosa. Here Catholic tradition of the 12 Stations of the Cross conflict with gospel accuracy. According to Luke 23:26 (NASB) "As they led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus." Thus according to the gospels Jesus early on dropped the cross and Simon of Cyrene was forced to carry it for Him; which Simon did alone walking behind Jesus. The movie showed Jesus as UNABLE to get to Golgotha w/o human help. Indeed Gibson portrayed Simon as a hero, who not only carried the cross but also carried Jesus. The film showed Jesus and Simon locked in an embrace as they both carried the cross. Simon was shown encouraging Jesus and urging Him on.
This is flat wrong according to the gospels. Jesus VOLUNTARILY went to the cross and laid down His life on Hs own free will. He did NOT need human help to get there.
All in all a good movie, but not without flaws. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by XStatic
The 4 gospels were considered scriptural while they were being written and there were people around that could have questioned the story if it had not been basically correct.
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
Do you think the shepherds or wise men, or maybe the little drummer boy, were consultants in the writing of Matthew's and Luke's infancy narratives?
quote:
Originally posted by XStatic
Sorry I missed your intent.
My personal opinion is that these differences are the result of different oral traditions in the regions that the gospels were written.
I was wondering if you thought that the writers of the gospels of Matthew and Luke expected that their infancy narratives would be able to be verified as historical by people in their audience. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by XStatic
I haven't seen the movie nor have I seen any other passion play so I don't know how it compares in the treatment of the resurrection.
The resurrection was barely touched on at all. Essentially after they removed Jesus body from the cross (again embellished beyond gospel truth) the movie LITERALLY fades to black for about 15 seconds or so. Then light/sights/visuals appear out of the blackness as the stone is being rolled away from the tomb. The camera shows the empty burial cloth and then turns to Jesus in His "glorified" (i.e. w/o the bloody scourging wounds and bruises) body. The only scars are the nail scars shown on His right hand only. The resurrection scene lasted less than a minute and then the film again faded to black with the rolling of the credits.
I agree with greatscot that the Passion of Christ was NOT the end of the story - The Resurrection is the Hope and Power of the Gospel. But then again the movie is the Passion of the Christ. |
|
|
| greatscot |
quote:
Originally posted by XStatic
The Passion of The Christ = The Suffering of The Christ
Latin passio, means, simply, "suffering."
Don't Passion plays typically focus on the suffering and death of Jesus Christ?
I haven't seen the movie nor have I seen any other passion play so I don't know how it compares in the treatment of the resurrection.
You are correct about the "passion", however I don't typically attend "passion plays" and I do understand that the movie is about His death, but that is not where the story ends. Who knows, maybe the Resurrection is being left for a sequel. I would like people to leave the film remembering there is hope through the Resurrection, that through Christ, we will all be resurrected.
Mel did the same thing with Braveheart. He left us with the death of Wallace, and left us only with a hint to the continuing story and victory of The Bruce. (NOT comparing Christ to Wallace, just commenting on Gibson's film making style.) |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
... It was fairly close to biblical accuracy; particularly from a Catholic perspective (recall Mel Gibson rejects Vatican II).
Are there specific ways in which the movie rejects particular teachings of Vatican II?
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
From a Protestant perspective the "deification" of Mary was subtle and not too distracting (but the Catholic adoration of Mary was clearly present and not scriptural).
Do you think that Catholics deify Mary and adore her as if she were God? |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by greatscot
I would like people to leave the film remembering there is hope through the Resurrection, that through Christ, we will all be resurrected.
However I would have liked a little more; but that was not the story being told. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
Are there specific ways in which the movie rejects particular teachings of Vatican II?
Do you think that Catholics deify Mary and adore her as if she were God?
I am not exactly sure where Mel fits in on Official Catholic doctrine, I merely repeated what I have heard - I have heard him say that he does not hold to all that Vatican II teaches.
I am not sure what most practicing Catholics believe; I do know that the Official Roman doctrine has deified Mary (perpetual virginity, sinlessness (perfect), assumption, etc). I suspect that most practicing Catholics do not fully understand what Rome believes. |
|
|
| greatscot |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
The resurrection was barely touched on at all. Essentially after they removed Jesus body from the cross (again embellished beyond gospel truth) the movie LITERALLY fades to black for about 15 seconds or so. Then light/sights/visuals appear out of the blackness as the stone is being rolled away from the tomb. The camera shows the empty burial cloth and then turns to Jesus in His "glorified" (i.e. w/o the bloody scourging wounds and bruises) body. The only scars are the nail scars shown on His right hand only. The resurrection scene lasted less than a minute and then the film again faded to black with the rolling of the credits.
I appreciate your commentary and opinion on the movie. Your comments show an understanding of the Gospel and the accuracy/inaccuracies portrayed in the movie. It would be a major undertaking to present the entire earthly life of Christ, full of his love, compassion, and miracles. This film obviously shows the culmination of His mission here. It is interesting that board members of different faiths (I assume) feel intrigued enough to discuss (and maybe even go see) this film. Maybe that's the real message, to get us (people in general) to give some serious thought about this subject and what it means for us personally. |
|
|
| DaleB |
How far does one go for authenticity?
There was a Discovery program about a year ago, some of you may have seen. It was a recreation of Jesus's physical appearance, based on the period, semitic race, the shroud, and historical descriptions.
He looked quite a bit different than is protrayed in religious literature, imagery, etc.
To appear that way in the movie would suggest a man less extraordinary in presence.
Maybe it was felt that would be too much authenticity to introduce and cloud the message to be delivered by the movie. Just a thought. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
From a Protestant perspective the "deification" of Mary was subtle and not too distracting (but the Catholic adoration of Mary was clearly present and not scriptural).
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
... I am not sure what most practicing Catholics believe; I do know that the Official Roman doctrine has deified Mary (perpetual virginity, assumption, etc). I suspect that most practicing Catholics do not fully understand what Rome believes.
I think your remarks have grossly misrepresented Catholic teaching. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by greatscot
... It is interesting that board members of different faiths (I assume) feel intrigued enough to discuss (and maybe even go see) this film. Maybe that's the real message, to get us (people in general) to give some serious thought about this subject and what it means for us personally.
Well said! Up until now, I have been very put off by the remarks of Gibson and others, but I'm certainly much more likely to go see this film now. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
I think your remarks have grossly misrepresented Catholic teaching.
Its easy enough to look up Catholic Teaching; the documents and the Catechisms are public (ah the power of Google). It is NOT my intention to misrepresent or offend Catholics in any way. Nor is it my intention to debate this; I was giving my perspective of Mel Gibson's movie and actually complemented it. The major differences between Protestant and Catholic teaching regarding Mary was NOT that evident during the film, but it WAS there.
Catholic Doctrine teaches Mary is Perfect/Sinless, was Assumed into Heaven directly, Perpetually Virgin, Mother of Heaven, co-Mediator w/ Christ. These doctrines are easily found.
Do each and every practicing Catholic believe these extra-gospel (not from the scriptures) claims? I do not know; but that IS what the Vatican teaches. |
|
|
| ByeByeChrysler |
| :lurk: interesting |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
From a Protestant perspective the "deification" of Mary was subtle and not too distracting (but the Catholic adoration of Mary was clearly present and not scriptural).
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
... I am not sure what most practicing Catholics believe; I do know that the Official Roman doctrine has deified Mary (perpetual virginity, assumption, etc). I suspect that most practicing Catholics do not fully understand what Rome believes.
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
... but that IS what the Vatican teaches.
But Catholic doctrine has always been extremely clear that Mary is in no way 'deified' nor to be adored as God.
Personally (I'm not speaking for the Vatican here), I have an appreciation for many expressions of religious belief that attempt to elucidate truths other than mere historical events. IMHO, Catholic teachings about Mary are in many ways a mythological expression of some profound insights into an idealized or philosophical or theological understanding of the nature of humanity. I think Paul and the gospel writers often did this in their writings about Jesus (or Abraham or the Suffering Servant of Isaiah) as well.
It would also be extremely easy to take remarks of Martin Luther and other protestant founders and theologians out of their historical context and misrepresent them or hold them up to ridicule. But what purpose would that serve? |
|
|
| zafer |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
It was fairly close to biblical accuracy....
It was??? I haven't seen the movie, but in the trailers I've noticed Jesus is white? I gues thats in the line with biblical accuracy vs. historical accuracy. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by ByeByeChrysler
:lurk: interesting
Hey, can I have some popcorn too?:7: |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by zafer
It was??? I haven't seen the movie, but in the trailers I've noticed Jesus is white? I gues thats in the line with biblical accuracy vs. historical accuracy.
Jesus was a Palestinian Jew so "probably" black haired w/ olive colored skin - however I do not believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John had a camera and there ARE light skinned Palestinians today. The actor had dark hair and dark eyes and was NOT a lilly white blue eyed caucasian.
If this Jesus does NOT fit your preconceived notions then do NOT go to the movie :1: |
|
|
| DaleB |
Changing Christ's appearance, to put it in more in line with recent scientific evidence, may have been too much for some to bear. Like the dear lady who had a heart attack just from the emotional impact of the movie.
I think most of us are enlightened and intellectual enough to handle changes like that, but I suppose Mr. Gibson's objective was to convey a strong message without distraction, and make that message universal to a wide audience.
At least I hope he thought that way. Obviously his father would have difficulty being that objective, lost soul that he is. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
:lurk:
Hey, can I have some popcorn too?:7:
I was suprised by how many got jumbo tubs of popcorn and 44 oz cokes :rolleyes: It was not a movie that I'd want to eat at. I said that all in all it was a good movie, for the most part fulfilling the director's intentions, but it was not a fun movie to watch. It was emotional, thought provoking, perhaps even profound- but it ws not entertaining. |
|
|
| hhwc |
quote:
Originally posted by zafer
It was??? I haven't seen the movie, but in the trailers I've noticed Jesus is white? I gues thats in the line with biblical accuracy vs. historical accuracy.
Jesus we know was Jewish. As far as physical appearance, who knows... And you know what, who cares?!? It's the message that's important. |
|
|
| zafer |
quote:
Originally posted by HARDROCK
Today he said that the violence itself was not the problem (compared to video games and most movies he sees)...
|
|
|
| manus1980 |
| The average height of a middle eastern man of that time period was 5'3" In the guiness book on the section about the worlds tallest man their is an excerpt about Goliath. Experts believe he may have been around 6' I just found that interesting and wanted to share |
|
|
| ByeByeChrysler |
I got to give you guys alot of credit on your religious knowledge.
Being Italian, means we were very Roman Catholic as a kid, going to church every Sunday. (not as much now)
The movie is only the opinion of the Hollywood people, I have not seen it yet, but when I do,
I don't think it will alter my beliefs or vision I have been taught, from going to my church. |
|
|
| Nanagirl |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
Was it Anti-Jew?
It was not Anti-Jew. In fact, that was such a miniscule portion of the movie. And for the critics that emphsize that aspect of the movie would be minimizing the real message of the film.
This movie was not about blame but rather how Christ sacrificed himself for us. |
|
|
| XStatic |
| Why isn't anyone worried about anti-roman backlash from the movie? |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by XStatic
Why isn't anyone worried about anti-roman backlash from the movie?
I think the phrase is "the squeeky wheel gathers the grease." |
|
|
| DaleB |
Many countries have widespread Passion Plays in the streets, and they have for centuries.
I think the movie became a subject for the media to bounce around and most of the reaction is over-played from what I can tell.
People watch it, take what they can from it, and then get on with the business of living. |
|
|
| BaldEagle |
Is it just me? I have no desire to see "Passion of the Christ" because:
1. It is in a language I don't understand.
2. The movie Is extremely violent.
3. I already know the ending. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by Nanagirl
It was not Anti-Jew. In fact, that was such a miniscule portion of the movie. And for the critics that emphsize that aspect of the movie would be minimizing the real message of the film.
This movie was not about blame but rather how Christ sacrificed himself for us.
Some of the New Testament authors were clearly affected by an anti-Jewish polemic and to the extent that the movie follows and conflates biblical texts, it was bound to reproduce some of this.
Here's a couple of excerpts from an interesting article I came accross:
Gibson has tried to mollify criticism directed at the movie by cutting out the most controversial line in the film – taken from the Book of Matthew – where the Jewish high priest Caiaphas shouts: “His blood be on us, and upon our children.” The reference has been used down the ages by anti-semites as proof of the collective guilt of Jews in the death of Jesus. Gibson says he cut it in order “to quell legitimate fears”. However, he also says he wanted to keep the line in the movie because “it happened”. He says his brother accused him of “wimping out” by pulling the line, but added: “Man, if I included that in there, they’d be coming after me at my house, they’d kill me.”
...
When Frank Rich in the New York Times said the star was trying to "bait Jews and sow religious conflict", Gibson reverted to Mad Max mode rather than turn the other cheek. "I want to kill him," he hollered. "I want his intestines on a stick. I want to kill his dog."
http://www.sundayherald.com/40099 |
|
|
| Nanagirl |
| It seems funny as a Catholic, I hold no grudge against those of the Judaic faith for their role in Jesus' crucifiction but rather those of the Jewish faith are angry about being reminded of it. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by Nanagirl
It seems funny as a Catholic, I hold no grudge against those of the Judaic faith for their role in Jesus' crucifiction but rather those of the Jewish faith are angry about being reminded of it.
I'm not sure if your remark was intended as humorous, so I'm not sure how or if to respond. But I think Jewish groups are understandably concerned about alarming signs of increased antisemitism. Anti-semitism has frequently appealed to New Testament texts to justify bias, prejudice, hatred, murder, etc. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
If this Jesus does NOT fit your preconceived notions then do NOT go to the movie :1:
So, it's sort of like preaching to the choir? |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by Nanagirl
It seems funny as a Catholic, I hold no grudge against those of the Judaic faith for their role in Jesus' crucifiction but rather those of the Jewish faith are angry about being reminded of it.
How fortunate you were to have ancestory that did no wrong, and never have to be reminded of anything bad they might have done. You must lead a privileged existence. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by DaleB
How fortunate you were to have ancestory that did no wrong, and never have to be reminded of anything bad they might have done. You must lead a privileged existence.
Who knows, maybe she's descended from Pontius Pilate or the Roman soldiers who clearly had a more direct responsibility for the death of Jesus? |
|
|
| Nanagirl |
How come I am labeled an anti-semite just because I make a criticism about the Jewish reaction to movie?
My point is, that is a secondary or even tertiary issue in the movie. If you've seen the film, you absolutely know that is not what the movie is about.
As for never being persecuted, I believe the Christians and Catholics, and whole hosts of other people (ie. African-Americans & American Indians) have been persecuted over time. Let's not make it seem that they're the only one to have such done over the history of human existence. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by Nanagirl
How come I am labeled an anti-semite just because I make a criticism about the Jewish reaction to movie?
Huh? Who labeled you an anti-semite??? |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by Nanagirl
How come I am labeled an anti-semite just because I make a criticism about the Jewish reaction to movie?
My point is, that is a secondary or even tertiary issue in the movie. If you've seen the film, you absolutely know that is not what the movie is about.
As for never being persecuted, I believe the Christians and Catholics, and whole hosts of other people (ie. African-Americans & American Indians) have been persecuted over time. Let's not make it seem that they're the only one to have such done over the history of human existence.
I agree with you 100%. I did not see your comment as anti-semitic, I saw it as something that could be applied equally to the grandchildren of German or Japanese soldiers in WWII, etc. etc.
Maybe children of the IRA...was not one of those movies called the 'Sins of my Father'?
The point being, I think anyone who's only connection with an historical event is their lineage, might well get upset being reminded of something they perhaps detest themselves, but for which they had no responsibility. So why would that upset YOU?
It's not your problem. Just try to understand it and move on. |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
quote:
Originally posted by DaleB
I agree with you 100%. I did not see your comment as anti-semitic, I saw it as something that could be applied equally to the grandchildren of German or Japanese soldiers in WWII, etc. etc.
Maybe children of the IRA...was not one of those movies called the 'Sins of my Father'?
The point being, I think anyone who's only connection with an historical event is their lineage, might well get upset being reminded of something they perhaps detest themselves, but for which they had no responsibility. So why would that upset YOU?
It's not your problem. Just try to understand it and move on.
DaleB,
I do understand her point. One of the very first things I heard about the film (at least from a New York perspective) is "ANTI-SEMITIC, ANTI-SEMITIC, ANTI-SEMITIC". You don't here movies like "Pearl Harbor" labeled as "Anti Japanese" or at least not on this scale.
Basically, I think what she is saying is stop the whining . |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
| I guess now, I'm anti-semitic. |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
I guess now, I'm anti-semitic.
Not hardly, but I think we can thank the media for amplifying the 'whining' or maybe making a 'whine' out of a 'concern.
You can talk to some WWII veterans. Then there are the Chinese, and Filipinos who express some real hatred towards the Japanese. Especially since they never received an apology from the present government. Not to say they slam Japanese-Americans today, but they definitely have not forgotten.
For me, I'd rather make Wine out of Water..but I hear that's been done! |
|
|
| zafer |
Some experts are saying the Passion is an accurate portrayal of the last hours of Jesus. When asked how he got the actor to convey so much suffering, Mel Gibson said, 'I made him watch Lethal Weapon 4.'
:19: |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
Gibson says he cut it (Mt 27,25) in order “to quell legitimate fears”.
Apparently Gibson thought the whiners had a legitimate concern. |
|
|
| Blackura |
quote:
Originally posted by BaldEagle
3. I already know the ending.
But it's not over yet. :-)
And Zafer, you're KILLING me here. Do you do stand up? Write a humor column? You should! |
|
|
| hhwc |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
I'm not sure if your remark was intended as humorous, so I'm not sure how or if to respond. But I think Jewish groups are understandably concerned about alarming signs of increased antisemitism. Anti-semitism has frequently appealed to New Testament texts to justify bias, prejudice, hatred, murder, etc.
This movie is definitely NOT anti-semitic. No one group killed Jesus. The sins of us humans killed Jesus. If any of you saw the movie, the part where Jesus states you have no power over me that isn't granted to you from above should make it crystal clear. He sacrificed Himself; He let them kill Him.
If Jesus was not killed, none of us would have salvation. Salvation for us was the goal.
If you want to know what anti-semitic is....look at the streets in the Middle East and increasingly in Europe (eg. France). That's anti-semitism. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by hhwc
If Jesus was not killed, none of us would have salvation. Salvation for us was the goal.
Apparently more may be required, at least in the Gospel According to Mell Gibson:
Mel Gibson ... apparently, he feels that Protestants are also doomed to damnation. In fact, it looks like Gibson, a conservative Catholic, believes that his Episcopalian wife could be going to hell.
Gibson was interviewed by the Herald Sun in Australia, and the reporter asked the star if Protestants are denied eternal salvation. “There is no salvation for those outside the Church,” Gibson replied. “I believe it.”
He elaborated: “Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She’s a much better person than I am. Honestly. She’s, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it’s just not fair if she doesn’t make it, she’s better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it.”
See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4224452/ |
|
|
| HARDROCK |
If you want to know what anti-semitic is....look at the streets in the Middle East and increasingly in Europe (eg. France). That's anti-semitism.
What it really is, is ANTI-ZIONISM... |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
Apparently more may be required, at least in the Gospel According to Mell Gibson:
I wonder how we made it this far without Mel's guidance. I would think Jesus would have preferred a movie about love, than one about how He suffered. But then I am not as enlightened as Mel. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by DaleB
I wonder how we made it this far without Mel's guidance. I would think Jesus would have preferred a movie about love, than one about how He suffered. But then I am not as enlightened as Mel.
Maybe the biblical inspiration for Mel's Braveheart marriage counseling comes from Mt 10,34-36 (cf Lk 12,49.51-53):
"Ye may not suppose that I came to put peace on the earth; I did not come to put peace, but a sword; for I came to set a man at variance against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and the enemies of a man are those of his household." |
|
|
| robrecht |
If Mel Gibson were to make a Life of Jesus, maybe he would be more like Braveheart than I would have thought?
See Mt 11,12 (cf Lk 16,16):
"And, from the days of John the Baptist till now, the reign of the heavens doth suffer violence, and violent men do take it by force." |
|
|
| hhwc |
French theaters won't show 'Passion'
February 29, 2004
BY KIM WILLSHER
PARIS -- French cinema chains are refusing to distribute or screen Mel Gibson's controversial film "The Passion of the Christ" because of fears it will spark a new outbreak of anti-Semitism.
France is the only European country where there is still no distribution deal for the film, which depicts the last days of Jesus Christ in graphic detail and is accused by critics of stoking anti-Jewish sentiment.
The film was released in America last week, but French distributors are wary of its impact on audiences and want to gauge its reception elsewhere in Europe, where it is due to open next month.
"We don't want to be on the side of those who support such anti-Semitism," a veteran film industry figure said. "When we distributed 'It's a Beautiful Life' by [Roberto] Benigni, we were worried about the risk of making a comedy about the Holocaust, but that was different. There's enough anti-Semitic stuff circulating here already without us throwing oil on the fire."
The debate over the film is highly sensitive in France, where a spate of firebombings of synagogues and Jewish schools and attacks on rabbis over the last year has led Israel to denounce it as the most anti-Semitic country in Europe.
Anger with Israel among France's large and growing Muslim population, combined with the strength of right-wing parties in some French districts, have contributed to an atmosphere that has alarmed political and Jewish leaders.
Last year, Paris police were forced to set up a dedicated unit to deal with anti-Semitic crimes. Schoolteachers complain they face a hostile reaction among Muslim students when trying to teach the history of the Holocaust, which some equate with Israel's actions against Palestinians in the occupied territories.
Many in France fear "The Passion" will stir up angry reaction of a different kind. The newspaper Liberation described Gibson's faith as "a Shiite version of Christianity . . . imbibed with blood and pain" which "reduces the message of Christ to his death by torture." |
|
|
|
