Religion in Cinema

[cinemabon]

In a few weeks, we are going to be treated to what A.O. Scott from the New York Times calls Mel Gibson's "Passion" as: "It is as it was"... whatever that means. He says he is supposedly quoting Pope John-Paul II's reaction to "Passion". This film is based on the passion of St. Matthew, an excerpt from the New Testament, in which Jesus suffers several times prior to his crucifixion, as in the Garden, the pillar, carrying the cross, etc.

There is a modern trend in films that wants this story retold in realistic terms.

We can look at the story of Jesus through the eyes of film makers in the past who made films like "King of Kings", "Ben-Hur", "The Robe", "The Greatest Story Ever Told", and others from the 1950's through the late 60's. The problem with these early interpretations is that they rubber stamp an image that had been carefully crafted by European Christians about Christ for many centuries.

Only recently have filmmakers broken out of this traditional mold and turned a critical eye on what Jesus looked like, how he spoke and what life was really like in Palestine 2000 years ago. Recent films like; Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ", Pasolini's "The Gospel According to St. Matthew", Zeffirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth", Jewison's "Superstar", and Godard's "Hail Mary" have thrown a more discerning eye on this untouchable material.

Why so untouchable? Because of the storm of controversy stirred up by religious zealots who see their Jesus as having brown hair, blue eyes, practicing Christianity; when in reality he was a Rabbi who practiced Judaism. His mother was Jewish, his father was Jewish, his friends were Jewish, and they all spoke Hebrew! If a brown haired, blue-eyed "white" baby was born in a Jewish family, he would have been stoned to death! The man said over 2000 years ago to love your neighbor... and we've been at war ever since! Go figure!

Now, along comes another interpretation! Oi-vay! Sometimes I wonder if Hollywood will ever learn. Should Hollywood tamper with this "sacred cow"? It only incurs someone's wrath (just as my comments will anger someone out there). Are religious stories about Jesus a legitimate subject for the movies? Or should it be left alone?

I purposely left out any religious film which did not refer to Christ, l ike "Dogma" or "The Ten Commandments" because they deal with religion on a different level.

I know this is a tricky subject because it involves personal feelings about something that is intangible some people. However, I was hoping we would look at it from a cinephile's position, rather than one who is into idolatry.

[Johann]

It's hard to accurately portray "The King of Kings" without a volley of criticism from some religious group. Has anyone seen the silent film From The Manger To The Cross?

I have a film buff friend who is also a devout christian. He has a website which addresses this exact subject. He is trying to bridge a gap between christian values and cinema. Check it out:
www.anduril.ca

[anduril]

Incidentally, Jesus probably didn't speak much Hebrew, except in the synagogue. Aramaic and Greek were the common languages of Palestine at the time, even among Jews.

I've had the benefit of seeing an advance screening of the Passion of the Christ. Unfortunately, this movie does not meet the expectations and hype. Scorsese's Last Temptation, Pasolini's the Gospel According to St. Matthew, Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth, and Arcand's Jesus of Montreal are all better Jesus films. Gibson's movie is reverential and conservative. It is largely based on The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ by Anne Catherine Emmerich. This book, unfortunately, is rather anti-semitic and, although Gibson has excised some of the more gratuitous aspects of the book's anti-semitism, strong hints of it still remain in the film. In general, the film is pretentious. Gibson tries too hard to be the auteur in this film and it shows with incoherent, inexplicable, and sometimes even cheesy scenes. Still, the movie is worth seeing and I recommend it to the forum. I hope we can get some good discussion going on it and other films.

Ken.

[cinemabon]

I am a huge fan of William Wyler, and I hope he forgives me when I paraphrase him, "Only a Jew could tell the story of Christ!" (on the set of "Ben-Hur").

I have seen excerpts of "From the Manger to the Cross"; production values a bit crude then, but the point well taken.

I am rather skeptical of how the story of Jesus is told. Personally, I think films like "King of Kings" are anti-semitic. Jews are portrayed in very stereotypical fashion, and made out the villan (i.e. the Pharisees). Historically speaking, Jews have been vilified for two millenia as the "ones who killed Christ". If not blamed for what the Roman's did, Jews are then given roles in film where at the moment of crucifixion; they instantly become converts to Christianity, and therefore salvation (in the Christian sense).

When I was growing up, my next door neighbor was Jewish, while I was Catholic. We were constantly wishing we could take the other's place when we would sit down and compare dogmas. My shame was the Inquisition, while her's was being persecuted for 2000 years. Both of us agreed, the story of Jesus is one that is told over and over again to secure his place in history as the end all prophet, instead of being a brilliant voice of God with a message of love, instead of anger... and nothing more. Just once, I wish someone would make a film that was honest. I guess that doesn't sell many tickets, though.

[anduril]

Anti-Semitism in Jesus movies is a troublesome and difficult issue. Fundamentally, the story of Jesus is a story that takes place within a Jewish community. Of course, everyone ought to know that Jesus was called a rabbi by his followers. He spoke in Jewish synagogues and taught through the Hebrew Scriptures. Even after Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension, and at least until the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in latter part of the first century C.E., Christianity was simply a Jewish sect.

Therefore, it is important to recognize and allow for the role that the Jewish Sanhedrin played in arranging the arrest of Jesus Christ and its complicity in the crucifixion. The Talmud and other important Jewish literature does not shy away from these facts; actually, if anything, these sources stress and amplify the case of Jewish leaders who opposed Jesus. It may be stating the obvious but people have to bear in mind that many members of the Jewish leadership considered Jesus to be a blasphemer and therefore worthy of death. From the stand point of these Jews, the death of Jesus was not the death of God or even a great rabbi but rather this was the death of religious malcontent, a disturber of the peace, and, as the Talmud goes so far as to say, an agent of Beelzebub.

It also goes without saying that the earliest disciples of Jesus were Jews. Jesus's ministry was a ministry to the Jews; the earliest converts were, therefore, Jews.

The problem with Jesus movies, which builds on medieval Christian propaganda and, to a lesser extent, the Gospel of John, is that it divides Jews of the time of Jesus into two groups: Jesus and his followers, which though Jewish increasingly take on the descriptor, "Christians," over against those who opposed them, who still retain the descriptor, "Jewish" or "Jews." This division is obviously problematic because (1) it ignores the fact that many Jews had little or no opinion on the question of Jesus, (2) the Jewishness of Jesus and his followers is increasingly ignored, and (3) the "Jews," that small group who opposed Jesus, come to stand for the entire ethnic group. When this conceptual framework carries over into literature and movies, the end result of this division is anti-semitism.

This anti-semitism is then amplified in medieval Europe, which appropriates Jesus as its own and which also appropriates the Roman Empire as its own. Because Christianity eventually becomes the official religion of the Roman Empire and Roman Catholicism comes to dominate European Christianity, an ideological need to exonerate old Roman complicity in the death of Jesus develops. As such, Pontius Pilate and the Roman aristocracy are increasingly cast as reluctant executors of the will of a rabid Jewish mob.

So, how do literature and movies overcome this problem? First, by showing that Jesus and his followers were Jews. Second, by showing that not all Jews, not even all the Jewish leaders in the Sanhedrin, shared the same opinion of Jesus. It is important to note that even the NT shows that some Pharisees of the Sanhedrin defended Jesus (e.g. Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimethia, and Gamaliel); this almost never comes through in Jesus movies where the Sanhedrin is usually presented as unified in its hostility towards Jesus. Third, Jesus movies have to discontinue the practice of exonerating Pontius Pilate and the Roman aristocracy. Pontius Pilate and his Roman government crucified thousands of Jews; this needs to come through in any Jesus movie.

Sorry for the long-windedness... I just wanted to make sure my explanation was relatively complete.

In any case, I do think honest Jesus movies have been made, chiefly those of Pasolini, Arcand, and Scorsese. Zeffirelli and Young's Jesus movies are also quite good. I look forward to Verhoeven's Jesus movie, if he ever gets around to it, which should make another excellent addition to the group. At the same time, none of these films adequately presents the Jesus of the Bible, the Jesus of Faith, or the Jesus of History; to accomplish any of these three portraits of Jesus would be impossible. In my opinion, filmmakers succeed in Jesus movies when they challenge people to think about the Jesus of Faith and re-engage the Bible.

BTW, Jesus is not simply about love. It is more than that and an honest movie about Jesus has to explore all sides of his message.

[cinemabon]

I applaud your candor and your intellect. Obviously, you are well researched on this issue. I apologize if I made Jesus' message too one sided. I wanted to create a contrasting image he tried to instill that was different from the God of the old testament, filled with anger and revenge, although many others made similar messages at the same time, like John the Baptist.

I have a proposal for a great series. Take Jesus life in three films. Show him from birth to early twenties and the first of his "miracles" as a first treatment. Then show, in the second film, the unknown side of Jesus with the Essenes (speculation yes, but there is some very good anthropological evidence out there). THEN, show the final well documented years in the third movie to make a definitive portrayal, showing all of the adult aspects of Jesus (his relation to Judaism, living under Roman rule, etc.) without the histrionics of sexuality like Scorsese did. Perhaps a trilology? Or are we just about oversaturated on the subject?

At any rate, great analysis on your first two postings. I would love to see more of your work on this site.

[anduril]

Hey, cinemabon, no apologies... Though I'm passionate about this stuff, I take no offense unless people are being purposefully obnoxious, disrespectful, and rude.

BTW, the God of the Old Testament is not simply a god filled with anger and vengeance... it is more than that... ;-)

Incidentally, I'm studying to be a Professor of Hebrew, Near Eastern, and Classical Studies with my specialization in Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). I also have a strong undergraduate background in New Testament literature. Right now I'm working on my Master's thesis and come September will start my Ph.D. program in the States. I apologize if sometimes I draw on my professional knowledge in this area to correct something people in the forum write about the Bible. I don't mean to be condescending or anything... It is just that as a prospective teacher, I like to educate people on something I know a lot about. By the same token, I'm always ready to learn from the people on this site who clearly know more about cinema than I do. I hope that's a fair exchange that people, especially in this thread, are willing to make.

Anyways, I would always love to see more explicitly biblical cinema out there and by all means a Jesus trilogy would be fascinating. What you describe is quite an undertaking... in the first two films you'd be delving into periods in Jesus's life for which little to no ancient documentation, reliable or otherwise, exists. Also, I don't know that you'd have a natural plot to make out of these periods in Jesus's life, especially your proposed middle movie.

The relationship of Jesus to the Essenes is very speculative. I'm not sure what you mean by "anthropological" evidence. The only evidence that exists for a link is some similarities in the Judaism of the Essenes and the Judaism of Jesus and the New Testament. But, even if you make the connection, what happens in this middle movie?

Should I post the basic plot and ideas for my hypothetical Jesus movie?

Check out this article (http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/02.26.98/movies-9808.html) for some basic information on Paul Verhoeven's long in the works Jesus film. Not only an accomplished director, Verhoeven is a Ph.D. (in Math and Physics) and a member of the Jesus Seminar, so I really hope he makes good on his intention to make a Jesus movie because it should be an interesting interpretation.

Personally, I'd like to see more movies based on the Old Testament; there is a immense wellspring of untapped stories in the Old Testament that have yet to be effectively adapted and brought to the silver screen. For instance, I'd like to see Silver Screen adaptations of the Jacob story (using Buechner's book, Son of Laughter--this one could easily be a trilogy), the Joshua story, the story of Gideon from Judges, the stories of any number of Israelite kings, the stories of any number of Israelite prophets (e.g. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel), the Ruth story, and the Esther story. If done correctly, these movies would have rich plots, powerful themes, great battle sequences, sexuality, intrigue, drama, ... you name it, it'd be there.

[anduril]

Essential casting for my Jesus movie:

Natalie Portman as Mary.

Essential casting for my Jacob movie:

Natalie Portman as Rachel.

Essential casting for my movie about Ahab, King of Israel:

Natalie Portman as Jezebel.

Essential casting for my Isaiah movie:

Natalie Portman as the woman in Isaiah's visions.

Okay, I think you get the point... She's Israeli, she's young, she's beautiful, she's talented, she looks these parts... Man, I'm dying to see it. I wish I could make it happen...

[cinemabon]

We've touched on the Jesus movies, but I would also like your opinion of how religion plays a part in cinema. Recently, the skeptics have had the largest foot hold with films made in the last decade. Films like Kevin Smith's "Dogma", attacking Catholicism and Christianity in general (I thought parts were very funny and satyrical, however others just mysterious or gross). Not having access to the indies, I'm sure I'm missing out on some very good stuff. (See Oscar Jubis diary of the Miami Film Festival, or some of Chris Knipp's entries). Johann has some very good input on a variety of subjects. He seems to be shying away from here.

I went to your web site and caught a facinating and rather poignant link to "Ten Directors and 100 great films". Your choice of Lars von Trier is an interesting one. While your choice of Krzystof Kieslowski, a Polish director known more for television than cinema is a baffling one for me, although pertinent to the discussion of religion in his film, "Dekalog", which you mention but I have not seen. Your website shows a depth of your character which I am certain would facinate anyone who visits and writes on this website and has correlations to the subject at hand. In fact, I would go so far as to say I feel honored you've contributed to this column. Please feel free to elaborate any thematic material or subject matter you wish to pursue.

That said, I, too, believe Natalie Portman a competent actress and captivating beauty. As Mary? Well... perhaps... I was thinking of a blonde... with bright blue eyes.... high cheekbones... just kidding.

[anduril]

That's high praise... I'm overwhelmed... thank-you. I'm not sure if I'm deserving of it. My expertise is really in the religion, theology, and biblical studies side of things. I am a film buff... especially an historical film buff but I've had to learn alot from others on this front, including Johann (who happens to be a good friend of mine apart from these forums). I don't have the kind of time many others on these forums do to watch films so the repertoire of films I have to draw on is considerably smaller. I have many other interests that take up that time... family and my career in biblical studies being the foremost of these...

Anyways, let me respond to your last post by commenting a bit on the religion in the cinema of Lars von Trier and Kieslowski. Incidentally, my 10 top directors and 100 top films were not chosen on the basis of the religious themes in their work; rather they were chosen based on my knowledge of the craft of filmmaking. That being said, I have a natural bias towards filmmakers that explore religious themes...

Lars von Trier is definitely a director who explores religious themes, perhaps most explicitly in movies such as Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark. Breaking the Waves is probably one of the most exciting and challenging movies I have ever seen in this regard. In it, Lars raises all sorts of questions about morality, the transcendence of God, grace, and ethics. The technique is brilliant... create a morally reprehensible character and then, through an examination of her motives, evoke sympathy for her.

Kieslowski is a different sort of director... he's constantly asking questions about fate, circumstance, coincidence, identity, self-awareness... his feature films (of which you are right there are not many) are all brilliant... what a filmography... Dekalog, Three Colors Trilogy, and Double Life of Veronique are some of the most beautiful films I've ever seen... I lament that he could not be alive to film his trilogy, Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory... the first of these has now been directed by Tom Tykwer, a competent director but no Kieslowski... BTW, Dekalog is an absolute must-see for anybody interested in religion in cinema... you'll probably have better luck finding it under its English title: Decalogue.

Anyways, I have to go off and do some other things... I'll write some more later...

[Johann]

I'm not shying away, I just think I should leave it to the experts.

There are some religious films that impress me, but because I'm a little lost in the spirituality dept, I don't really relate.

It's a historical fact that Jesus walked the earth. My problem comes in the area of interpretation of his life. I simply don't trust the Bible wholly. I like to form my opinions based on my life experience. Somehow I think the Bible is bang-on accurate in parts but extremely padded in others. There are powerful messages in it that require as much faith to believe it as the writers had when they documented it.

Christianity films that seem to "get it right" to me are:
The Mission
Jesus (the mini-series with Jeremy Sisto)
Jesus of Nazareth
and the Last Temptation of Christ (which is fiction)

[cinemabon]

It absolutely galled me to look at the horrible and grotesque images of an extremely bloodied Jesus on the cross in Newsweek Magazine (there was bright red blood covering his body head to foot. If they are trying to achieve realism, blood does not stay red once it leaves the body. It dries quickly, hence its clotting action, and turns almost black. Ask any doctor, nurse, or investigator).

After seeing that, my question is this...

Is film supposed to be entertainment, the telling of a story, usually fictional, or even based on truthful material, but still fictional as a result of its adaptation? On what level does film loose its ability to entertain and cross the line into a sort of ultra-realistic impetuousness that purports to be "the true story" for effect? Violence for the sake of the "titillation" effect, or to thrill, amaze, rouse, and "wow" us goes back to the days of brutality for entertainment in another form. Our society seems to be regressing, allowing more and more violence in the media and calling it art, or using empty phrases like; "helping to tell the story".

At what point do we say, "Enough!" When is there too much violence? I realize that a horror story needs gore to help its "thrill" factor and sell tickets. We know that up front and can choose whether or not to see a "horror" film. But when so-called studio or commercial films show beheadings, dismemberments, and other acts of gore during the film, when does the audience ask itself, "Was that really necessary to tell the story?" Or was it added by the filmmaker to "shock" the audience and make some kind of impact. I for one am sick of it... and I don't care anymore who is offended by that statement. I will not stand in the Colosseum any longer and cheer for more violence. Extreme violence should be abhorrent to the civilized nature of man.

If you wish to decribe an ancient whose message was love, let that sell your movie. However, if you, as the filmmaker, wish to show us how barbaric life was in the world two thousand years ago, by all means show us; but make your movie "X" rated, and tell your viewers upfront about your message or intent. Then if anyone comes to see it, it'll be their own damn fault.

[anduril]

The violence in Gibson's movie is gratuitous; there is no doubt. The way the scourging is presented in the movie is simply not possible. Gibson's Jesus, if he were historically real, would have died at the scourging post, disembowled. Not only is he scourged backside with a cat o' nine tails but frontside too, which given the nature of that whip would have ripped open Jesus' gut. It is important to note also that the Gospels do not describe the physical tortures of the crucifixion; they simply record that Jesus was scourged and that he was crucified.

Incidentally, the Passion did get an "R" rating, which I know doesn't mean much today.

The violence, however, did not come as a surprise to me. Gibson is something of a sadomasochistic. Almost all of his movies have a theme or at least subtext of violence and/or disfigurement. For Gibson, evidently, the Passion is preeminently about the phsyical suffering of Jesus. Personally, I don't buy this... first, because if Jesus's pain is our salvation, there are many humans that have suffered as much if not more physical pain than Jesus endured; and second, the story is really about the Son of God condescending to humanity and dying this horrible death, enduring the sense of abandonment by the Father, and bearing the weight of sin. Jesus's death is preeminently about a spiritual pain and suffering that surpasses the physical tests on all levels. Interestingly, no movie perhaps captures this as well as Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ.

[cinemabon]

Your insight is precise and well reasoned, I couldn't agree more that Gibson is sadomasochistic. He must have had great political connections to get "Braveheart" a majority vote through the Academy community. I'm glad the film has an "R" rating, however, we know full well it will not stop minors from seeing this film.

Scourging often resulted in disembowelment and death. During the Inquisition, a variety of cat-o-nine tails were use whose sole purpose was to inflict such a severe torture the result would most certainly be death. If they show in the "Passion" film, anything other than a leather whip, or a frayed whip, then I would have to say it is preposterous to be so presumptuous.

Now we get to the question of whom (son?) or what came from God. While I have to agree that your theological background is by far greater than mine by leaps and bounds; I have this little theory about God I would like to run by your little gray cells. Perhaps God sent a part of himself and put it in that maturing egg inside Mary. It would explain Jesus' ability to "calm stormy waters" or "change water into wine" or even "raise Lazarus from the dead"; just a theory. The Jesus-God connection to humanity would also be explained when, during the moment of his death, he felt abandoned by God as his spirit left his body to return to heaven, imparting a certain level of suffering as a result. When the "Holy" spirit returns to the body of Jesus, it rises and transforms into complete spiritual material, transcending our own space and time, and returning to God. I know, it has holes in it as wide as Mack can make them. By all means, have at it.

[anduril]

Originally posted by cinemabon
Scourging often resulted in disembowelment and death. During the Inquisition, a variety of cat-o-nine tails were use whose sole purpose was to inflict such a severe torture the result would most certainly be death. If they show in the "Passion" film, anything other than a leather whip, or a frayed whip, then I would have to say it is preposterous to be so presumptuous.

First, I'll talk about this one... tradition holds that Jesus was scourged with a cat o' nine tails and it is entirely implausible so long as it was used backside and limited only to a couple/few lashes.

In the Passion, they show Jesus scourged with leather and reed whips, frayed whips, and then the cat o' nine tails. With the cat o' nine tails, he is scourged repeatedly backside in the movie and then he falls and they repeatedly scourge him frontside. To survive this scourging would not only prove that Jesus was God but also that he wasn't human.

[cinemabon]

Thanks to Johann and his friend, Anduril, we have endeavored (within the scope of these postings) to address how the subject of religion is being portrayed in cinema, and how that has changed in the last few decades. European filmmakers have had increasing freedom to examine details of religious themes and mores which have plagued them centuries. Johann likes the American approach to current trends in cinema, like Scorsese's "Last Temptation of Christ". Anduril, whose website is a facinating blend of the sacred and profound with surly the sacrilegeous, is a great devotee on how many film artisans have tackled various aspects of religious themes. His "Ten Directors and 100 great movies" is worth examining by every cinemaphile who logs onto this site. I value his contribution and look forward to his other posts.

I started this subject because I found myself judging a work of art before even seeing it... so powerful is the rumor mill on the film, "Passion". Just watching and reading the publicity on "Passion" made me examine my own feelings on religion in film. I found myself more of a traditionalist than I wanted to be. I thought I would be more trendy. I was wrong about myself.

I pride myself in being open minded and accepting of what others consider art. I may not agree with their interpretation, but I have to recognize their talent and effort no matter how much I may be repulsed by their work. I value the work of all artists in our country and the world. Without art, we would all be less colorful, less insightful, and the lessor of the two evils. Those being, having art one does not like, or having no art at all. I choose art.

[MickeyMoose15]

I stand firm in my view that they were complaining about something they hadn't seen and therefore had no real reason to be scared, logically. I believe this because it is all dying down, thankfully, since the film was released.

[MickeyMoose15]

I also understand what makes this film so different from "Jesus Christ Superstar", "Jesus of Nazereth", "The Gospel of John" ... and "The Passion" is the only one that has received this large amount of bad press. I am certain it has to be about Gibson, his traditionalist catholic religion, and the comments made by his father.

[anduril]

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
I stand firm in my view that they were complaining about something they hadn't seen and therefore had no real reason to be scared, logically. I believe this because it is all dying down, thankfully, since the film was released.

With all due respect, MickeyMoose15, I don't think you have an appreciation for the point of view from which the Jewish Anti-Defamation League sees this issue. Also, "they" (if you mean the Jewish Anti-Defamation League) had seen the movie when "they" commented on it.

[anduril]

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
I also understand what makes this film so different from "Jesus Christ Superstar", "Jesus of Nazereth", "The Gospel of John" ... and "The Passion" is the only one that has received this large amount of bad press. I am certain it has to be about Gibson, his traditionalist catholic religion, and the comments made by his father.

On the contrary, other Jesus movies have sparked as much, if not more, controversy than Gibson's movie. "Jesus Christ Superstar", for one, was not greeted receptively by the Christian community and received considerable press at the time. This, however, pales in comparison to the reception received by Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ, which resulted in demonstrations, picketing and even the bombing of theatres. Scorsese also received death threats.

Also, it is important to point out that there is a fundamental difference between the Jesus movies you mention and the "Passion" movie Gibson has produced, namely these other movies tell the story of Jesus in context while Gibson's movie is a Passion Play. This is critically important in understanding the criticism surrounding Gibson's movie, which incidentally has not died down. Consider the Denver Pentecostal Church which posted a sign on their front lawn reading "Jews killed Jesus." Or, how about this excerpt from an email I received after posting my own short review on my website: "As fas as your opinion on the Jewish Sanhedrin, THE FACT IS THEY WERE GUILTY!! I don't give a SH*T what the Jews say then or today. And if they don't like it. WHO CARES! In fact people are getting SICK of the Jewish people re-writing history to suit them!"

Your opinion might be better informed if you read the official ADL FAQ on the film: http://www.adl.org/Interfaith/gibson_qa.asp.

In any case, Gibson started the whole charade himself when he appeared on the O'Reilly Factor. As far as I can tell (and I've researched this reasonably well, going back to the earliest comments on the film), Gibson has played a masterful public relations game.

[MickeyMoose15]

Originally posted by anduril


With all due respect, MickeyMoose15, I don't think you have an appreciation for the point of view from which the Jewish Anti-Defamation League sees this issue. Also, "they" (if you mean the Jewish Anti-Defamation League) had seen the movie when "they" commented on it.

I don't know what they saw then because it wasn't the film I saw. And some of the people, the people protesting outside of a New York theater the day before the film opened, hadn't seen and weren't with the Anti-Defamation League.

[MickeyMoose15]

Originally posted by anduril


On the contrary, other Jesus movies have sparked as much, if not more, controversy than Gibson's movie. "Jesus Christ Superstar", for one, was not greeted receptively by the Christian community and received considerable press at the time. This, however, pales in comparison to the reception received by Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ, which resulted in demonstrations, picketing and even the bombing of theatres. Scorsese also received death threats.

Also, it is important to point out that there is a fundamental difference between the Jesus movies you mention and the "Passion" movie Gibson has produced, namely these other movies tell the story of Jesus in context while Gibson's movie is a Passion Play. This is critically important in understanding the criticism surrounding Gibson's movie, which incidentally has not died down. Consider the Denver Pentecostal Church which posted a sign on their front lawn reading "Jews killed Jesus." Or, how about this excerpt from an email I received after posting my own short review on my website: "As fas as your opinion on the Jewish Sanhedrin, THE FACT IS THEY WERE GUILTY!! I don't give a SH*T what the Jews say then or today. And if they don't like it. WHO CARES! In fact people are getting SICK of the Jewish people re-writing history to suit them!"

Your opinion might be better informed if you read the official ADL FAQ on the film: http://www.adl.org/Interfaith/gibson_qa.asp.

In any case, Gibson started the whole charade himself when he appeared on the O'Reilly Factor. As far as I can tell (and I've researched this reasonably well, going back to the earliest comments on the film), Gibson has played a masterful public relations game.

If that is so, why hasn't anybody learned from the past that this isn't causing anti-Semitism. And even if it is then it is in very, very small amounts.

Granted there are some, as you have demonstrated but that is not the fault of the filmmakers. By protesting this in they way they did, I feel they are making people feel more like they should expect anti-Semitism in the film going into then if they went to it without a warning or

Their claims about the film are ridiculous. I don't care, being polite here, what anybody else says ... What they are saying is not the film I or anybody else saw on opening day and their comments are ridiculous. There is no reason what-so-ever they should be upset about this. Gibson portrays the Jews as "blood-thirsty"? What film were they watching because it wasn't this. If anybody should be blamed, it should be the leader of the Jewish high-priests who voiced his opinion before anybody else's and took control of the crowd.

[anduril]

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15

What they are saying is not the film I or anybody else saw on opening day and their comments are ridiculous. There is no reason what-so-ever they should be upset about this. Gibson portrays the Jews as "blood-thirsty"? What film were they watching because it wasn't this. If anybody should be blamed, it should be the leader of the Jewish high-priests who voiced his opinion before anybody else's and took control of the crowd.

First of all, I've seen the movie... actually I saw an advance screening... I'm among the many "Christian leaders" who were invited by Mel Gibson to see the movie before it was released. The ADL also had representatives who saw the film. So, to say that these comments are not from people who saw the film is simply inaccurate.

Second, did you read the FAQ?

Third, in what sort of position are you to evaluate the effects of the movie on the Jewish population? Are you Jewish? Do you have Jewish friends? Do you live in an area highly populated by Jews? Have you bothered to discuss the film with Jewish people to see how they perceive what they see on screen?

Fourth, are you familiar with the history of the Passion Play, particularly in Europe? Are you aware of past portrayals of Jews in such plays and how the accusation of "Christ-killers" has effected Jewish groups throughout the history of medieval and modern Europe?

Fifth, consider for example the opening scene and the arrest of Jesus by some Jewish authorities... as they bring Jesus back to the Sanhedrin, they beat him to a pulp. At one point, Jesus is even thrown over the side of a bridge. Please show me where in the New Testament Gospels this information is derived; the Gospels suggest a completely different scenario.

Or, how about the scenes when Peter denies Jesus three times? Peter is tossed back and forth through an angry mob of Jews who are clearly presented as hostile to him and towards Jesus. This hostility, at this juncture, is not reported in the Gospels.

Or, how about the scene that shows Satan moving in and through the Jewish mob who were watching the trial and scourging as if to suggest that Satan is somehow controlling the people and inspiring their blood lust?

Then, look at Caiaphas... this character is presented as a carciature... he is a high priest, who without any apparent motivation, seeks the death of Jesus as if it were a personal vendetta... compare that with the statement made by Caiaphas in John 11:50, "You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed." This quotation from the Gospel of John gives Gibson the perfect license to portray a more conflicted Caiaphas, someone who earnestly sought to avoid Roman retribution for the state of constant political and religious unrest in the region.

Sixth, look at the sympathetic portrayal of Pilate, his wife, and other members of the Roman aristocracy in the movie... compare that with the first thirty minutes of the movie, "The Greatest Story Ever Told," where you'll see Pilate's brutal takeover of Judea, including the crucifixion of thousands of Jews and the political realignment of the entire region in order to place it more firmly under Pilate's iron grip. Historical documents tell us that Pilate was later recalled to Rome to answer for his gratuitous use of crucifixion to subjugate the Jewish people.

Seventh, why in all the flashbacks do we see Jesus with only a handful of people at most? Why not have a flashback of him in a Jewish synagogue or being embraced by all sorts of Jewish people?

Eighth, why the overdrawn and overexaggerated brutality of two hours of pure, unmitigated, relentless, and uncontextualized violence?

So, is the movie itself anti-semitic... I'd still say no, just like the ADL has not called the movie anti-semitic. However, does it have sufficient elements in it to incite anti-semitism? Most certainly. It is a dangerous movie and the ADL and its supporters are right in raising the issue.

[MickeyMoose15]

I read the FAQ and their comments are utterly ridiculous. The main audience that will see this is Christians and they don't understand where WE are coming from. All this does is cause hatred amongst the Jews themselves against us. This doesn't the opposite affect, at least not in large numbers. I stand by my viewing that their was nothing any where close to anti-Semetic in that movie and anybody who interprets it that way, doesn't get the message Mr. Gibson is trying to portray and the filmmakers should not be held accountable for their response. I didn't leave the film saying, "I want to bash a Jew in the head for what his people did to Christ" and anybody who thinks that needs to learn common sense. Their comments are ridiculous, plain and simple. Somebody had to have called anti-Semetic in the first place or else this would be of such high controversy.

By what you and the ADL are saying, any film has the potential to cause something it is not intended to do. The Matrix, for example, was blamed for causing those two kids to take guns and shoot people at Columbine High School. Did the filmmakers intend that? No! Should they be held responsible? God no! Two nuts in the $171 million worth of people in the United States who saw the film and misinterpreted it as a promotion for violence should be blamed on the studio? Absolutely not and the same should go for this film. They are raising concerns about something that will not and is not happening in large numbers. If their was any anti-Semetism raised in past films, it is from the backgrounds of those people and their hatred for Jews, not the films. In my mind, you are persecuting the Christians and calling all of them anti-Semetic or having the potential for anti-Semetism, which I just find insultive.

[anduril]

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
I stand by my viewing that their was nothing any where close to anti-Semetic in that movie and anybody who interprets it that way, doesn't get the message Mr. Gibson is trying to portray...

Well then you are ignoring the extensive reply I just gave you in my previous post...

BTW, have you read the source material, specifically The Dolorous Passion... by Anne Catherine Emmerich?

Are you aware that Gibson's traditionalist Catholic Church rejects Vatican II and the measures of reconciliation set out in that historic document?

It is best not to be so sure about Gibson's motives...


Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
...and the filmmakers should not be held accountable for their response ... By what you and the ADL are saying, any film has the potential to cause something it is not intended to do. The Matrix, for example, was blamed for causing those two kids to take guns and shoot people at Columbine High School. Did the filmmakers intend that? No! Should they be held responsible? God no! Two nuts in the $171 million worth of people in the United States who saw the film and misinterpreted it as a promotion for violence should be blamed on the studio? Absolutely not and the same should go for this film. They are raising concerns about something that will not and is not happening in large numbers. If their was any anti-Semetism raised in past films, it is from the backgrounds of those people and their hatred for Jews, not the films. In my mind, you are persecuting the Christians and calling all of them anti-Semetic or having the potential for anti-Semetism, which I just find insultive.

Ethics in the production of movies and film is an important issue and I think you are being dismissive... practically every field of human activity that involves the dissemination of information and ideas needs to be cognizant of the potential harm that the release of such information can have on the public, especially where that public may not have the education to properly assess and critique the information presented to them. Furthermore, it is important that producers, directors, and distributors take stock of the power of their medium to incite and inflame people across various different ideological spectrums. To ignore these considerations is irresponsible. Artists should not have carte blanche to present anything and everything that they want... while such may be the argument of those who laud "freedom of speech" as an absolute good, it is ultimately a very dangerous policy. Am I calling for censorship? No. But, I am calling for ethics.

In addition, I'm not calling Christians anti-semitic; I am a Christian myself so that would be very self-defeating of me to do. You, however, are apparently not reading the nuances of the arguments against the Passion of the Christ nor do you show that you are equipped with the historical background concerning the Passion Play and its history of complicity in inciting anti-semitism. As a Christian, I consider it of fundamental importance to ensure that the Gospel story is never used as a tool for hatred or racism. The history of its use to these ends is sadly and horribly extensive. In your rush to embrace and defend this movie, you clearly are not pausing to take into consideration the views of those whom Jesus called Christians to serve and love. Instead, you simply assume that because you do not respond to this movie with a desire to "bash a Jew in the head for what his people did to Christ" that the claims of the potential for anti-semitism are "ridiculous, plain and simple." You've offered no evidence to support this position except your invective-laced opinion while on the other hand I've given you several sources of information to show that the movie has already produced the reaction you claim it will not.

[MickeyMoose15]

I am well aware of Gibson's traditionalist catholic beliefs and I am also aware of what they do and do not reject but the fact is that it is a branch of Christianity none the less.

The simple fact remains that this has the POTENTIAL to inflame anti-Semetic feelings but that doesn't mean it will actually happen. We are a lot more acceptable of other religions today then we were years ago

I am not saying you specifically are calling Christians are anti-Semetic but these claims by the Anti-Defamation League make it sound like all Christians have the potential for anti-Semetism in them. Any question on whether someone has the potential for anti-Semetism depends on their background and the people who raised them.

"Am I calling for censorship? No. But, I am calling for ethics." That is just twisting the words around to say they are censoring it. They negotiated with Gibson to remove the line "May his blood be on us and our children" which I think should have remained in the film.

The thing is the Jews have a problem with the Bible. The Bible is not historical fact, I know ... I take it from a literary prospective. I know of Gibson's faith but most Christians seeing the film don't have the same view as Gibson.

I still stand by my statement of "the claims of the potential for anti-semitism being ridiculous, plain and simple". Every person I have talked to has said they found no bit of anti-Semetism in the film.

This is the last I will posting on this as I stand firmly on what I stand for and view the Anti-Defamation League as provoking something they shouldn't have. All their claims are of POTENTIAL and POSSIBILITY but nothing definite with today's culture.

[anduril]

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
I am well aware of Gibson's traditionalist catholic beliefs and I am also aware of what they do and do not reject but the fact is that it is a branch of Christianity none the less.

Your posts certainly have not revealed a knowledge of the nature of his Church.


Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
The simple fact remains that this has the POTENTIAL to inflame anti-Semetic feelings but that doesn't mean it will actually happen. We are a lot more acceptable of other religions today then we were years ago

Really? Read this report produced by the EU: http://uk-org-bod.supplehost.org/EUMC/EUMC.pdf.


Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
I am not saying you specifically are calling Christians are anti-Semetic but these claims by the Anti-Defamation League make it sound like all Christians have the potential for anti-Semetism in them.

No, what they say is that film has the potential to incite anti-semitism, that's it that's all... Your statements would seem to suggest you actually didn't read the information on their site.


Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
"Am I calling for censorship? No. But, I am calling for ethics." That is just twisting the words around to say they are censoring it. They negotiated with Gibson to remove the line "May his blood be on us and our children" which I think should have remained in the film.

No. It is not twisting words around; it is recognizing that people have ethical responsibilities and carte blanche should not be an inalienable right, especially in the realm of film. It is recognizing that most freedoms have limits.

And, I think you are wrong in your opinion of that line... few people today correctly understand its meaning because they have no sense of ancient Jewish culture. Thankfully that one change was made in the movie.


Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
The thing is the Jews have a problem with the Bible.

I'm sorry but I must digress... what an incredibly ignorant statement for you to make... 39 books of the 66 books in what you call the Bible are Hebrew Scriptures, written in Hebrew and Aramaic for Jews.


Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
I still stand by my statement of "the claims of the potential for anti-semitism being ridiculous, plain and simple". Every person I have talked to has said they found no bit of anti-Semetism in the film.

Any of them Jews?


Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
All their claims are of POTENTIAL and POSSIBILITY but nothing definite with today's culture.

As mentioned already, I've given you several "definite" examples of anti-semitism that directly relate to the release of the movie. The ADL could give you thousands upon thousands of emails that they have received. If you talked with more Jewish people, you would get hundreds and thousands of stories about being called "Christ-killers" as well as considerable evidence about anti-semitism. I'm sorry to say, MickeyMoose15, your opinions are based on ignorance.

[MickeyMoose15]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022704/content/institute.guest.html

[anduril]

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022704/content/institute.guest.html

The information contained at this site does nothing to support your arguments in this thread. It's an opinion piece by Rush Limbaugh that does not address the issue of anti-semitism in the movie in any significant sense nor does it support your claim that there is little to no potential for anti-semitism as a result of the release of the movie nor does it prove that we should not attempt to understand and empathize with those who have concerns about the movie.

In one paragraph, Limbaugh writes, "I want to know: Where are the roving bands of hateful Christians throughout the streets of America wreaking havoc and violence on the innocent and harmless people of this country? Where is this happening? Remember all of these predictions? You know, all of this panicked outcry: 'Why, why, anti-Semitism! Why...' This movie doesn't create any anti-anything."

Limbaugh is using typical "straw man" rhetoric. He is suggesting that the ADL and those who have criticized elements of Gibson's movie claimed that "roving bands of hateful Christians" would march "throughout the streets of America wreaking havoc and violence on the innocent and harmless people of this country." This is outrageous and I remember no such predictions. It is certainly not at all what the ADL was really worried about; anti-semitism is often more subtle than that.

On the issue of anti-semitism, that's about it for that article (with the exception of a criticism of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which only reveals Limbaugh's ignorance about Gibson's Church affiliation, and a brief statement of Limbaugh's position that the movie isn't anti-semitic and that anti-semitism doesn't exist in the American South; this last point that anti-semitism doesn't exist in the American South is just a crock and incredibly ignorant).

I could find you much more eloquent and well-spoken proponents of your position on this than Rush Limbaugh.