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

ebrown
You are in line with my thinking. There are some types of misinformation that has to be censored, such as, "Drano is good to drink." That example is a little too broad, but I think my meaning is clear.

(...To answer a question quickly: Incubus

...)

Absolutely agree. IMO, each adult has the right to choose for him/herself what their standards are in terms of entertainment. To me, the best way to deal with something that you find unpalatable is to stay away from it. If enough people agree with you, the film will die on the vine!

D'Art, you know, i once had a conversation with a local, self-proclaimed conservative, and he was expounding upon the necessity to legislate morality, because the "lower classes" have no notion of how properly to live their lives. I asked him who were to decide what morality is, to which he replied "good men." And who would that be, George? Me, i'm a good man.

What i didn't say, rather, just turning away, was: "No, George, you're one of the most hateful bastards i've ever come across." Saying this only on the basis of anectdotal information, my experience, the one's who wish to be in charge of our "morality" are the one's least qualified to judge their fellows . . .

I can't see how anyone can 'censor' such a film, just boycott it. If the theatres in the USA don't pick it up, there's always alternative routes. If it flops, that's going to be worse than any pressure that the ADL could muster. You don't lose Hollywood's money and survive.

I think you mean by boycott, just don't go, which I agree with. Boycott with signs...well, brings to mind the saying that no publicity is bad publicity.

It will probably be a turgid turkey anyway.

Hmm, how to see if it really is antisemitic without actually seeing it, paying for a ticket.

Ah, not an immediate problem for me, I am just not that interested in such a movie, but I'll probably read various reviews to see what they say.

In Canada, we do have laws which criminalize 'hate speech'. I haven't read them, but know they took a while to write. I have had disagreements previously with folks whom I respect and who have held that no law can be written on this matter which won't be subject to misuse, but I doubt that is so. Or even if it is, surely this can be done in such a way as the danger of misuse is extremely minimal. That small danger, weighed against what we know humans can get up to as regarding demonizing some group (jews in the 20s and 30s in Europe, or gays now) is the sort of trade off we often must make when interests and principles conflict.

That being said, I hold that 'causing offence' to some religious member of members is quite a different matter (defiling icons, for example) and ought not to be subject to any state control.

Sorry, I should elaborate on that earlier post.

I meant that no-one could actually censor it, that is a function of a regulated body that can allow such films to be available for commercial release. I just pointed out that the only path for the individual is to boycott, to refuse to either see the film or endorse products or associated commercial interests (Tshirts, Happy Meals, advertising, etc). Even if it isn't picked up by the big distributors, there will always be independents and alternative venues, so there can't ever be total 'censorship', just your ability to refuse to hand over the price of admission.

Hope this clears it up.

I have just bought probably one of the most anti-semitic (and very funny) DVDs on the face of the globe, starring a superb entertainer. It is probably true to say that it is so anti-Jewish that any Christian comedian uttering exactly the same words, would have caused international outrage, been vilified by the media and been blacklisted.

Of course, it didn't happen because the star is Jackie Mason - and there is no objection to Jews being rude about other Jews.

Humor and rudeness go hand in hand. It's our way of dealing with unpleasant situations. I wouldn't make too much of it.

role reversal - doubting The Passion
It is absolutely incredible how you folks don't believe in censorship in one minute and in the next are "questioning his motive". gimmie a break. why is it that a true story haunts you? anyone who believes that the movie will spark anti-semitic (improper use of the word, by the way) feelings is entitled to their opinion, albeit uneducated and ignorant.

I have already made it clear in this thread and the other devoted to this topic that i consider this to be a tempest in a teapot, and that Gibson is being condemned before the fact.

Nevertheless, i am interested to know how it is, Seb, that you feel qualified to make the following statment in your first post at this site: 'It is absolutely incredible how you folks don't believe in censorship in one minute and in the next are "questioning his motive".'

Well, welcome seb!
Don't be shy--tell us what you really think!

seb--You don't think movies or other media can lead to aroused anger and ultimately action?

I agree strongly with Setanta--that Mel is being unfairly criticised before the facts or the movie has been released.

If my dad was a nutjob, even if I disagreed strongly with his views--I most likely wouldn't say so publicly--nor would I feel I owed it to anyone to do so.

Thanks for the welcome. I feel "qualified" because I've read just about everything there is to read on this topic, including the exchange in dialogue amongst the good folks here. Of course media and films, etc., can spark a whole array of emotions. My problem is that this story (The Passion) has been told before. In other words, everyone knows the story - there will be no surprises. The only thing the director is doing (at least according to what he says he will do) is providing an artistically visual depiction of the passion, with all it's horror and brutality, and as true to the scripture as possible. The only thing new here is the "true brutality" of the scourging and crucifixion. Since there's nothing new, why should there be a "spark of anti-semitism"?

You think my response is ignorant, etc.?

No, no, no. I apologize for my having miscommunicated my point. My point is that the very same people who are against censorship seem to be the very first ones to question Gibson's motives to make this movie. Why? Doesn't the question automatically imply that his motive is negative and therefore should not have been made/released - or should be edited "properly" as the Jewish Anti Defamation League has said? It's ignorant to criticize a movie, a topic, or whatever, without being more informed about it. My use of "you folks" was incorrect.

Latin eh, hmm...and Aramaic...sounds like a stinker to me, especially in the wake of 'Last Temptation of Christ' which has already been pointed out in this thread as a controversial movie for it's time. Can't pass judgement before the movie is seen, IMO.

seb--
I happen to agree with your last post, up to the last sentence.

I can't understand why the ADL is so upset about what Mel says will be a retelling of the Biblical account of the Passion. The story has been told and retold for the last 2000 years. They seem to want to soften the Jews' role.

But, I do think this movie has the ability to cause a backlash against Jews. I think most of the participating members take exception to your remark that only ignorant or uneducated people would think the movie could result in anti-Semitic acts. (Refreshed and see that at least one member concurs.) EDIT-- I see you clarified, seb.

My criticism of "Last Temptation" was, it did not follow the book. I have loved that novel for about 40 years.