I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
okay, while I will believe anything bad of Mel(hell, I thought Braveheart was pretty despicably homophobic), and I wouldn't be surprised if this movie is just that horrendous, lets save outrage and somewhat facetious calls to outrage until the movie comes out. Just because the ADL is offended doesn't mean the rest of us necessarily will be. A climate in which people gear up to be offended by a movie before they've even seen in is not one that's hospitable to art.
heh get real, mellow mel is a real he-man in the service of the real jeebus. so dont go there. i have always wondered why he revels in bloody epics. he is a dull actor and arnie will be king. oh, i guess the christie fundamentalist might not like the historical jews who did it to jeebus. i am somewhat confused but tommy delay has a plan so relax and mccain is over there now. peace.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/0...44af91f&
ei=5070
FRANK RICH
Mel Gibson's Martyrdom Complex
The Jews didn't kill Christ," my stepfather was fond of saying. "They just worried him to death." Nonetheless, there was palpable relief in my Jewish household when the Vatican officially absolved us of the crime in 1965. At the very least, that meant we could go back to fighting among ourselves.
These days American Jews don't have to fret too much about the charge of deicide — or didn't, until Mel Gibson started directing a privately financed movie called "The Passion," about Jesus' final 12 hours. Why worry now? The star himself has invited us to. Asked by Bill O'Reilly in January if his movie might upset "any Jewish people," Mr. Gibson responded: "It may. It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth. . . . Anybody who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability."
Fears about what this "truth" will be have been fanned by the knowledge that Mr. Gibson bankrolls a traditionalist Catholic church unaffiliated with the Los Angeles Roman Catholic archdiocese. Traditionalist Catholicism is the name given to a small splinter movement that rejects the Second Vatican Council — which, among other reforms, cleared the Jews of deicide. The Wall Street Journal's opinion pages, which have lavished praise on Mr. Gibson and his project, reported in March in an adulatory interview with the star that the film's sources included the writings of two nuns: Mary of Agreda, a 17th-century Spaniard, and Anne Catherine Emmerich, an early-19th-century German. Only after Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, among others, spoke up about the nuns' history of anti-Semitic writings did a Gibson flack disown this provenance.
Emmerich's revelations include learning that Jews had strangled Christian children to procure their blood. It's hard to imagine a scenario that bald turning up in "The Passion." Indeed, it's hard to imagine the movie being anything other than a flop in America, given that it has no major Hollywood stars and that its dialogue is in Aramaic and Latin (possibly without benefit of subtitles). Its real tinder-box effect could be abroad, where anti-Semitism has metastasized since 9/11, and where Mr. Gibson is arguably more of an icon (as his production company is named) than he is at home. He shot "The Passion" in Italy, where a recent cartoon in the newspaper La Stampa showed Israeli tanks about to roll over the baby Jesus' manger. "Do you want to kill me once more?" read the caption....
After reading this at Orcinus (and hearing various comments by people who've seen the movie), I 'm not sure the bad press isn't justified:
After watching the subtitled drama last week, Rabbi Eugene Korn, director of interfaith affairs for the Anti-Defamation League, warned that the anti-Jewish concepts he believes are in the film will feed anti-Semitism by promoting the 2,000-year-old charge of "Christ killers" against Jews.
"The tragic dimension to this movie is the way it portrays Jews in the worst way as the sinister enemies of God," Rabbi Korn told The Jewish Week.
Or are people like Rabbi Korn just exaggerating? You'll have to let me know, as I will not be spending good money to see Mel's endeavor. And those comments by his mommy and daddy sure are something, aren't they...
Well, a good front-page controversy about a *film* sure would be a great distraction.
Ultimately, its merits or demerits aside, this film is protected speech, and so all the sound and fury can go stuff itself.
I remember this:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Th...ation_of_Christ
We have real problems. Let this distract the other side for a while.
Frank Rich
In recent weeks Mr. Gibson has started screening a rough cut of his film to invited audiences, from evangelicals in Colorado Springs to religious leaders in Pennsylvania to celebrities in Washington. But the attendees are not always ecumenical. At the Washington screening, they included Peggy Noonan, Kate O'Beirne, Linda Chavez and David Kuo, the deputy director of the White House's faith-based initiative. Like the membership lists of restricted country clubs that let in a minority member or two to deflect charges of discrimination, the screening guest list did include a token Jew: that renowned Talmudic scholar Matt Drudge. No other Jewish members of the media were present, said one journalist who was there.
Mel's all-too-obvious inspiration.
Whatever happens to Gibson and his ridiculous vanity project, he’ll simply blame it on the Jews who after all run Hollywood (and New York and control US foreign policy and the financial markets, yadda, yadda, yadda).
I can’t wait to see where Ahnold stands on Gibson's new film.
Are "Jewish members of the media" required to carry proper identification?
Slightly OT, but didn't Laura Schlesinger leave Judaism because of the Jews? Is that anti-Semetic?
Not OT at all. She claimed to find a more sympathetic voice among "Christians" -- Jews being outraged at the ignominious death of Schlesnger's mother, and her propensity go sailing on the Sabbath.
I expect she'll announce her conversion to "Christianity" to time with the release of Vodka Gibson's The Passion.
now why in the world would the wsj ed. page get involved? do they ever pass up a chance to behave like assholes?
Sounds like a promotional gimic.
Looks like Mel is aiming to get a big viewer turnout in the middle east.
Be well.
Fair & Balanced Buckeye MYOB'
.
Another source of Gibsonian "inspiration."
Note that the anti-semites speak exactlylike the homophobes. They love the gays/Jews -- which is why they want to kill them.
Jews being outraged at the ignominious death of Schlesnger's mother...
Everyone should have been outraged! What an evil witch. Well, if she returns to Christianity, she can expect a hellish reward for her sins. 
With all the free coverage this "controversy" is generating, Gibson won't have to even run an ad campaign for this thing. Brilliant.
The commentary on this film has tended to suggest -- or say outright -- that the critics were merely supposing what was in the film without knowledge. But many of the compaints about its inaccuracies and the depiction of Jews in it came after the critics (not all Jewish) read the shooting script, and now after seeing the movie.
Orcinus and others have often mentioned the "I love ___" or "some of my best friends are ___" and how it gets used a lot lately with blacks, gays, and Jews by people with incredibly racist, homophobic, or anti-Semetic writings or agendas. And they wonder why people don't believe them.
I think it just goes to show that the alliance that the Christian right is trying to hard to forge with Jews is, at its heart, dishonest. The Christian right, after all, isn't in favor of Israel because they want Jews to have a homeland - Israel is integral to their own end-times philosophy. Gibson's film, if as egregious as reported, could slip a railroad spike between the two and give it a good hard whack.
I'm hoping the movie turns the Christian right against us. With friends like Tom Delay sticking his nose into Israeli politics we don't need any enemies.
And perhaps we've had 2 years of some people screaming "anti-semitism" at the drop of a hat, but we've also had 2 years of anti-semitism rearing its ugly head from the left. Everyone expects the right to be anti-semetic conspiracy mongers, its rather alarming when it comes from the left.
Mel believes that his version of the Passion is going to be the most accurate (from the Independent - UK):
Certainly, Gibson hasn't helped himself by trumpeting his film as an enduring work of art that corrects all the mistakes of previous versions of the Gospels. "This film will show the passion of Jesus Christ just the way it happened," he told a television interviewer earlier this year, before the controversy erupted. "It's like travelling back in time and watching the events unfold exactly as they occurred." And how, pray tell, can Gibson be so sure that he is right, especially when the Gospels themselves are contradictory and vague on many of the details? "The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film," he said. "I was just directing traffic."
( http://news.independent.co.uk/pe...sp?
story=434029 )
The whole story is worth a read, particularly for the first paragraph, when Mel's project is compared with John Travolta's Scientology vehicle _Battlefield Earth._
I think the word for Mel's attitude is chutzpah, although I rather doubt Mel would be happy with this characterization.
In any case, I've seen the trailer and Mel has a woman portraying Satan as well as a snippet of Jesus smashing a snake with his foot. (IMDB has a Rosalinda Celentano listed as "Satan" in the film.) Neither of these little details are in the Gospels, although it does appear that Mel's major source, visionary Anne Catherine Emmerich, believed that Satan took appearance as various animals in the leadup to the Crucifixion and abused Jesus terribly. (This from a very conservative Catholic who believes in visions, apparitions and suchlike, see: http://www.spiritdaily.org/Proph...rs/
dolorous.htm ).
Gack! On top of the anti-semitism, it looks like Mel's got a new version of an old formula: It's not Madonna/Whore, but Madonna/Satan. We women have spent centuries coming up from underneath this crap, and here Mel puts it back in a movie and expects us to swallow whole.
The Gospels (therefore Christianity) are anti Semitic. Consider the following. I understand that Gibson deleted Mathew (His blood be upon us, etc).
John
18.28 Then they led Jesus from the house of Ca'iaphas to the praetorium. It was early. They themselves did not enter the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover.
18.29 So Pilate went out to them and said, "What accusation do you bring against this man?" 18.30 They answered him, "If this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over." 18.31 Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." The Jews said to him, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death."
Mathew
27.20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the people to ask for Barab'bas and destroy Jesus. 27.21 The governor again said to them, "Which of the two do you want me to release for you?" And they said, "Barab'bas." 27.22 Pilate said to them, "Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all said, "Let him be crucified." 27.23 And he said, "Why, what evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Let him be crucified." 27.24 So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves." 27.25 And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!" 27.26 Then he released for them Barab'bas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified.
Maybe it's time to start admitting that everyone, left and right, has prejudices.
Of course, repubs and dems have many different opinions on a variety of issues.
People cannot be pigeonholed.
Something, I think, the pollsters never seem to address...
But, lately, those who speak for the republicans are destroying the party and hurting the country.
This, too, shall pass.
Great Mel story in "The Independent."
One caveat: "Does not touch alcohol."
ROTFALMAO!!!
Well maybe not lately !
"This film will show the passion of Jesus Christ just the way it happened,"
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE GRAPHIC!
Uh, whatever, Mel. The clips I've seen of show the spike being driven into his palm, between the metacarpal bones. Any good crucifier will tell you that unless you drive the spike at or below the carpal (wrist), your victim is just going to fall off the cross.
The Holy Ghost should have Mel to read up on Roman history.
Just show it on a double bill with The Life of Brian and everybody'll be happy...
sigh, alright, i admit it. I am anti-pope.
Wait, pansypoo... is Charles Stross???
Nahh, no way. Totally different voice.
whether art is good or art is bad, it is still just art.
It is never bad FOR you ($9 tickets aside)
bad FOR you deserves the outrage
reckless nationalists are bad FOR you
becoming outraged by art is also known as posturing
I seriously doubt that anything in this film would turn someone who isn't already anti-Semitic into a raving Jew hater. Mel is an extreamly talented disturbed person. I can forgive a lot for the definitive Hamlet of the age, this is art after all and it may be that it is out of bounds politicaly but I wouldn't judge it only on those grounds. Remember, the First Amendment isn't there to protect popular speech, and we must not become that which we hate. Let us judge the film as a work of art first, and leave the social aspects out of that discussion. I am an atheist who happens to get a kick out of well designed cathedrals and well performed masses in Latin, and while I am somewhere to the left of Jerry Brown I'll still praise good art, good music, and good cinema no matter who makes it.
I don't know why everyone is so up in arms about this. IIRC, it's going to be released in those two dead languages, Aramic and Latin, with no subtitles. That's going to be a sure winner.
Does he really do the nails through the palms? That is, not encouraging. OK, no Oscar for the dramaturge then.
Let us not forget that Mel is virulently anti-gay as well.
Likes to use the f word in his movies.
I think most of Mels problems relvolve around the fact that he is very short of stature. He is just barely over 5 feet tall. You'd never know it by watching his movies, he stands on a lot of boxes and such.
But, I think it has made him feel the need to prove himself, and he seems to have a very hard time doing that without resorting to tearing down others.
It is all pretty pathetic. I truly feel sorry for him. His height is really O.K., he suffers from a shotness of another kind of stature.
I've seen the trailer and Mel has a woman portraying Satan ...
Hmm, sounds like he's ripping off Bunuel's Simon of the Desert in which the incomparable Sylvia Pinal plays the Devil.
At least Mel's stealing from the best.
Everyone expects the right to be anti-semetic conspiracy mongers, its rather alarming when it comes from the left.- esther
Do you really think this contributes to a rational discussion of anything at all?
Everyone expects the right to be anti-semetic conspiracy mongers, its rather alarming when it comes from the left.- esther
Do you really think this contributes to a rational discussion of anything at all?
Hit a little close to home there antiphone? How many of your best friends are Jewish?
Ah yes, the anti-"semetic" schtick. Getting a little threadbare, but always handy in a pinch.
To say nothing of extremely useful, at all times.
Hit a little close to home there antiphone? How many of your best friends are Jewish?
What's the point of your question Jo? You need something a bit more substantial before you start reading hidden meaning into what I said. I'm capable of having a rational discussion, are you?
I don't think any sort of judgement can be made until the final version comes out. It wouldn't be true to art if it comes across as too antiseptic, meaning that the Jews probably were culpable in some way. However, if it is totally unsympathetic, then it should be shelled.
Ok, antiphone. Why don't you rationally discuss what esther said that was so terrible. It sounded like you just wanted to shut her up, like you want to make a rule that no one can talk about anti-semiticism on the left.
A film that worships a Jew (Christ or Jeezebus for you atheists) is an Anti-semetic film?
Always interesting to read the comments here.
The author in the Independent called the ADL a "conservative Jewish group".
Now that is huztpah on both accounts.
Word has it the "Shroud of Turin" had a leading role. Bring on the forensics.
Young Freud - quite.
Meanwhile, a little comic relief for all:
According to local anecdotes, while Gibson was shooting Hamlet(yes, Hamlet) in the northeast of Scotland, he (very foolishly) asked one of the extras what Scotsmen really did wear under their kilts. The extra replied, in full brogue, "Your wife's lipstick."
Sorry, couldn't resist.
loudmouths - I posted a response to your comment over on your site. Namely, that you seem to know roughly nothing about Christianity or Christian history.
I don't think any sort of judgement can be made until the final version comes out.- Adam 4-2-4
The film exists within a highly politicized context. It’s not simply being put out for people to make of what they will. The film allows the Gibsons to focus media attention on their religious and political beliefs, that’s the real point. They are exerting as much control as possible over the discussion of the film with selective screenings they know will generate controversy as well as determine who can comment on it. They want as much attention as they can get before actually releasing the film. The process they’re using has to be seen as an integral part of what they’re up to.
David Neiwert has quite a lot of information where the Gibsons are coming from, a lot of the media about this is noise and confusion, as usual.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/
200...098982815978369
Ok, antiphone. Why don't you rationally discuss what esther said that was so terrible. It sounded like you just wanted to shut her up, like you want to make a rule that no one can talk about anti-semiticism on the left. -Jo
There has been plenty of talk about anti-semitism on the left, most of it coming from the right as smears and ridiculous generalizations. So what does "its rather alarming when it comes from the left" refer to?
How does questioning that lead to "How many of your best friends are Jewish? Jo
For the Right, there are two kinds of anti-Semitism. Having a problem with everything religiously or culturally Jewish, that's for liberals to bitch about. Having a problem with Israeli colonialism and hegemony in Middle East, now _that's_ anti-Semitism.
but we've also had 2 years of anti-semitism rearing its ugly head from the left.
Well, no.
What you've had is 2 years of opposition to Sharon's disastrously failed policies.
Unless you're suggesting that Ariel Sharon represents the entirety of Judaism, in which case your sweeping observation might be accurate.
can i just mention gain that a film is art, and that art never hurt anyone, except for maybe their 'feelings'....
insane nationalists hurt people
if you pretend otherwie, you are either
a) posturing, or
b) trying to take our eyes off the ball
Please don't be distracted by someone's morality play, unless and until it actually costs you your tax dollars.
(not to say this isn't a good thread, it's just soooooooooo not an issue)
jeez, it's not like mel is running for office or anything.
also, ariel sharon portrays the whole of judaism as accurately as Bush (41 or 43) portrayes the whole of christianity.
poorly and nationalist-ically.
nationalism in the guise of higher truth is bushllit.
all generally good people, on all sides as far as i've met them (jews and palistinians), but man-oh-man, can you ever get them all started by spreading rumour and innuendo.
amazing what happens when property becomes the issue.
Sorry mdhatter but I suspect you are more intelligent than your comments reflect so I'd like to invite you to reconsider. It sounds very much like your saying that because Mels film is art, it doesn't matter. The fact that running for office and tax dollars are not directly involved here does not mean there is nothing worth understanding. Cultural expression, art, media, these things matter and in a case like this there is a agenda that has very real implications for large numbers of people.
Perhaps the appropriate way to deal with cultural and religious subjects is through cultural means like reading, writing and debating the merits and validity of various points of view. That doesn't require an election or any of your dollars thanks to the generosity and wisdom of Atrios who has provided a venue for just that purpose.
sMell Gibson hasn't done a decent movie since he left Australia. This one will probably go down the tubes.
Why give it any more publicity?
Personally, I just think it's knee-slappingly hilarious that Mel's film is supposed to show the "truth" about an event that, at best, is historically dubious and he's using, if I understand correctly, sources that are nearly 2000 years seperated from said event.
It's like writing a life of Socrates based on "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure".
And I do have to agree with them that say that getting bent out of shape over art is like getting bent out of shape over ice cream sundaes. Course, on the other hand, we do live in a society that gets the majority of its history via Hollywood....
With all the free coverage this "controversy" is generating, Gibson won't have to even run an ad campaign for this thing. Brilliant.
Melanie | Email | 08.16.03 - 6:20 pm | #
Who in his or her right mind would watch a Mel Gibson movie after that disgusting piece of trash "The Patriot"?
Any ideas why he politicized this so much? He's no dummy, and that list of people upthread that he invited to a screening is not bi-partisan. Did he perhaps apply for a faith-based initiative grant to make the film?
"jeez, it's not like mel is running for office or anything."
mdhatter, 08.17.03 - 3:25 am
Are you sure? Strange(r) things have/ are happening.
I guess the first and last Gibson film I saw was "Year of Living Dangerously" -- one of my all-time favorites.
Coming to this discussion a bit late, but there are a few points I think need to be made.
Mdhatter, you might want to take a look at a little history.
I don't know about the movie itself, but Gibson's 'publicity campaign' reeks of anti-semitism and anti-catholicism. Gibson's reaction to legitimate concerns by the ADL and the League of Catholic Bishops has been beyond callous and bordering on inciteful. Also, while it's not anti-semitic to say that some of the people responsible for Jesus's death were Jewish, it certainly is anti-semitic to suggest -- as Gibson has done -- that that culpability extends to all Jews, including those alive today. Gibson's also been falsely claiming that his film is historically accurate, giving rise to the suggestion that anyone who opposes him and his movie is 'anti-Christian'. Cloaking anti-semitism in the guise of 'defending Christianity' is nothing new, nor is cloaking racism in the guise of defending 'the White Race'. Hate groups have been engaging in that sort of logic for as long as they've existed. But for such arguments to be put forth so openly and publicly is a new and frightening development.
Probably the most disturbing comment came from Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, as quoted in The Guardian, "For Jewish leaders to risk alienating 2 billion Christians over a movie seems short-sighted." As the '2 billon' makes clear, this is not simply a reference to Christian support of Israel. Haggard is threatening an anti-jewish backlash unless 'Jewish leaders' shut up about this.
This isn't just about a movie. It isn't even 'just' about anti-semetism. This is about people responding to accusations of bigotry by threatening more bigotry. To anyone concerned about the rise of ur-fascism that David Neiwart has so thoroughly documented, it is an extremely chilling development.
Streaker: Gibson may not be stupid per se, but it's not exactly unknown for people in positions of power to be blinded by their own hubris or arrogance, and I suspect that's what we're seeing here. The far right is bursting out all over, and Gibson - who is far from being in the mainstream of conservatism - has probably been shitting his pants in sheer eagerness to publicly align himself with these batards.
Whether publicly outing himself as a far-right kook of the First Order will damage his career rather remains to be seen. I'd love it if it did, but I'm certainly not going to count on it.
I'm not going to make a judgement on the film's artistic merrits since i have not seen it nor do I plan on seeing it. My problem is the fact that he is quoted as saying that he wants to tell "The Truth" about Jesus.
Frankly, this film will be about as truthful as anything else that comes out of Hollywood, that is, not at all. Especially from a diehard Catholic, one who disagrees over matters of faith with his own Pope. Expecting Mel to tell the unbiasded truth about Jesus is about as likely as a Nazi telling the unbiased truth about Hitler. It simply ain't gonna happen.
However artsy this film is, it ultimately amounts to little more than Catholic propaganda; Mel's own multimillion dollar love letter to a dead Jewish street preacher.
Who says you can't buy your way into heaven?
First of all, it would be entirely natural for the jews to want to kill Jesus. After all, he was trying to subvert their cult with his own. I think the nerve that this really touches is that a staggering amount of very real tragedy is all rooted in a complete myth. Imagine if people had been dying for thousands of years trying to visit Santa Claus at the north pole. That's Israel. All this death because it says in a book (or books) that a crappy stretch of desert belongs to one person or another.
And while it is true that atheists do not build hospitals, they don't fly planes into buildings either. It's time for the human race to grow up.
I cannot really comment intelligently about a film I haven't seen.
However, I am curious about this quote:
"Asked by Bill O'Reilly in January if his movie might upset 'any Jewish people,' Mr. Gibson responded: 'It may. It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth.... Anybody who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability.'"
Whoever was responsible for the death of Jesus (if such a person/being really existed), they are most certainly long dead by now. I don't think anybody alive has culpability in this instance.
Anyway, as Pilate would say, "What is truth?"
How does questioning that lead to "How many of your best friends are Jewish? Jo
So you pretend not to understand how denying the existence of anti-semitism could make me think you're anti-semitic? I thought you said you were capable of a rational discussion.
It’s really disgusting how “liberal” American Jews have, for the most part, stood by as Sharon, the Butcher of Beirut, has had his way for the past two years.
Even more disgusting has been the virtual silence of “liberal” American Jews on the land grabs going on this very minute by religio-fascist Jewish settlers in the West Bank.
Even more disgusting than this, if it’s possible, has been the tacit approval of some “liberal” American Jews of the invasion of Iraq.
It seems there’s nothing the apartheid state of Israel can do that will exercise the moral conscience of “liberal” American Jews. Nothing.
So pardon me if I don’t give a fuck what Mel Gibson does or does not do.
Thanks gerbil, for a great example of what I was talking about. Truth is, lots of liberal jews both in America and Israel oppose Sharon and support a palestinian state. Liberal jews opposed the Iraq war as much as liberal non-jews did.
You want to let Gibson attack all jews because of a bunch of lies and prejudices. So what about it antiphone? Still think there's no anti-semitism on the left?
I don't want Gibson to attack anyone, blacks, Jews, or gerbils. I'm not going to get exercised over a movie, however, when there's a lot more in this world to worry about.
FYI, therer's way more opposition to Sharon in Israel than in the United States. Here, extreme Zionists have cowed whatever opposition to Sharon can be mustered. Time for some liberla backbone, I think.
And the "anti semite" bullshit ain't gonna wash. You guys have worn this pet phrase out, it's worthless. You use it at the drop of a hat, you hold it up like Christians hold up garlic and the cross.
Pathetic.
Hate of any kind is the evergreen of conservatism of any kind. Hate is second in importance only to greed as the driving motivations of conservatives. They will always use some hated group or other to rally their own and divide their enemies. In the "religous" part of their operation anti-semitism will always rise. The only use Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals have for Jews are as repentent converts or dead extras in their comic book, end- time fantasies. In the mean while, don't be surprised at a sharp increase in hate crimes against all of their target groups as the economy takes a dive.
Jewish conservatives, black conservatives, gay conservatives are only their useful idiots.
The point about Mel Gibson's Scottish opera, perhaps part of a planned "ring cycle of hatred", and it's implied invitation to kill gay people, is illustrative.
"However artsy this film is, it ultimately amounts to little more than Catholic propaganda"
Jorge - the propaganda from this film is not fairly attributed to the Catholic church. Gibson rejects Catholic teachings on many subjects, the Jews being just one.
This is a link to an interesting speech given a few years ago about the challenge presented to Catholics by the history of anti-semitism among the faithful. Gibson's film represents a serious step back in a hard fought battle. If the film is as bad as expected, don't be surprised to see old Mel and his private church excommunicated.
http://www.dce.harvard.edu/pubs/...um/1998/
03.html
"I can forgive a lot for the definitive Hamlet of the age"
catalexis- luckily, Branagh has never tested us. I'm accustomed to tolerating difference of opinion in politics, but if you're going to blather on about how it's just art, man... at least develop some taste.
Jo, you got it right. Gerbil is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
actually, I was responding to the original "where's the outrage?" from up front.
just not worth outrage. It's art.
hijacking a counry and trashing its economy by follwing widely unpopular policies is outrageous.
the film is probably just bad art.
also Beth - I appreciate a good history lesson, but please accept a reality check here.
yes, in 1915 film was a new and novel form. Salvador Dali and Louis Bunel's 'andalusian dog' is a classic piece of surrealist film. It affected many artists and thinkers BECAUSE THEY HAD NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT.
I (and you?) grew up in a postmodern media saturated marketing niche. My burgoise (sp?) sensibilities have been beaten into the ground.
at this point, no bad movie will ever agian change the course of our history or incite massive waves of anything IN OUR CULTURE. If they could then 'Fight Club' or 'Do the right thing' or 'bullworth' could have caused a revolution. (they're not so bad as movies wither, but that's a matter of taste). I don't remember a revolution or even much of a hub-ub about most of these films, EXCEPT FROM THOSE WHO WERE POSTURING FOR THE CAMERAS THEMSELVES.
maybe in afghanistan a film could work to incite the people to do evil things and kill all the Jews. Maybe anywhere else that hasn't ever had film/TV or has lost film art as a cultural phenom could be more malleable, as that culture would have been without TV and movies for a while.
The French (those freedom loving people, who understand the power of a good film) actually have mobile movie theatres travelling around safe parts of Afghanistan now, to reintroduce people to the power of the visual image... before that power gets hijacked by crazy nationalists there too.
see what i am saying?
this Mel Gibson film is not worth the outrage any more than Eminems bad art and those who took his bait are worth outrage.
I'm just not outraged, except by this administration. Sorry.
also beth, i pretty much agree with your point.
and antiphone, you are correct. This is among the best of all types of venue for discussion.
But outrage? nah, he doesn't deserve the free publicity from that.
That would be like calling in a news crew the next time you hear the work 'towelhead' used in a public place.
Now if it were by a public official, yes, that is outrageous.
i thin mel's film and views probably just annoy me, the way a horsefly annoys me. Maybe you have a lot of horseflies where you live? [/tongeincheek]
I just want to see us all keep our eye on the ball. We need our country back. I don't think starting with hollywood is the right tactic.
Italians do not control the Mafia. Everyone knows that.
The Politics of Anti Semitism
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obido...SIN/1902593774/
"Antisemite!" How did a term, once used accurately to describe the most virulent evil, become a charge flung at the mildest critic of Israel, particularly concerning its atrocious treatment of Palestinians?
One answer is that there‚s no more explosive topic in American public life today than the issue of Israel, its oppression of Palestinians and its influence on American politics. Yet the topic is one that is so hedged with anxiety, fury and fear, that honest discussion is often impossible.
esther,
That was a lovely imitation of a parrot, as in,
Awwk! Awwk! Anti Semite! Awwk! LEFTIST Anti Semite! Awwk!
Do you do mynahs as well?
In summation of Gerbil's posts and the popular stream of unconciousness coming from college leftists and the UN about Israel:
Jews are inferior to Arabs. Jews have no right to peace or freedom in their own land, while Arabs do. Arabs should be allowed to kill all the Jews they want, while Jews should not be allowed to kill Arabs under any circumstances, even to defend themselves. Sharon is an evil genocidal murderer even though he hasn't done anything approaching such evil in the past twenty years since he sat on his ass while the Lebanese Phalangists massacred refugees. Meanwhile, Arafat is a pacifist even though he personally signs off on the paychecks of the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade.
How DARE you accuse me of anti-semitism! It's just like the Jews to make these false accusations! No wonder people hate the Jews; they deserve it, because of all the evils the Jews have committed throughout history!
Some leftists decided to actually research the history of how the conflict started instead of just spouting anti-semitic propaganda like all the other good little Communists. What they found is here: http://emperors-clothes.com/
isra...israelguide.htm
Naturally, they're not too popular in the Indymedia set anymore.
Wow.
Just... wow.
The astonishing degree of willful ignorance demonstrated by the comment of this "Warrior Tang" doesn't even rate a point-by-point disassembly; it's a perfect example of fractal wrongness.
You're wrong, Life of Brian enraged the Vatican and they issued their veiled commands for the 'troops' to demonstrate against it even before it was released. Now the troops are harassing Jews for killing Jesus...how much more ridiculous can this become. I suspect that Gibson was mandated to make that movie to take the attention from the church pedophiles.
Does anyone know if the film is any good?
I have yet to see any examples of what makes this film anti-semitic. It seems a stretch for Lambert to say it's "obvious." Can anyone elaborate?
I'm agnostic, so I'm not the most knowledgeable on this sort of thing, but weren't most of the people involved in Jesus' death either Jews or Romans? It seems therefore redundant for anyone to say the Jews killed Jesus, and likewise silly for Jews to take offense at a portrayal of whatever hand they had in it.
I'm with Seraphiel on this one. I'm a liberal Jew and former activist, and I've experienced many attempts to silence me. I was even denounced by name at a workshop by an ultra-Zionist Orthodox rabbi. A few people ahve quietly thanked me for speaking out, but many more have suggested that I keep my opinions to myself (you're right, but...) either to avoid the hassle or because dissension within the ranks gives aid and comfort to the anti-Semites. An actual quote from a Berkeley graduate student: "I think we should just support Israel financially and not comment on their politics in any way." This was disingenuous; the party line of that student group was that they supported the elected government of Israel ("right or wrong") but when Barak came to power, the support became-- nuanced. While most of the membership kept to the same tune, and many were relieved to be able to openly avow their views, the hardline "Greater Israel" types smiled thinly and said that events might alter the fellow's idealism.
Usually I was accused of being a "self-hating Jew," which is rich considering that I was observant, living with a Jewish man, a member of one of the original Yerushalmi families, I served on the boards of three different Jewish groups, and have made a point of identifying myself as a Jew even though neither my face nor my Sefardi surname makes anyone expect me to be one.
My peace group went to a conflict resolution workshop with the "Zealots for Zion" (mostly because the Hillel director wanted them to stop capping on us) and it was revealed that our membership was more likely to be observant and or keep kosher*, speak Hebrew, have considered going to rabbinical school, and to have spent more time in Israel. We even had three sabras (native-born Israelis) to their one, and our group was one-fourth the size of theirs.
*Whenever my nemesis called me "traitor," I told him to take the cheeseburger out of his mouth when he spoke to me.
Sisi,
I don't doubt you're experiences with Hillel and similar groups. Though I have no direct experience with them, it fits with much of what I've heard. But it would be a mistake to make assumptions about Jews in general based on those groups, just as it would be a mistake to generalize about Christians in general based on the Christian Right. The groups you mentioned are Judaism's answer to Evangelicalism, not in it's religious aspects, but in socio-political attitudes. Like the Christian Right, they consider themselves the true representives of their religion. They tend toward paranoia, and reject anyone who doesn't embrace their black-and-white world view. But the fact that the Christian Right likes to think of itself as the only real Christianiaty doesn't make it so, any more than members of Hillel or Bnai Brith are the only real Jews. I have been involved in groups like Amnesty International, and have met a lot of Jews through them. They're usually easy to spot at AI meetings. They're the one's who are always the first to volunteer to write letters about human rights violations against Palestinians.
I don't have much sympathy with the ADL. I agree that too often when they say 'anti-Semite', what they really mean is 'someone who disagrees with me about Israel'. But that doesn't blind me to the fact that anti-Semitism exists on the left. Just look at this thread and how quickly a discussion about an anti-Semitic campaign turned to attacks on Israel. Israel's actions have been unconsciounable, but using those actions as an excuse to let naked bigotry go unanswered is just as bad.
Are there any Christians out there that have actually read the Bible? Jesus was crucified by the Romans at the behest of the Jewish officials. Neither group wanted any kind of troublemaker around. Having said this, I also say, "So what". Jews today are no more responsible for what their ancestors did, than Mel Gibson is responsible for the Inquisition. It seems that everyone wants a sanitized version of the crucifixion, in which Jesus crucified himself, and noone else is actually responsible for his death.
Jews today are no more responsible for what their ancestors did, than Mel Gibson is responsible for the Inquisition.
Up until 1965, the Catholic Church would not have agreed with you. Vatican II presented their revised opinion of the event:
"True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hi...atican_council/
documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-
aetate_en.html
Mel Gibson's church rejects Vatican II, and from some of his comments it appears he does hold Jews today accountable for the death of Christ.
Since 9/11 we have seen people brutally attacked in the US because they appeared to be Arabs. Their attackers must have known they weren't personally responsible for the hijackings, but they didn't care. I'm not worried that audiences are going to leave the theater screaming, "Kill the Jews", but I am worried that some Christian Identity types will take this movie as a call to arms. It's already becoming a cause celebre for anti-Semitic groups, and while I don't think Gibson planned it that way, he hasn't shown any signs of discouraging it either.
This is a disturbing conversation. How can anti-Semitism no longer be a valid issue to question? Whether or not the term has been misused in the past plays no legitimate role in the question at hand. Many people have had their lives ruined by false accusations of sexual harassment -- does this mean noone is ever sexually harassed (G-d forbid)? Further, whether or not someone has a legitimate criticism against the Israeli government or an action taken on behalf of Israel, does not mean that the means of expressing this opposition is not anti-Semitic. Protesting the occupation is not anti-Semitic, doing it with posters that show Jews drinking Palestinian blood, is. Advocating on behalf of Palestinians and reporting practices of the IDF is not anti-Semitic. Describing the Occupation as a holocaust in which Palestinians are rounded up in death camps and shot, is. As for Gibson, he is expressing what he says are strongly held religious beliefs. Unfortunately many of those beliefs and the sources on which they are predicated are prime sources for the most derogatory depictions of Jews. If "Birth of a Nation" (by all accounts a great technical work) is racist, then Gibson's work can be anti-Semitic.
Mel Gibson's church rejects Vatican II, and from some of his comments it appears he does hold Jews today accountable for the death of Christ.
Vatican II encompasses a lot. To say you're against it doesn't mean you hold Jews responsible. To put it in terms you might like, suppose the Republicans inserted a clause or addendum to a Democratic bill, then suppose this addition was so heinous you could no longer support the bill. You vote against the bill, but it doesn't mean you don't like most of it.
I've never seen anything Gibson said against modern Jews, even in articles critical of him.
In fact, he's said the opposite.
I'm with anonymous. So what if the Jews did help kill Jesus? Can we not make movies about slavery because it means white people will be shown whipping black people? Modern white people are not responsible for it, and don't take offense at it.
From the Guardian article:
[Gibson] was asked ... if he thought the film would upset any Jewish people. "It may," he conceded. "It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth ... Anybody who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability."
It sounds like considers modern Jews culpable for Christ's death.
ou vote against the bill, but it doesn't mean you don't like most of it.
That's a flawed anology. The Traditionalists were under no requirement to accept or reject Vatican II in it's entirety. The were free to accept whatever parts of it they chose. They chose not to. This is NOT about the suggestion that some Jews were culpable in the death of Jesus. If it were, the groups that are don't like Gibson's movie would be equally hostile to Vatican II. This is about modern-day hate-mongers using the story of the passion for their own ends.
I wasn't saying anyone could or couldn't vote on parts of Vatican II, merely that you can dislike an entirety even if you agree with a small part of it.
The quote you cite is not complete. Here's the full quote:
It may. It's not meant to.
I think it's meant to just tell the truth. I want to be as truthful as possible. But, when you look at the reasons behind why Christ came, why he was crucified, he died for all mankind and he suffered for all mankind, so that, really, anybody who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability.
So yes, the Jews had a part but all mankind has a responsibility.
I want to say again that I have no stake in this. I'm agnostic. But I think this movie is being unfairly judged, just as Last Temptation of Christ was years ago. Certain Jews did contribute to Jesus' death, certain Jews helped or sympathized with Jesus. This is all being portrayed, so who's advancing an agenda here?
I wasn't saying anyone could or couldn't vote on parts of Vatican II, merely that you can dislike an entirety even if you agree with a small part of it.
That was hardly a 'small part' of Vatican II. It was a major issue.
The quote you cite is not complete.
The elision was the Guardians not mine, but since the subject was Jews taking offence at the movie, I don't think the full quote changes it's meaning significantly.
Certain Jews did contribute to Jesus' death, certain Jews helped or sympathized with Jesus. This is all being portrayed, so who's advancing an agenda here?
First, how do you know what's being portrayed if you haven't seen the movie? Second, I suggest you read David Neiwart's articles on the issue. Third, it's late, so believe whatever you want.
I've read reports on the film. It includes the apostles and Mary and Jesus - all or most of whom are Jewish. Jesus is calles "rabbi" according to one article I read. The Pharisees are depicted, and they were complicit in Jesus death, by Biblical accounts. How is depicting this anti-semitic? I've yet to see that answered here or elsewhere.
I'd say it's a stretch to interpret Gibson's quote as being anti-Jew. It says all people need to look at how they're culpable - this includes Jews.
If it seems as though I'm vigorously defending this movie, and I am, it's because I find it nearly impossible for any film about Jesus to be anti-Semitic, short of excluding the Romans entirely.
I'd say it's a stretch to interpret Gibson's quote as being anti-Jew. It says all people need to look at how they're culpable - this includes Jews.
The problem is, assuming his interpretation is correct, and further making the huge leap that the Bible is historically accurate, the only people who would then be culpable were the specific Jewish leaders who intervened to get the Romans to kill this person.
There is nobody alive today, anywhere, who is culpable for it. For him to suggest that modern Jews should somehow take responsibility for something their distant ancestors might have done is ludicrous at best.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
