← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Avalanche
Thread ID: 12321 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2004-02-14
2004-02-14 04:38 | User Profile
[url]http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/shore/2004/shore021304.htm[/url]
Why Jews Are Concerned Over Mel Gibsonââ¬â¢s Rendering of ââ¬ÅThe Passionââ¬Â
February 13, 2004 by Scott Shore
I am an observant, religious Jew. I have never suggested the banning of Mel Gibsonââ¬â¢s new film, The Passion. I have, in fact, worked tirelessly to build the bridges between religious Christians and Jews in the belief that we have far more in common in our agenda for America than anything theologically that might divide us. I have the utmost respect for thoughtful, believing Christians. I even understand the spiritual gain that many Christians may feel in watching The Passion. Moreover, I do not believe any religious group should try to hinder or suppress the artistic expression of those who produce a religious film.
Having said all of that, I am concerned with the release of The Passion. There is a long, historical reason for this. The story of the Passion has often led to violent outbreaks of anti-Semitism throughout the centuries--- not just once or twice but thousands of times in thousands of places! It often served historically as the dramatic precursor to arouse the people to a pogrom. I do not believe this is a likely outcome among the great majority of Americans of good will. Nevertheless, it should at least be honestly acknowledged that this is the historical context in which Jews rationally anticipate this film
I also wish to make clear that I respect the right of Christians to express without harassment their Christian faith in film. It is unreasonable for Jews or others to expect Christians to water down their faith to suit non-Christians or to be politically correct. Every faith of goodwill and peace should celebrate its own heritage. The problem I have with the descriptions of the film (I have not seen it yet) is the question of historical accuracy. It seems that the major selling point of the film is its faithfulness to New Testament depiction. Here is a major problem.
The Passion is a Hollywood film. As a Jew that has read the New Testament in greater detail than many Christians have read the Jewish Bible, its commentaries and its simultaneous Oral Tradition, I have serious issues with the historicity of the film as it has been described by fans and critics alike. The New Testament does NOT describe in vivid detail the actual scenes or common dialogues surrounding the Passion. We have no idea of the size of the crowds or overall tone of the animosity or involvement of the average Jew in this matter. It is highly unlikely that Jesus attracted massive crowds to this event. Jesus, for what itââ¬â¢s worth, was one of many Jews proclaiming themselves to be the Messiah at that point in history. Messianic excitement and would-be messiahs were common fare in those days. While the events surrounding Jesus are of the utmost importance to Christians, they were marginal matters in the life of the Jewish people at that time. Mel Gibson is well within his rights to make the Passion a ââ¬Åsuper-eventââ¬Â for artistic reasons. A ruckus of a small, angry crowd does not make for a particularly spectacular film. In general, Mr. Gibson took enormous artistic license in the way he chose to portray the vituperative size, tone and feeling of events surrounding the New Testament account. While Mr. Gibson is no doubt a highly devout Catholic, he is also an incredibly talented director with a sense of dramatic impact.
For the record, there is an entirely different portrayal of the life of Jesus within Jewish history and recorded within the Talmud. It would serve no useful purpose to go into those details. The point is that contemporaries of Jesus had very different account of the character and events surrounding Jesusââ¬â¢ life. Some devout Christians have tried to ââ¬Åproveââ¬Â their account of events by quotations from the New Testament. This is a somewhat dicey proposition in that there are conflicting accounts within the New Testament itself. Moreover, those who believe the literal accuracy of other texts could produce outrageous films. A Muslim cinematic interpretation of the life of Jesus would point to the inevitable conclusion that Jesus was a precursor to Mohammed based on the historic infallibility of Koranic texts.
If Christians want to claim that The Passion is a dramatic and artistic portrayal of the death and resurrection of Jesus there is no issue. If these same people try to suggest that this is a historically accurate( indeed literally exact), film than they have little basis in Scripture to support that. If Gibson wants to talk about dramatic effect that is one thing, but he should not try to claim he is representing historical events in the way they occurred.
Finally we come to my last concern. All good drama shows a dramatic contrast between protagonists and antagonists. Gibson understands this and by all accounts he represents opponents of Jesus and the unlikely hordes of Jews surrounding the event as malicious caricatures. They are apparently portrayed as conniving, unethical, smarmy and mean-spirited people. Many of these people are part of the Holy Temple and represented those who were part an unbroken line of those anointed since Moses. The oft-quoted Hillel was among the Pharisees. Much of Jesusââ¬â¢ ethical teachings are straight from the Talmud and from his own rabbinic teachers and can be found in many Jewish texts. To libel an entire group of Jewish sages and saints is a frontal attack on Judaism. As Jesus was himself an observant Jew who followed Jewish Law and the teachings of the Sages, it is highly unlikely that the attacks against the Sages came directly from him. It is far more plausible that they are the opinions or interpretation of his apostles.
To summarize, there are five good reasons for Jews to be concerned about The Passion. First, it has traditionally led to a few zealots being led to violent action against Jews. Secondly, The Passion is a historical Hollywood drama. The literal scenes around the Crucifixion are not based on any Scriptural foundation beyond the simple facts. Three, the mobs and hateful vituperation makes for a good movie, but shabby history. Four, no attempt is made to understand the Jewish view of the same events. This means no sympathy or understanding of the Jews is possible and thus no opportunity for dialogue is opened. Jews are simply demonized and this, quite expectedly, is going to be received as an affront and attack on the Jewish people. Five, the Jews have a very deep and proud understanding of the events surrounding both Christianity and Islam. The so-called ââ¬Åvipersââ¬Â of the Sanhedrin were great sages and holy men (See Paul Johnsonââ¬â¢s, The Hisory of the Jews). It is as insulting to Jews to attack their character in this way as it would be for Muslims or Jews to characterize the Christian apostles or saints as ââ¬Åcharlatansââ¬Â in a major blockbuster film and not expect anger and mass indignation. One can only imagine the outrage.
This article, as I have made clear, is not meant to stifle the film. It is only meant to share with my Christian friends the angst felt by many Jews based on history and the always constant fear of an anti-Semitic outbreak that would tear asunder the bonds of understanding and amity that currently exists between many Christians and Jews.
2004-02-14 08:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The story of the Passion has often led to violent outbreaks of anti-Semitism throughout the centuries--- not just once or twice but thousands of times in thousands of places! [/QUOTE]
The world has seen, at a minimum, one violet outbreak of anti-Semitism per year!
[QUOTE]The Passion is a Hollywood film. [/QUOTE]
Hollywood exists to facilitate the process of actors bankrolling their own films.
[QUOTE]For the record, there is an entirely different portrayal of the life of Jesus within Jewish history and recorded within the Talmud. It would serve no useful purpose to go into those details. [/QUOTE]
Thatââ¬â¢s right, Jewish history tells it differentlyââ¬Â¦ and it would [I]really[/I] serve no useful purpose to go into those details.
[QUOTE]If Gibson wants to talk about dramatic effect that is one thing, but he should not try to claim he is representing historical events in the way they occurred. [/QUOTE]
Damn straight. Gibson himself admitted omitting some of the most ââ¬Åpainfulââ¬Â scenes in the upcoming release. If he wants to claim historical accuracy let him wait until the directorââ¬â¢s [un]cut version appears.
2004-02-14 11:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE]For the record, there is an entirely different portrayal of the life of Jesus within Jewish history and recorded within the Talmud. It would serve no useful purpose to go into those details. [/QUOTE]
Uh, no, actually, it would serve a very useful purpose indeed.
Walter Cardinal Yannis :alucard:
2004-02-14 17:10 | User Profile
Winter? The Jews are not "crazy " they are just acting like Jews,,,,, as they are now they have in the past and so it will be the same in the future. Why do you think those people have been persecuted for over 2,000 years? Why do you think those people have been kicked out of 48 countrys? Some of thme twice like Italy and Spain....... The only country that the Jews have been able to stablish a foothold is in the USA, more than a foothole now they control the government.
2004-02-14 17:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Winter? The Jews are not "crazy " they are just acting like Jews,,,,, as they are now they have in the past and so it will be the same in the future. Why do you think those people have been persecuted for over 2,000 years? Why do you think those people have been kicked out of 48 countrys? Some of thme twice like Italy and Spain....... The only country that the Jews have been able to stablish a foothold is in the USA, more than a foothole now they control the government.[/QUOTE]
Good point. They really just don't know when to quit, do they?
There never seems to come a point with Jews where they say "well, we made it to the top of this host country, it'll never get any better than this 'cause this is as good as it can possibly get, so let's settle down to being good shepherds of these sheep and fleece them only as much as the herd will comfortably bear."
They just can't help themselves.
Freeking amazing.
Walter
2004-02-14 17:33 | User Profile
They wouldn't have been Jews if they were able to stop. It's just the nature of the beast. It's what makes them Jews.
2004-02-14 18:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]They wouldn't have been Jews if they were able to stop. It's just the nature of the beast. It's what makes them Jews.[/QUOTE]
The Jews are not being persecuted for being Jews, but for the way that they act as Jews. If Thomas Henry kills a cop and then he is prosecuted and goes to the electric chair is not because his name is John Henry but because he killed a cop. The Jews should be happy with what they have but they want the whole pie and not just a piece of it, is their way of life and thats why they will never find peace in this earth for as long as they live. You can only push someone for so long before that person says "NO MORE", is time for the American people to wake up and take control of the government once again, after all "WE THE PEOPLE" is what is all about.
2004-02-15 03:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Four, no attempt is made to understand the Jewish view of the same events.[/QUOTE]
Gee whiz. Imagine a Christian movie doing that.
2004-02-15 04:58 | User Profile
Wait; it gets [I]better[/I]. Yehuda's playing hardball now and his new purpose-pitch is "can Gibson even survive in Hollywood now?" (Pardon me, I was under the impression that he'd spent his own damn money on this. "Survive"? One of the biggest movie stars on the planet? Wha - ?? But read on...)
http://www.ew.com/ew/onlyonaol/report/0,17129,589826_1||478293_0_,00.html
[COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=4]The Agony and the Ecstasy [/SIZE] [/COLOR] [I]Will ''The Passion'' ruin Mel Gibson's career? The much-anticipated, hotly debated, and closely guarded film dramatizing Christ's final hours threatens to forever alienate the actor/director from Hollywood [/I] by Jeff Jensen
From the very start, Mel Gibson knew he was courting danger when he decided to make his $25 million passion project, ''The Passion of the Christ,'' which opens Feb. 25 -- Ash Wednesday -- on 2,000 screens nationwide. A violent, self-funded chronicle of Christ's final hours, literally if selectively adapted from New Testament sources, and augmented with material from extra-biblical writings long accused of containing anti-Semitic content -- really, how difficult could it have been for Gibson to see trouble on the horizon? EW was denied a screening of the film, as well as interviews with Gibson, James Caviezel (the movie's Jesus), and the rest of the ''Passion'' team. But according to over two dozen industry executives and others who have seen the movie or are close to Gibson, ''The Passion'' is deeply polarizing. And the question that will haunt Gibson long after the furor over the film is this: Did it really need to be?
In Hollywood, cautious deliberations have begun. Many who think favorably of both film and filmmaker were willing to go on the record; detractors preferred anonymity, particularly those who might have to work with Gibson again. ''I think it's a masterpiece,'' raves Dean Devlin, who produced Gibson's ''The Patriot.'' ''I am going to try very hard never to work with him again,'' says one studio executive. ''If the film is anti-Semitic, I guarantee you it's inadvertent,'' says Gibson's six-time director Richard Donner. ''He has driven his career right to the edge of a cliff,'' says another studio executive. ''One more false move, it goes right over.''
Amazing: With a single film, a Hollywood icon teeters on the brink. How this thriller resolves itself hinges on a complicated set of interlocking questions: Will the film be a hit? Will it be offensive? And if it's seen as offensive, what if it's a hit anyway? Gibson is in a heck of a jam -- but don't underestimate his ability to wriggle free and endure. The 48-year-old was once again named America's favorite movie actor by the People's Choice Awards in January. By instinct, calculation, or both, he has proven remarkably adept at shaping and reshaping how the public perceives him. With ''The Passion of the Christ,'' that skill is about to undergo its fiercest test.
Messiah complex. Guilt complex. Father complex. Mel Gibson is a very complex guy. From the angry young vigilante in ''Mad Max'' to the half-cracked cop in ''Lethal Weapon,'' from the romantic revolutionary of ''Braveheart'' to the middle-aged man of forlorn faith in ''Signs,'' Gibson has been Hollywood's sexy martyr, suffering greatly, and usually victoriously, for our pleasure. Yet along the way, Gibson has remade himself, ditching the fun of ''Bird on a Wire'' for the rectitude of ''The Patriot.'' It's a Schwarzeneggerian arc -- a transformation from superstar to man of conscience, along with the occasional calculated nod to his own foibles. (For a man who once said ''Feminists don't like me, and I don't like them,'' his winkingly penitent turn in ''What Women Want'' was a masterful bit of spin-doctoring.) In recent roles, the reckless, unapologetic artist who so angered homosexuals by having the king in ''Braveheart'' kill his son's male lover as an applause moment seemed to have been replaced by a more mature, conciliatory force. At least, it appeared so.
According to the testimony Gibson has shared with ''Passion'' audiences, the journey that led to his film began about 12 years ago, with Gibson hating the man he had become. He didn't want to live, but he didn't want to die, either. Instead, he chose to re-embrace his father's faith, a fringe Catholicism known as Traditionalism, which rejects many of the reforms introduced into mainstream Catholicism. (These 1962-65 Vatican II reforms also absolved Jews for the killing of Christ; Gibson hasn't said whether he rejects this as well.)
Those who know the man say a project like ''The Passion'' was inevitable. ''He's always been a seeker in terms of finding God,'' says Gibson's frequent costar Rene Russo. ''I know our conversations were always [about] 'Where is truth? Where do you want me to go from here, God? We've been to the mountaintop -- what else is there?'''
For Gibson, the next step was making a cinematic meditation on the bloody suffering Christ endured, a brash bid to create the most ''realistic'' depiction of Christ's death ever filmed. Those who have seen the film say ''The Passion'' is a meticulous evocation of its time and setting, from the (subtitled) Aramaic and Latin dialogue to the re-creation of first-century Jerusalem. It's also, apparently, the Most Violent Story Ever Told. The scourging of Christ -- for some, ''The Passion'''s most gruesome sequence -- sounds like a textbook lesson in torture, with Gibson's camera doting on the instruments used and the flesh-rending damage they can inflict.
''The Passion,'' in other words, is very much the product of Gibson the martyr/auteur. When Christ is nailed to the cross, Gibson's hand reportedly makes a cameo on the hammer. When Judas Iscariot hangs himself for betraying Christ, that's Gibson scream-singing on the soundtrack. ''He almost lost his voice,'' says ''Passion'' composer John Debney, recalling the day Gibson volunteered to perform the wail. What did it sound like? ''Complete despair.''
''The Passion'' isn't all blood and agony. Jesus' suffering is interspersed with flashbacks to his youth and ministry, like the Sermon on the Mount and the Last Supper. Perhaps tellingly, after the initial round of controversy last year, Gibson shot a few more of these soothing beats with Caviezel. Still, those moments haven't mitigated concerns that ''The Passion'' is hopelessly mired in anti-Semitic stereotypes, be they the religious leaders who conspire to kill Christ, or the bloodthirsty Jewish mobs who clamor for his death. The mere choice of title is dangerously loaded: Passion plays, a centuries-old art form, are often so liable to incite anti-Semitic anger that Catholic theologians crafted guidelines in the '80s for tonal appropriateness.
Even those in Hollywood who don't think Gibson is anti-Semitic, and there are many, believe that he and coscreenwriter Benedict Fitzgerald erred by creating a good-guy/bad-guy story. The villain: Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest and Jesus' chief persecutor, to whom Gibson assigned ''The Passion'''s most inflammatory moment: the ''blood libel'' of Matthew 27:25 (''His blood be on us, and on our children''), which has long been used to support the theologically and historically suspect claim that the Jews killed Jesus.
''The Passion'''s supporters say the movie is grounded in sound Christian doctrine: Christ goes willingly to the slaughter, and all mankind is to blame for his death. Gibson's own defense has been that he is merely dramatizing what the Bible says -- although just what the Bible says has, of course, been the subject of centuries of debate. Ultimately, viewers will have to decide whether characters like Caiaphas nullify that broader message. ''The second Mel decided to give his hero an antagonist,'' says one studio exec, ''he stepped into a huge pile of s---.''
Mel Gibson seems to be of two minds about the uproar over ''The Passion.'' Friends and associates say he is deeply hurt by it. But he has long known that controversy is good for business. ''Inadvertently,'' Gibson told The New Yorker last fall, ''all the problems and the conflicts and stuff -- this is some of the best marketing and publicity I have ever seen.'' But Gibson himself bears some responsibility for the media firestorm. Given his own words and actions, the controversy seems anything but ''inadvertent.''
The director himself laid down the first piece of kindling more than a year ago, when he defended his film on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News talk show -- even though no one had publicly attacked it. Seven weeks later, The New York Times Magazine published a story about his father, the Catholic Traditionalist, who was portrayed as a Holocaust-denying extremist prone to blaming Jews for the evils of the world. Immediately, some Jewish activists -- including representatives of the Anti-Defamation League -- and Catholic theologians began wondering if Mel was a chip off the old block.
Several Jewish leaders requested a screening of the film. Gibson was showing it to Christian pastors and pundits -- why not them, too? But Gibson said no. As the film's profile grew, Gibson began searching for a distributor. Icon claims major studios were interested (though most of the majors contacted by EW say they never seriously entertained releasing the movie). Eventually, Gibson made a deal with Newmarket Films, whose recent successes include ''Monster'' and ''Whale Rider.'' But when it comes to selling ''The Passion,'' Icon is calling all the shots.
Gibson defenders note that an artist has no obligation to those who would thought-police a work in progress. (Although in this case, he stands on shakier ground: ''What he doesn't get is that this isn't about him,'' says one source close to Gibson. ''This is about 2,000 years of bigotry and hatred.'') And they understand why Gibson won't alleviate his problems by distancing himself from his extremist dad. ''He's in an unwinnable situation,'' says a friend, who insists the star doesn't share his father's skepticism about the Holocaust. ''He knows exactly what the headline will be: 'Mel Thinks His Father Is Crazy.'''
Others in Hollywood are sure Icon is fueling the fire. ''They are wonderful guys, but they can beat the drum louder than other people,'' says one studio exec who has done business with Gibson's company, citing in particular the gamesmanship over whether the Pope endorsed ''The Passion.'' ''Sometimes they go too far.''
Take the confusing situation currently surrounding the ''blood libel.'' Last fall, Gibson reportedly cut the line; in fact, at the screening attended by Caviezel and Russo, it wasn't there. But in recent weeks, Gibson showed thousands of Christians a version that retained the line. Word got out. Controversy erupted. The press pounced. Gibson was heard to suggest that dark forces were moving against him. And again, interest was piqued. The capper: In February, The New York Times, whose coverage of ''The Passion'' Gibson has deplored, was allowed to see the film, and broke the news that the ''blood libel'' reference had been deleted. More headlines.
The ADL's Abraham Foxman knows his protests may only have helped the film. ''I may be giving him free publicity, but to challenge him and have a debate is healthy,'' says Foxman, who says the Jewish stereotypes and ''whole mind-set'' of the movie remain offensive.
But healthy debate is the last thing Gibson has sought. An EW journalist seeking to arrange an interview was told that Gibson's camp wasn't interested in a balanced story. Instead, he has agreed to speak only to politically simpatico writers like Peggy Noonan for Reader's Digest, or in TV interviews that are more likely than print pieces to showcase his considerable charm. His Feb. 16 appearance on ''Primetime'' looms as a pivotal flash point in his publicity war.
Icon's wooing of evangelical Christians to promote his movie has been just as engineered -- some would say exploitative. The kits Icon has sent churches even touts ''The Passion'' as ''Perhaps the Best Outreach Opportunity in 2000 Years.'' On Feb. 7, Gibson hosted a screening/PR powwow at Azusa Pacific University near L.A.; attendees had to sign an agreement to ''hold confidential my exposure, knowledge, and experience of the film, except as authorized by Icon.... However, pastors, church leaders, and students are free to speak out in support of the movie....'' Says one signer: ''The way I interpreted it was 'If you liked the film, feel free to talk about it. And if you didn't like the film, feel free to honor the confidentiality agreement.'''
But there's another way to interpret Icon's tactics -- as a salvo in the ''culture wars,'' some of whose proponents don't care whether the split is between Jews and Christians or ''the liberal media'' and ''the silent majority.'' And whether deliberate or not, Gibson's Christian grassroots counteroffensive and stonewalling of his critics has paid off. Buoyed by advance ticket sales driven by churches and other Christian groups, ''The Passion'' could pull in $30 million in its first five days. Says Dean Devlin: ''For eight months everyone has been talking about it -- that, in and of itself, is genius. The world wants to see this picture. Now, they may want to see it for the wrong reasons -- but the buzz is spectacular. I have producer's envy.'' (Additional reporting by Allison Hope Weiner and Josh Young)
2004-02-15 05:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wintermute]A different account . . . that he's boiling in shit for all eternity and that his mother was a whore?
Yes, but there's no useful purpose in going into those details . . .[/QUOTE]LMFAO!! :lol:
Jews have an unparalleled ability to appear balanced, levelheaded, and oh-so-reasonable when communicating lies and half-truths as individuals, as in the essay above. What's interesting is that this does not carry over to an ability to display such "deceitful restraint" on a larger, collective scale -- hence, the oft-observed tendency for organized Jewry to "overplay its hand."