Linda wrote:After seeing the movie I feel is if I were there when they crucified my Lord. A very moving faith strengthning experience. It was very close to the Bible account. I see no anti- semitism that should come from it. It was as it was, Christ being crucified is not something you blame some one for. Mel Gibson did an exceptional job with the movie.
As for the album it will most likely ride on the coat tail of the movie, or try to.
It is well established in the most highly respected circles or historians and theologians that the Jesus was not killed by the Jews, but by the Romans, for whom crucifixion was typical punishment. Therefore, this movie is not as it was. But if brutality is your thing, remember that many, many more Jews have been murdered, under the most unimaginable circumstances, by Christians than Christians have been murdered by Jews. Brutality must be your thing, if this movie was such a turn-on.
Please take a better look at your sources; but if Gibson is your source, maybe you should just try some other sources.
An ardent Christian and Princeton religious historian, Elaine Pagels, is an excellent and accessible writer. If you care about Jesus, you might want to take a look at The Origin of Satan, or one of her other works.
Kush wrote:Yes, I liked The Passion very much also as a piece of dramatic history. And I don't think it was anti-semitic either. Moreover, Mary was portrayed by a Jewish woman from Romania.
Wow.
So the fact that black people have taken parts in movies that stereotype and lead to prejudice against Blacks is proof that those movies aren't racist!!!
Or the fact that women have taken roles in films that are demeaning and insulting to women is evidence that those movies aren't degrading to women!
Suppose the individual Blacks or women who have taken such roles, under various circumstances, in interviews say, oh no, that movie wasn't racist/misogynist/etc.---should the rest of us just nod in agreement and say, "Well, a Black, or a woman, said it wasn't degrading so it must not be racist!"?
I read in the Bible, a long time ago now, about the Passion of the Christ. It was said that the Roman Empire, to keep the peace in conquered lands, let the former forms of government in place, and let them power over their people, as long as they were submitted to the Empire.
Jesus was a rebel amongst its pairs and he did not want to "shut down". He was going againts the priets he was growing powerful and disturbing the order, he was menacing the power of Jews priets and leaders more than the Romans, so the Jews ask the Roman to take care of this because this was their juridiction according to their politic agreement.
Crucifixion was ordinary punishment in those times, rembember? He had not a treatment of favour because he was "the king of the Jews". Just put it straight, right away.
Now the movie.
***
"He can love the shape of human beings, the fine and twisted shapes of the heart. It is good to have among us such men, such balancing monsters of love."
But, if sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, I just hope Gibson did not use this powerful symbol for anti-Semitic purpose. A guy whith such beautiful eyes, ay!
In the other hand, I'm afraid that the accusations where just a misused of the politically correct fashion. You know, if you are an "opressed minority" you HAVE to be seen as nice people all the time, not able to act like "normal people". It is a very racist and dangerous way of thinking, as far as I'm concern.
Well, as I say I did not see the movie, I am not particularly found of gory pictures, but now I think that I have to see it, knowing what I have learn here. Thank you Kush.
***
"He can love the shape of human beings, the fine and twisted shapes of the heart. It is good to have among us such men, such balancing monsters of love."
I think you completely misread Linda and made an assumption about Kush that is completely unwarranted. Linda did not say that this movie was a turn-on for her. Kush made a valid statement about "all" people. he was not making a racist statement. Unlike Kush, I am a Christian. Unlike your highly respected theologians I do not believe the text of the Bible is corrupt. These "theologians" (including the Jesus Seminar people) believe that the Biblical text is so corrupt that for instance, the only two words attributable to Jesus in the "Lord's Prayer" are the words, "Our Father." It is absurd to critique a corrupt text...I mean for crying out loud...what is it then that you are critiqueing? All of these "theologians" are non-believers. I have a great deal of respect for people like Kush who just lay it on the line and say, No, I'm not a Christian, instead of these hypocrites who pretend that Jesus was a good guy (maybe!) but nothing he said or did or his followers said or did can be counted on...and then make their living trumpeting their unbelief...While still maintaining their standing in the "Christian" community. It is the rankest hypocrisy. No other field of intellectual endeavor would put up with it.
Mark,
The origins of the accusations against the Jews are not divine; they come from sections of the Bible that are known (and there is agreement on this across the religious and scholarly board) to have been written by human beings. There are other accounts (Gospels), written by people, who lived at the same time that give very different accounts of what happened, who was behind it (and some that don't even mention its occurrence). These other accounts, together with other sources, have led the Catholic Church (Vatican II), the mainstream Protestant Churches, and all religious historians with serious credentials to agree that the Jewish people of that time were not responsible for the death of Jesus. This is important because for many hundreds of years, through the Crusades, the Inquistions, pogroms in Europe, the Holocaust, Jews were killed because of the claim that the Jews had killed Jesus. Now along comes Mel Gibson who is bringing the libel back to life with his negative stereotypical depiction and charge that the Jews killed Jesus. If you have any doubt about his motivation, read or listen to his interviews, and the interview of his father.
I never said the Biblical texts are corrupt and I never would say that. There are parts of the Bible that are--for those of us that believe--the words of God. There are other parts that are written by humans. I believe there is a difference, because humans are fallible, which is why it is important to compare human sources. The parts that are divinely inspired are not fallible, and if there appear to be inconsistencies, they should be studied to be understood.
Gibson is not the Lord. But he says that his critics are "persecuting" him, as if he himself were Jesus. He claims that he was inspired by God in the making of this movie, as if every claim made in the movie is Truth. This is dangerous and if you read the links I included you will see examples of the danger. Imagine the impact of this film in societies less tolerant than the US, such as in Europe or certain Middle Eastern countries.
By the way, you are quite wrong on the theologians to whom I was referring. Elaine Pagels, whom I chose as one example, and who really needs no defense in these pages, is a particularly devout Christian and religious historian. Why throw around silly accusations? Just look her up.
Kush's remark begs the question: does the fact that a Jewish woman played a role in the movie mean that the movie could not be anti-Semitic?
I usually test questionable remarks about groups by putting up other examples, as I did in my earlier reply to Kush. Here is another: If in an interview a few Black individuals said, back in the the 1930's, that the South wasn't a racist society----does that make it so?
Does perspective have something to do with it? The South in the 1930's may have been better than the South around 1900. Or they might have been a particularly fortunate group. I read such an interview of Blacks from that time period. It was interesting as a study in perspective, and that is all. The person cited by Kush is from Rumania, a country not especially well known for its tolerance of Jews. This actress who played Mary might just be happy to have been hired despite the fact that she was Jewish.
Tchoc and any others who may be interested.....I thought it was a really good movie and very moving. IMHO. I recommend it and I'll probably see it a second time.
I have yet to see the film [which I will be doing at some point]; however, when I read "Mel Gibson did an exceptional job with the movie," I did not read into it that the writer was a gore-monger. "Psycho" and "1984" [both in black and white] were both exceptionally well-done films. So were "Clockwork Orange" and "The White Lioness" [both in colour]. I, also, very much liked the movie, "Monster" about the serial killer, Eileen Wuornos, for how it accomplished the portrayal of a very difficult subject. That doesn't mean that I subscribe to the negative aspects of any of them; but rather that the intended point[s] were intensely and profoundly delivered. They made a lasting, psychological impact, which 'gore' for the sake of 'gore' fails to do, in and of itself.
I won't know better until I read/hear Mel speak of his intentions, but it seems to me that, with crucifixion not being a form of punishment in our modern-day world, for many hundreds of years we have had no real concept of what it's really all about. From what I've heard about reactions to the film, and the little bit of footage I've seen, the horrific and torturous nature of crucifixion has been real, likely for the first time for many people. For years, we've seen the rather sanitized pictures of Christ on the cross, nails through his hands, etc. [which minimizes what it's really all about], but we have not witnessed all of the gore of the reality of it. I can easily envision Christians feeling more connected and committed to their faith on the basis of "what Christ endured for us."
With the 'blaming' for the event, if one believes the Bible's claim that "G~d sent his only begotten Son....." for the purpose of dying [for 'our' sins], then someone/one group of people had to be the 'pre-ordained,' 'bad guys,' in order that His purpose be fulfilled. I can't speak to the accuracy of that particular aspect, i.e. the Jews/the Romans. However, whichever it was or wasn't, does not defacto make this a bad film.
I look forward to seeing "The Passion of Christ," as I like well-done films.
I just want to clarify that I brought up Maia Morgenstern not in any other sense but to show that the world is really closer and more integrated than we sometimes think. The bad news always gets flashed more.
Maia Morgenstern is not a persecuted Jewish actress looking for work - she is an award winning and Romania's best-known actress and a member of its National theatre. Her parents were Holocaust survivors and her grandfather died in Auschwitz. I'll let her speak for herself:
"Mel Gibson is an artist, a director. He never imposed his religious convictions on anyone.....When people go and see the film, they will (primarily) see a work of art. Muslims, atheists, Christians and Jews worked on the film but race and religion were never an issue. [The movie] is about the responsibility and impact political and military leaders can have in manipulating the masses and interfering in people's conscience, particularly at a moment of crisis as it was then."
The world is getting closer....you can have an englishman portraying Gandhi and a jewish woman portraying Mary. And you can also have Hindu & Sikh temples in and around Fort Worth, TX - the ultimate cowtown boasting the world's biggest honky-tonk bar (Billy Bobs).
The beauty of the system is we can all go to the movie and make up our own minds about it.....and we can also choose not to go if we don't want to.
...the responsibility and impact political and military leaders can have in manipulating the masses and interfering in people's conscience, particularly at a moment of crisis...
> > Authored by Steve Martin for the March 8th "New Yorker" back page.
>>
>> Studio Script Notes On "The Passion"
>>
>> Dear Mel,
>>
>> We love, love the script! the ending works great. You'll be getting
>a call from us to start negotiations for the book rights.
>>
>> --Love the Jesus character. So likable. He can't seem to catch a
>break! We identify with him because of it. One thing: I think we need to
>clearly state "the rules." Why doesn't he use his superpowers to save
>himself? Our creative people suggest that you could simply cut away to
>two spectators:
>>
>> Spectator One
>> Why doesn't he use his superpowers to save himself?
>>
>> Spectator Two
>> He can only use his powers to help others, never himself.
>>
>> --Does it matter which garden? Gethsemane is hard to say, and Eden
>is a much more recognizable garden. Just thinking out loud.
>>
>> --Our creative people suggest a clock visual fading in and out in
>certain scenes like the Last Supper bit: "Thursday, 7:43 P.M.," or "Good
>Friday, 5:14 P.M.
>>
>> --Love the repetition of "Is it I?" Could be very funny. On the
>eighth inquiry, could Jesus just give a little look of exasperation into
>the camera? Breaks frame, but could be a riot.
>>
>> --Also, could he change water into wine in Last Supper scene? Would
>be a great moment, and it's legit. History compression is a movie
>tradition and could really brighten up the scene. Great trailer moment, too.
>>
>> --Love the flaying.
>>
>> --Could the rabbis be Hispanic? There's lots of hot Latino actors
>now, could give us a little zing at the box office. Research says there's
>some historical justification for it.
>>
>> --Possible title change: "Lethal Passion." Kinda works. The more I
>say it out loud, the more I like it.
>>
>> --Is there someplace where Jesus could be using an IBook? You know,
>now that I say it, it sounds ridiculous. Strike that. But think about
>it. Maybe we start a shot in Heaven with Jesus thoughtfully closing the
>top?
>>
>> --Love the idea of Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene (yow!). Our
>creative people suggest a name change to Heather. Could skew our audience
>a little younger.
>>
>> --Love Judas. Such a great villain. Our creative people suggest that
>he's a little complicated. Couldn't he be one thing? Just bad? Gives
>the movie much more of a motor. Also, thirty pieces of silver is not
>going to get anyone excited. I think it'd be very simple to make him a "new
>millionaire." Bring in the cash on a tray. Great dilemma that the
>audience can identify with.
>>
>> --Minor spelling error: on page 18, in the description of the
>bystanders, there should be a space between the words "Jew" and "boy."
>>
>> --Merchandising issue: it seems the Cross image has been done to
>death and is public domain---we can't own it. Could the Crucifixion scene
>involve something else? A Toyota would be wrong, but mabe there's a
>shape we can copyright, like a wagon wheel?
>>
>> --I'm assuming "The dialogue is in Aramaic" is a typo for
>"American." If not, call me on my cell, or I'm at home all weekend.
>>
>> By the way, I'm sending a group of staffers on a cruise to the North
>Pole, coincidentally around the time of your picture's release. Would
>love to invite your dad!
>>
>> See you at the movies!
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Stan
No one took Jesus's life he gave it voluntarily, he had the right and the power. Therefore placing blame is nonsense, that it will promote anti semitism is nonsense, trumped up by hate mongers.
