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

I just got around to reading an interview with Gibson in the 9/15 New Yorker. Maybe that was discussed earlier here (I didn't scroll back far enough) but what comes through to me is that Gibson wants this the film to be as bloody as possible. This, apparently, conforms to his literal notion of what must have happened to Jesus.

So, ironically, all the kidding around earlier re how this is going to be some sort of Mad Max film with spiritual overtones may not be too far off the mark!

0 Replies

Well it can't have guns, car crashes, or sex, so it must have lots of blood...

0 Replies

And overblown crowd scenes as the throngs of bloodthirsty Jews has been increased considerably over any descriptive passages in the Bible and is also ignoring the Catholic Council's objection that it would start a new wave of anti-Semitism among Christians. So it's not just the ADL -- Gibson's folly may still not have much box office and die a death of its own. Otherwise, can anyone see how counter productive this is considering current world problems?

0 Replies

Lightwized: Mel has a higher agenda, I suspect. And some of his co-believers are criticizing him for not being tough enough on the Jews...

There are scary people, for sure...

0 Replies

Depends on whether you discern it as a higher agenda or a lower agenda. The subtext appears to be there and as I've said before, my friends in the industry say he is seriously considering some reshooting and reediting. It's one thing to exagerate the historical accomplishments of William Wallace and another the exagerate one's religious beliefs to put down another religion -- especially one that is our friend and the only democracy in the Middle East. He's really breeding a scab on his nose with the number of Jews in Hollywood. Or is he going to abandon Hollywood -- he has his own independent production company. He's had some hits and some flops, of course, and he desperately still needs the distribution.

0 Replies

A cubit is the length of the forearm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. Sort of thing to drive the anal-retentive to distraction.

0 Replies

According to that New Yorker article, Miramax is one of the companies that may distribute his film. Go figure...

0 Replies

This guy says no anti-Semitism

0 Replies

Both the Catholic Church and the ADL are saying the film is whether Mel thinks he is or not. I'm not waiting with baited breath and the Jesus in the film has been struck by lighting (but not killed -- a warning?)

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14035

0 Replies

And I'm sure when "The De Vinci Code" makes it onto the screen, there will be controversy over the idea that Christ was married to Mary Magdalene (who actually was not a prostitute).

0 Replies

The last heard re the film (in the Nov. 3 NY Times), it still hasn't found a distributor. Gibson evidently has his own distribution company, but I guess it's not a large one.

Really, when all is said and done, I believe the film should be released, assuming someone does finally decide to distribute it. Then it will or won't find its audience. And then it will be forgotten...

0 Replies

Of course it should be released. It's really whether it will find enough of an audience to sit through a film in Latin without sub-titles. Even with sub-titles, you've cut off a lot of your potential audience. If people are drawn to it to see how gory they can make the Crucifixion, I have no words for that. Robert Novak is the same reporter who outed the CIA agent.

0 Replies

I will probably see it, mostly for the fun of seeing a movie in Latin, but I have never claimed to be normal. Very Happy

0 Replies

Yes, but you can translate, right? You don't have you own private chapel which gives Catholic services in the original Latin by any chance?

0 Replies

I figure I could fill in for a 14th century priest if I had to. Wink

0 Replies

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

Sofia wrote:

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.

You should know better than saying your history source is the bible, then asking for evidence supporting it or not supporting it. The bible is not a historical source, it is a religious source, and why the movie is religious based, you should look to history and historians for historical information, not the bible.
If I remember correctly, it was the pharesis (note: Jewish leaders of one sect of Jews - sort of like bishops who had political influence) conspiring with the Romans who intentionally wanted to bring christianity down. Thanks to Constantine making a political decision to ally with the Christians, Christianity is now all the rage.

This site seems pretty informative: http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

There are so many problems with the "jews killed jesus" approach. It's much like being in america today and saying "Whites enslaved blacks." It is true, white people did enslave black people. However, the cultural roles of race and religion change over time, and may not have been wholly representative in the first place. For example, not all American whites were slave owners. Secondly, does that make people with white skin currently in America rascist descendants of slaves? Saying that they were because of the past is the same reason for anti-semi sentiment stemming from opposition to Jesus in history.

I absolutely think people have rights to say whatever they want without penalty (excluding the falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre bit - where the intent is only to harm and is dangerous), and these people should have every opportunity to make themselves look stupid. Who cares if the movie is incorrect or defames a segment of the population? The "teeming masses" will hopefully be aware that it's incorrect, and watch the movie knowing there is bias.

0 Replies

The crux is whether it is a good film. From the clips and the commentary by those who have seen it in its rough cut, it's always going to be in the eye of the beholder. Can the general public, religious or not, sit through a two hour movie spoken in an antiquated tongue with no subtitles? I still don't buy that being more graphic than previous films which tended to somewhat sanitize the gore is going to make a better telling of the tale. The Bible, unfortunately, is accepted as history by many believers even if someone doesn't expect it to be historically true. The "science" of Creationism is nust one of the crazy manifistation.

0 Replies

I say lay it on us. It will sink or float all by itself.

0 Replies

Fear not, it will be "laid on". The film will have English subtitles and will open on Ash Wednesday. It will be distributed by Newmarket Films which distributed the outstanding films "Whale Rider" and "Memento".

0 Replies

There is a game called telephone that starts with a group of people sitting in a circle. One person is told a fact and each person whispers it along with the last person telling the group what the fact was. The message usually gets distorted and twisted as each person adds their own interpretation.

I can't believe how people repeat the same lies over and over again. Mel Gibson has repeatly said on the record this is not an anti-semitic film and that main message is that all our sins nailed Christ to the cross. Yes - The villians and heroes in this film are Jewish. It is a Jewish story filled with Jewish people from beginning to end - some good and some bad.

Many reviews of this film concur that its thrust is not a Jewish deicide but a global (everyone) deicide.

A number of Jewish conservative rabbis have now jumped ship from Abe Foxman's (ADL) position that this film is anti semitic.

Rabbi Eugene Korn and Rabbi Dainiel Lapthum have both shared concerns over this mantra - this rant that this is an anti-semitic film. They are concened that people will see the film and not see any anti-semitism and remember the groundless rants of a few ignorant people.

To say this film is anti-semitic is the equvalent of saying what goes on every Sunday in churches is anti-semitic.

Mel Gibson has remained faithful to the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. He is so concerened he went back to the orignal languages of Aramaic and Hebrew.

As individual, free thinking people I believe you cannot judge the film until you have seen it. Going on heresay is mind numbing. If you let someone else tell you what this movie "is" than you might as well plug into the matrix because you have stopped thinking for yourself.

If it has one hint of anti-semitism I will lead the ticket stub burning protest outside the theatre. I am very pro-Israel and believe there is a rising tide of Anti-semitism however this is one of those cases where a deep breath and smelling salts may allow the Movie to be judged on its merits.

Peace,

Wake up and Smell the Coffee

Here are a few articles about some free thinking Rabbis on Mel Gibson's "the Passion"

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/11/13/180156.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/10/143546.shtml

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know