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

Wow, I was surprised that Bill Maher liked the movie.

This from his appearance on Lary King Live:

KING: OK, the Gibson movie. I saw you last week say you liked it.

MAHER: I did. I think it's a serious movie by a serious filmmaker. And it's funny, I'm the last guy in the world that should be defending this movie because as you know, I think religion is a neurological disorder. And so I think anyone who believes in this stuff is -- you know, it's like -- when you're a kid, anything they drill into your brain. The analogy I make is when I was a kid, they drilled religion into my brain. They also put mercury into my teeth. When I got to be an adult, I found out mercury was bad. I had it drilled out. I would do the same with religion.

But having said that, I can understand how infuriating it is to Mel Gibson to read these reviews and the critics who keep saying things like, Well, the movie is very negative. It's all about the last 12 hours. Yes, that's the movie he was making! They reviewed -- they review it like they're reviewing their Jesus move, except they didn't make a Jesus movie because they don't have the talent or the drive or the passion to make a movie. So yes, it's negative. Well, thank you for identifying the elephant in the room and then reviewing the fly that's on its rear end.

You know, the other thing I would like to say about is the anti- Semitism angle. People talk about this. OK, I didn't find it especially anti-Semitic. Yes, they portrayed the Romans probably nicer than the Romans should have been portrayed, at least Pontius Pilate, and the Jews not so good. But you know what? I don't know if that's purposeful anti-Semitism.

I think what you have is a situation where there was a priesthood, and priesthoods protect their power. Look at what we've seen in recent years with the Catholic priesthood around the world, and especially in this country. They close ranks and they protect their power. So I don't think it is anti-Semitic to say that the Jewish elite in the 1st century AD, under Roman occupation, collaborated in the extirpation of a troublemaker. That's what priesthoods do. They collaborate in getting rid of the guy who's a threat. And a guy who's going around saying "The meek shall inherit the earth," that was a big threat.

KING: How about the people who are saying, though, that he was not beaten on way to the cross, that there were no whippings, that he was convicted by Pontius Pilate and sent to the cross, where he was crucified, but all those beatings, they say, it's not in the Scripture.

MAHER: Well, first of all, the Scripture is not gospel. People think Gospel means the truth because they use it in a phrase. It's the gospel. Gospel means "good news." The Gospels, as scholars will tell you, were written from 40 to 70 years after Jesus died. So nobody really knows what happened.

KING: So Gibson has the right...

MAHER: They were not meant...

KING: ... to interpret is as he wishes.

MAHER: You know, the Bible...

KING: It's his movie.

MAHER: Yes. Not that I believe in the Bible, but it was not meant to be taken literally. They're literally daring you not to take it literally. For example, there are two Creation stories. There are several versions of what happens to Jesus in the four Gospels, and you can see that in the movie. He's up on the cross, and he says, "Why has thou forsaken me, Father." That's in only one of the Gospels. There is nothing like that, nothing like that tone, because that line comes from a Gospel that was written right after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, and the writer wanted the audience who was reading it to feel the pain as -- of Jesus as Jesus was feeling their pain at the time of their trouble. So these writers all had a different agenda, and it was not the absolute truth.

KING: So it's historic. Bill Maher gives a thumb's-up to "The Passion of the Christ."

MAHER: Yes. I think for what it is, this man deserves a lot of credit. We always talk about how the fact that we want passion and sincerity and honesty in a movie. Well, from this artist, that is what you get in this movie. And anyone who says he did it for money is crazy. Nobody would even believe this movie was going to get distributed six months ago. Nobody wanted to touch it. It was anti- Semitic. Imagine doing an anti-Semitic movie in Jewish-run Hollywood? Everything was against him, as far as making money or doing it for commercial reasons.

KING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) thought about it. And let's do it in Aramaic and Latin.

MAHER: Aramaic. Again, you know, we made -- I made jokes about that. When you go to see this movie, you understand that is the exact right choice, was to do it in Aramaic or whatever the language was at the time, and use subtitles. It gives it a gravitas it never would have if he was speaking Americanese. It was the smart choice by a smart filmmaker.

KING: He's a great filmmaker.

MAHER: He is. I loved "Braveheart."

I know you've written that, and I believe you mean it, but I am wondering whether you've been moved to protest it so strongly in other cases or only in the case of this movie. That's why I asked whether you could show me other cases of you making this complaint of other movies. Apparently you can't, which leads me to believe that you are setting a different standard for this movie than you do for others, which begs the question: Why? The possible answers I can see are:

A) You don't like Mel Gibson. (Could be true, but he's done other violent movies for you to complain about, and apparently you haven't.)

B) Your concern over children viewing violence is new. (You tell me it is not.)

C) You have a fundamental, knee-jerk, negative reaction to this movie based on the subject matter; the life of Jesus Christ. (This last seems like the obvious choice given what you have told us.)

What a graphic confirmation of Hazlitt's "tack hammer" dismissal of Scrat's rhetorical technique.

And this is a wonderful example of your penchant for personal attack.

There is no personal attack, although it is part and parcel of your forensic style to try to play the martyr, and paint those who disagree with you, or hold your rhetorical technique in comtempt as having launched a personal attack. That remark criticizes your rhetorical style, it does not reflect on your character, your race, your gender, your personal behavior, nor any other aspect of your personality--a subject of which i know nothing, and which interests me not in the least.

To claim that criticism of the content or method of your debate is a personal attack is to make meaningless the concept of debate. I expect no less of you, because of a long history of attempting such foolishness, rather than addressing substantive points scored against you.

You just can't help yourself, can you?

I want to thank you for a good laugh over that "points scored against you" comment. Not only was the laugh enjoyable, but your writing that has given me a clearer window into why you behave as you do. That you see the goal here as scoring points against others explains much. Yes, that makes so much sense.

No, i don't see it that way. However, i do see you attempting to turn the subject when someone effectively denies or demolishes your contentions, or attempting to characterize criticism of your content or style as a personal attack. If that fails, you simply ignore the refutation of your specious posts, and disappear for a while, at which point you return to raise false or insigificant issues, and attempt to paint them as crucial questions. This is what Hazlitt referred to as your "tack hammer" approach.

I am not keeping score, but if i were, i wouldn't include in the score any example of having demolished your contentions, as it is just too easy.

So Scrat is psychic. He knows things about me without knowing me at all. The knee jerk you hear is a swift kick in the Scrat's pants.

Gibson has made and been in some good films and mediocre films -- his acting ability runs the gamet from A to B. I do like "Braveheart" even with its revisionist history -- ditto "The Patriot." Nearly all his films are entertaining but ultimately without much substance.

So he tackles something that has built in drama and succeeds in grossly overstating the case.

As has been stated before, it's only a movie and despite the fact that I mostly agree with Bill Maher, I still do not like this movie. Talk about hammering it home, that's an apt description of what Gibson has done. I can't believe he didn't believe it wouldn't get some bad reviews and that it would be successful at the box office (with sub-titles).

This wasn't, incidentally, based on the life of Jesus Christ, it was based on the death of Jesus Christ. If anyone would bother to read what I've written in the several forums about the film, you would have read that I have praised other movies on this same subject matter. Even so, Biblical movies have always had their problems with flowering up the subject. Gibson has bludgeoned it to death.

BTW, those who flaunt the law of attrition will find they have talked themselves out of a sale. That's a sale of ideas just as much as any product. The Chinese Water Torture debate technique is a gross abuse of the hot button.

Who is it exactly in this fantasy of yours who has supposedly "effectively denied or demolished my contentions", which contentions specifically has he or she denied or demolished, and how so? You know, you may be crossing a threshold from just being annoying to actually becoming pathological in your petty little stalk-fest here.

Let's do a little reality check:

LW has complained of the notion of children seeing this film because of its violence. I suspected that he has voiced no such concern over other films, which would suggest to me that there's something different to him about this film, so I asked him whether he can show me where he's made this complaint regarding other movies--to check to see whether I might be wrong in my suspicion. (How awful of me to want to check to see whether I was wrong!)

LW, of course, has refused to answer my question, with hostility, and asked me "...do you actually have something significant to say", so I attempted explained my thinking, at which point you decided to stop by and spread your own particular brand of sunshine on the scene.

That I may be wrong about LW's reasons is no surprise to me. That your trivial protestations about my "style" could be mistaken for comments of substance by anyone, would be quite a one.

LW - I am not psychic, but like all people I draw inferences from what people write and from what they hold back. I am not claiming to know that you dislike The Passion because you dislike it's faith-based message (and reason for being made). I am stating that it sure seems that way to me, based not merely on the fact that you have criticized it so passionately, :wink: but also on the fact that you have established (to my satisfaction, at least) that you are leveling criticism at this particular film--about children being exposed to its violence--that you have not taken time to level against other films. That to me suggests you have set a different standard for this film, and that suggestion begs the question, why?

Stalk-fest, oh Jaysus, laugh my ass off. You rate yourself way to high on the list of my interests.

As Hazlitt pointed out, you push petty issues and attempt to make majestic mountain ranges of abandoned molehills. Your attacks on LW on the violence issue is a fine example--you've been attempting to suggest that LW is being dishonest, or has a hidden agenda against Gibson. It has been a figment of your imagination, and is not germaine to a discussion of this film. You haven't bothered to check out LW's other contributions, instead you play your silly game of trying to get others to prove they are not despicable as you imply. I'm frankly surprised that LW ever gave you the time of day.

Stalk-fest, heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .

ah, comic relief . . .

No, that means Mel set a different standard with this movie. I find it somewhat hilarious that you are still systematically debating and denying the integrity of others reactions to something you couldn't possibly even know your own reaction to. Stop it. Go see the film for crying out loud.

Sidebar: What "possible answers" can you see to the infamous "Geneva Incident"?

Nope, love him. Despite some historical inaccuracy and a great deal of violence, Braveheart was one of my favorite movies of all time.

Rated R is fine with me. A more accurate indication of the contents would have been in order though.

Absent from your narrow-minded list of choices is the one I believe most people would check.
D) You don't like the film because it was a tiresome, pointless display of shock-value violence seemingly arranged for the sole purpose of shocking you.

You really gotta stop beating this drum. It wouldn't much matter if it was Hitler or Attila the Hun who was being tortured for the 2 hours. The main complaint is that outside the shock value violence, the film offered practically nothing. Religion, or lack there of need not enter one's mind to object to this film. Go see it and see for yourself… At least, stop attacking people for there reactions to it until you've given yourself an opportunity to understand them.

Ps Trying to discredit Setanta as shallow in anyway will only serve to make you look childish, as it is so clearly not the case. (I say this only as constructive criticism for your sake only. Set needs no help from me :wink: ).

Of course that is also a possibility, but I find it curious that someone puts forth that complaint over this movie while not complaining of the piles of slasher flicks out there. I'm fine with finding my inference is wrong--a point we could have reached earlier if LW were a bit less combative and a bit more open to discussion.

Thing is, I hear a lot of these complaints from a lot of people who don't normally complain about movie violence. Maybe these are people who don't tend to see those slasher films? Maybe this is a new level of violence to them, rather than to film itself? Or maybe some of the complaint stems from a sort of conflict set up between the idea of a film about Jesus and the reality of the violence used in the portrayal. Hmmm... I'd love to ask LW whether that's part of it; not just the level of violence, but the level of violence just feeling or being out of place or unexpected in this type of movie. Could that be the reason for these complaints? (At the risk of being treated as if I'm attacking someone, I'd welcome thoughts on that question.)

It's too bad that my questions are perceived as some nefarious attack on LW. They are not meant to be. I have no reason to dislike him (?), and do not. I was curious about his position and tried to explore it. Somehow that has become reason for others to jump in and tell me their thoughts on why I shouldn't be curious about the things about which I am currently curious. Despite the belittling tone and language of these posts, I'm not supposed to take offense, nor suggest that any was intended.

And people wonder why it's hard to have a useful discussion here.

I'm quite certain that some complaints stem from your suspected motivations. Having seen the film, I'd guess not the majority because there is an abundance of things to find objectionable. There is a shred of truth to your theory that the complaints are related to the subject matter. Had the film been promoted as a "slasher flick", then your suspicions would likely be spot on. However, the film, by its very title, suggests that you are going to see a biography of sorts, not a slasher flick. I wouldn't be happy if I went to see a gangster film, and it turned out to be a musical either. However, in that instance, I wouldn't have had to be disgusted by the content in addition to feeling I had been misled. "Braveheart" showed a ton of violence as part of the story and I took no offense to it at all. I fully expected to see Christ abused and Crucified, and would have taken no offense had that not been the beginning, middle and end to it. I think you said you saw Braveheart so I'll try to draw you a parallel: You go to the theater expecting to see a biography of sorts of the infamous William Wallace. When the movie starts, you see Wallace brutally arrested in front of the protesting Bruce and then they move straight to the torture scene and stretch that 5 or 10 minutes of sickening brutality to 2 hours….THE END. Does the subject matter have anything to do with your disgust?… I doubt it.

Again- Violence as part of the story- fine.
Violence instead of the story- not fine.

I've never seen a place where it was easier to have a useful discussion. You are sometimes as interesting and sometimes as guilty of belligerence as any here. Now you're a victim with hurt feelings? You do know the word transparent right? :wink:

I wouldn't complain about my being combative (especially as too many of your posts are contentious rants) -- mine was not a pre-emptive strike. Scrat, you've been trying to bait me throughout this entire discussion and are obvsiously miffed because I turned my nose up at the bait. In truth, it smells worse than the movie we are discussing.

Again, go see the film -- the antiquated Catholic angst should appeal to you, especially delivered with Gibson's bloody slasher film antics. No, slasher films do not appeal to me either and I certainly would not believe any parent should allow their children to see those either. The point is that people are taking their children to this film despite the gross violence because it appears to be solely a faith based film. It is not. It is sensationlizing the subject just as badly as many other films which become big box office. As much as I enjoy "Braveheart," Gibson basically sensationlized that historic story as well. His artistic flourishes can be boorish and over-the-top. Some like it, some may even praise it but I'm underwhelmed.

I would like to give my thanks to those here who have seen this film for pointing out the excess of graphic violence. I have read on-line and in print many criticisms to the effect that Mr. Gibson seems to be obsessed with violence and its graphic portrayal. From my previous experience, i agree. I saw enough blood and guts in real life during three years in the Army Medical Corps--i don't need to or want to see it on the big screen. I will not be going to this movie.

My other complaint about the film is that it has no style and no viewpoint. It's an attempt at a verbatim picture of the Crucifixion but it's quasi-artistic trappings fall flat as a pancake.

Set: I'd be right there with you had I not decided to duck all the news in order to see it with a "blank slate". Oops. That one backfired on me.

Don't worry about it, O'Bill, just . . .

Come in here, dear boy, have a cigar. You're gonna go far, fly high,
You're never gonna die, you're gonna make it if you try; they're gonna love you.

I'm quite certain that some complaints stem from your suspected motivations. Having seen the film, I'd guess not the majority because there is an abundance of things to find objectionable. There is a shred of truth to your theory that the complaints are related to the subject matter. Had the film been promoted as a "slasher flick", then your suspicions would likely be spot on. [/quote]
Thanks, Bill. That's more in line with the discussion I was hoping to have.

I've never seen a place where it was easier to have a useful discussion. You are sometimes as interesting and sometimes as guilty of belligerence as any here. [/quote]
And when those others are guilty of belligerence I have an equal right to point it out and suggest that it stop.

But lets leave that point and move on to issues.