1
   

Mel Gibson's The Passion, sparking concern from the ADL.

 
 
Sofia
 
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2003 05:40 pm
The Jewish Anti-Defamation League is more than a little vocal in their worry that Mel's movie may cause a new wave of anti-Semitism. While most of us are squarely against anti-Semitism, I believe that movies are art, and should be presented no matter what the subject matter--

The following is part of the ADL's press release concerning the movie.
---------------
ADL Statement on Mel Gibson's "The Passion"
New York, NY, June 24, 2003 ... Throughout history Christian dramatizations of the passion, i.e. the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, have fomented anti-Semitic attitudes and violence against the Jewish people. During the past forty years the Roman Catholic and most Protestant churches have issued pastoral and scholarly documents that interpret the death and resurrection of Jesus in their historical and theological contexts. These churches repudiate the teachings that gave rise to Christian accusations that Jews were "Christ killers." They make clear that correct Christian readings and applications of the New Testament must avoid provoking or reinforcing anti-Semitic attitudes and behavior.

In light of the numerous media accounts of Mel Gibson's upcoming film, "The Passion," the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) joined with the Secretariat of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in April, 2003 to assemble Jewish and Catholic scholars to evaluate an early version of the movie's screenplay (the names of the committee's nine scholars appear below). Both offices were in communication with representatives of ICON Productions, including Mel Gibson himself, who indicated their willingness to consider the scholars' suggestions.

ADL thanks the scholars for their work and ADL fully stands behind their report. The committee unanimously agreed that the screenplay reviewed was replete with objectionable elements that would promote anti-Semitism.

The rest of the press release.

It seems to me the ADL is operating under a different history than I have, though I do get mine from the Bible, and understand this history is not universally accepted.

Are they attempting to rewrite history, or is my history (the Jews, in the trial and crucifixition of Christ, did act as portrayed in the Bible) incorrect?

Interested in any and all related discussion.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 51,433 • Replies: 1,049
No top replies

 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2003 05:51 pm
Yes, films ARE art, but people need to know where this is coming from. Is everyone aware that Mel's father, Hutton Gibson, is a notorious anti-semite and holocaust denier?

Normally I would not paint with such a broad brush. IMO children are not responsible for the beliefs of their fathers, but taking his father into consideration, it is curious to me that Mel Gibson chose THIS particular subject.

http://66.165.133.65/politics/religion/gibson.asp
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2003 05:53 pm
I know this looks bad for Mel, but, to my knowledge he has not publicly endorsed his father's beliefs.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2003 05:56 pm
Go to Scopes, where this is largely debunked . . . Mel's father is certainly a crack-pot, and Mel belongs to an ultramontane catholic congregation--but for the most part, this is a work of libel based upon inference . . .

Anyway, i think we did this already . . .
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2003 05:57 pm
edgarblythe- Going back to my original response, there are infinite sources of material for movies. Why pick this one? Mel obviously know that there would be controversy. What was his agenda in becoming involved in THIS particular project?
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2003 06:05 pm
Oops. I had remembered discussing the movie somewhere, but didn't see the thread, and hadn't realized the ADL had voiced their objection, after seeing the screenplay, previous to our other discussion.

If so, please disregard.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2003 06:06 pm
Setanta wrote:
Anyway, i think we did this already . . .


Yup! It's here: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8385
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2003 06:07 pm
I don't know, Boss, if they did or did not see it . . . i do think that they're organizin' the lynch mob before the alleged crime--just in case. As to why Mel would make the movie, his participation in the ultramontane catholic congregation explains it all sufficiently to my understanding.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2003 06:31 pm
Mel says the film is not anti Semitic. I would like to view the contents for myself before making a judgement. As I said, it looks bad for Mel - But: I want to wait a bit longer before crucifying him.
0 Replies
 
Jim
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2003 09:12 pm
Why does this look bad for Mel? He is a devout Christian, and has made a movie about (what to him) is the most important event in all history.

So his father is a crackpot. So what? I love my father dearly, but I wouldn't want to be associated with everything he's said either.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2003 01:19 pm
I answer yes, but cheekily. Certainly not in this case, whatever this movie might be. Yes in the instance of any movie made without fully willing participation of the folks involved...
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2003 01:53 pm
I remember a similar hoohaw before Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" was released, only from the other side. All this will do is create more interest in the movie. From what I've read about it, it sounds all but unwatchable. Let it sink of its own weight...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2003 03:17 pm
Yes, D'Art, it's to be done in Aramaic and Latin . . . with subtitles . . . uh huh . . . that'll get 'em lined up . . .
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2003 03:29 pm
You have to admire Mel's attention to detail and his dogged determination to get this right, don't you, Setanta? I know I do...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2003 03:31 pm
In a way, yes . . . from a practical point of view, it's highly unlikely that it will recover the production costs, not in first release, at any rate. Mel's doin' this for his own religiously-motivated reasons, and i think the JDL, and organizaton which i personally despise, is just tryin' to position itself in the event they can find something offensive in it. Failing that, they'll just keep their mouths shut, and likely their foolishness will be forgotten . . .
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2003 03:35 pm
Aramaic? Man, and I thought Shatner's movie in Esparanto was ill-conceived.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2003 03:43 pm
Aramaic? That'll draw them in. I really liked him in those movies with Dannie Glover. When an entertainer starts to think of himself as the representative of something big, we may have trouble. How much different is this from Barbra Streisand's struggles to be political? Oh, it is in content, but the initial ego and id is there.

I wish Mel Gibson hadn't done this. It goes into another, sometimes dangerous realm, and is just as likely to draw negative reactions, no matter what the JDL's stance is. And for me the religious belief is always tempered by the religious zeal.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2003 03:45 pm
Could be the worst effort by a major star to promulgate a religious ideology since Battlefield Earth!
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2003 03:49 pm
patiodog wrote:
Aramaic? Man, and I thought Shatner's movie in Esparanto was ill-conceived.


Is this true? Shatner did a film in Esperanto? Are you puttin' us on, dawg?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2003 05:52 pm
I am much more interested in the ethical question than in this specific movie. I personally don't there is a good reason to censor *any* movie.

If "dangerous" ideas exist in our society, isn't it better that they are out in the open where we can deal with them?

I thought this is the idea behind the first amendment. It seems to have worked pretty well for us over the past 200 years.

But here is the question that is interesting to me.

Under *what circumstances* should we censor a movie? If there are movies on your list, please answer who gets to decide which ideas are dangerous. (This is of course very difficult when dealing with religion).

With the possible exception of child pornography, I will argue that censorship is always wrong and always causes more harm than good to a society.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Mel Gibson's The Passion, sparking concern from the ADL.
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/30/2024 at 10:08:37