← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · heritagelost
Thread ID: 12496 | Posts: 50 | Started: 2004-02-24
2004-02-24 21:32 | User Profile
I've been reading movies reviews and editorial about the Passion from across the US. Major newspapers are not only giving the movie bad reviews, they are launching vicious outrageous attacks on the movie.
One New York newspaper actually urged people not to go see the movie. Other have attacked church groups for taking children to the movie.
Reviewers say that the movie is not suitable, even for teenagers. However, if the movie was about interacial sex, gang violence, and drug use it would have been fine.
Also, some real ballsy Kikes are standing in Time Square protesting the movie right now.
2004-02-25 00:49 | User Profile
Roger Ebert gave the movie [URL=http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-passion24.html]four stars[/URL]
His reviews are some of the most intelligent available.
Well Mel ever get another job in Hollywood? Can his super-star power save his career in the light of this unPC movie?
2004-02-25 04:38 | User Profile
So far,the most disgusting Jewish propaganda unit determined not only to demonize this film, but destroy Gibson's career, has been Zuckerman's NY DAILY NEWS. Scare headlines have been featured every day for at least a week on its covers. (Sunday's read "THE PASSION: The Most Cynical Marketing Campaign Ever". Really? In that case, I have a second-hand Middle Eastern war to sell you, cheap.)
Both their regular movie critics (an ex-NEWSWEEK hack named Jack Matthews and the Jewess Jami Bernard, a justplainhack) have squatted over the film to empty their bowels on it. Here is Bernard's 'unbiased' reaction (a screaming full-page display on page freakin' three as opposed to the other movie reviews - which show up around page [I]fifty[/I]-three):
[QUOTE]http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/167329p-146309c.html
Gore's the crime of 'Passion'
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. With Jim Caviezel. Written,directed and produced by Mel Gibson. At area theaters (2:07). Rated R for sequences of graphic violence. In Latin and Aramaic with English subtitles.
No child should see this movie.
Even adults are at risk.
Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of World War II.
It is sickening, much more brutal than any "Lethal Weapon."
The violence is grotesque, savage and often fetishized in slo-mo. At least in Hollywood spectacles that kind of violence is tempered with cartoonish distancing effects; not so here. And yet "The Passion" is also undeniably powerful.
Because of all the media coverage of this movie and the way it was shown only to handpicked sympathizers until yesterday's screening for movie critics, many questions hang in the air: Is it historically accurate?
Of course not. As with any movie, even a documentary, this one reflects the views of its filmmakers, who are entitled and expected to use their art persuasively. Gibson has been up-front about his own religious agenda.
But is it any good?
"The Passion" - once you strip away all the controversy and religious fervor - is a technically proficient account of the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus of Nazareth.
The movie is sanctimonious in a way that impedes dramatic flow and limits characterizations to the saintly and the droolingly vulgar.
That said, there are many things in its favor - a heroic physical effort by star Jim Caviezel; stunning cinematography by Caleb Deschanel, and the chutzpah to have the actors speak in the dead language of Aramaic (with some subtitles).
Is Gibson devout, or is he mad?
Had Gibson claimed Napoleon helped him direct, instead of divine spirits, the answer would be clear. Even so, a touch of madness is often a good thing in a director.
But "The Passion" feels like a propaganda tool rather than entertainment for a general audience.
Is it anti-Semitic?
Yes.
Jews are vilified, in ways both little and big, pretty much nonstop for two hours, seven minutes.
Gibson cuts from the hook nose of one bad Jewish character to the hook nose of another in the ensuing scene.
He misappropriates an important line from the Jewish celebration of Pesach ("Why is this night different from all other nights?") and slaps it onto a Christian context.
Most unforgivable is that Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov), the Roman governor of Palestine who decreed that Jesus be crucified, is portrayed as a sensitive, kind-hearted soul who is sickened by the tortures the Jewish mobs heap upon his prisoner.
Pilate agrees to the Crucifixion only against his better judgment.
The most offensive line of the script, which was co-written by Gibson with Benedict Fitzgerald, about Jews accepting blame, was not cut from the movie, as initially reported. Only its subtitle was removed.
"Passion" assumes the audience already knows Christianity 101, and plunges right into the aftermath of the Last Supper. Taunted by an effeminate, seductive Satan and anticipating betrayal, Christ suffers.
Oh, does He suffer.
The movie is a compendium of tortures that would horrify the regulars at an S&M club. Gibson spares not one cringing closeup to showcase what he imagines Jesus must have endured.
The lashings are so brutal that chunks of flesh go flying and blood rains like outtakes of "Kill Bill."
The Romans capture their prey with the help of a terminally regretful Judas, then haul Him around to be whipped, beaten, spat upon, mutilated and finally crucified - all with the cheering encouragement of a ghoulish mob of Jews. No one in the crowd speaks up for Jesus, not even, strangely, his mother (Maia Morgenstern).
Religious intolerance has been used as an excuse for some of history's worst atrocities. "The Passion of the Christ" is a brutal, nasty film that demonizes Jews at an unfortunate time in history.
Whatever happened to the idea that the centerpiece of every major religion is love? [/QUOTE]
[I]The violence is grotesque, savage and often fetishized in slo-mo. At least in Hollywood spectacles that kind of violence is tempered with cartoonish distancing effects; not so here. [/I]
Oy, the bloodshed and violence - grotesque, itz! Pretty nice about-face for a writer whose 'work' once appeared regularly in FANGORIA magazine (a horror-movie publication lovingly devoted to gore and brutality for their own sakes, that proudly displays scenes of sickening carnage on its covers - and which, by the way, is marketed and sold to children).
[I]Is it historically accurate? Of course not. As with any movie, even a documentary, this one reflects the views of its filmmakers...[/I]
Odd, that's what I said about SCHINDLER'S LIST; but no New York newspaper ever bothered to print my letter, let alone offered me a staff position for my 'insight'.
And Bernard is just the tip of the Goldberg. The NEWS has gone out of its way to vilify Gibson and his movie in every possible way, day after day. (As always, tempered with lots of thoughtful Jewish lessons on how Christians should act and feel and think. Imagine: lessons on Christianity 101 from the the people now insisting that it was the Romans who killed Christ over the strenuous objections of the Sanhedrin.) "[I]Whatever happened to the idea that the centerpiece of every major religion is love?[/I]" is especially rich coming from the Masters of Hate-for-Gain, eh?
2004-02-25 05:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Roger Ebert gave the movie [URL=http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-passion24.html]four stars[/URL]
His reviews are some of the most intelligent available.
He's a pee-cee, liberal, asshole who's married to a negress.
[img]http://www.filmthreat.com/UploadImages/000007366_rogerchaz1X.jpg[/img] [FONT=Arial Narrow]Roger Ebert and his lovely wife Chaz at the opening night reception.[/FONT]
2004-02-25 05:08 | User Profile
The NY Post (owned by Mort Zuckerman) did a big cover story on The Passion.
Yeah, the joos are real scared. :yawn:
2004-02-25 05:12 | User Profile
In all my 33 years I have never seen the Jews on the defensive as they are now. The whole "amen corner" incident with Buchanan was nothing compared to this. This whole matter may blow over in a few weeks but Mel has shown us just how weak the Jew is in the West all we have to do is get enough white men to get the ball rolling and Hymen will be booking a permanent flight to Tel Aviv faster than we can say Shalom.
2004-02-25 05:37 | User Profile
Hey, lay off Ebert just this once. He wrote an honest review. Compare this withJami Bernard's drool, above.
[QUOTE]THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST / **** (R)
February 24, 2004
Jesus, the Christ: James Caviezel Mary: Maia Morgenstern Mary Magdalene: Monica Bellucci Pontius Pilate: Hristo Shopov Caiaphas: Mattia Sbragia Judas: Luca Lionello Claudia: Claudia Gerini Gesmas: Francesco Cabras Satan Rosalinda Celentano
Newmarket Films presents a film directed by Mel Gibson. Written by Gibson and Benedict Fitzgerald. Running time: 126 minutes. Rated R (for sequences of graphic violence). Opening Wednesday at local theaters, but selected locations will start screening the movie at midnight Tuesday.
BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC
If ever there was a film with the correct title, that film is Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." Although the word passion has become mixed up with romance, its Latin origins refer to suffering and pain; later Christian theology broadened that to include Christ's love for mankind, which made him willing to suffer and die for us.
The movie is 126 minutes long, and I would guess that at least 100 of those minutes, maybe more, are concerned specifically and graphically with the details of the torture and death of Jesus. This is the most violent film I have ever seen.
I prefer to evaluate a film on the basis of what it intends to do, not on what I think it should have done. It is clear that Mel Gibson wanted to make graphic and inescapable the price that Jesus paid (as Christians believe) when he died for our sins. Anyone raised as a Catholic will be familiar with the stops along the way; the screenplay is inspired not so much by the Gospels as by the 14 Stations of the Cross. As an altar boy, serving during the Stations on Friday nights in Lent, I was encouraged to meditate on Christ's suffering, and I remember the chants as the priest led the way from one station to another:
At the Cross, her station keeping ...
Stood the mournful Mother weeping ...
Close to Jesus to the last.
For we altar boys, this was not necessarily a deep spiritual experience. Christ suffered, Christ died, Christ rose again, we were redeemed, and let's hope we can get home in time to watch the Illinois basketball game on TV. What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of. That his film is superficial in terms of the surrounding message -- that we get only a few passing references to the teachings of Jesus -- is, I suppose, not the point. This is not a sermon or a homily, but a visualization of the central event in the Christian religion. Take it or leave it.
David Ansen, a critic I respect, finds in Newsweek that Gibson has gone too far. "The relentless gore is self-defeating," he writes. "Instead of being moved by Christ's suffering or awed by his sacrifice, I felt abused by a filmmaker intent on punishing an audience, for who knows what sins."
This is a completely valid response to the film, and I quote Ansen because I suspect he speaks for many audience members, who will enter the theater in a devout or spiritual mood and emerge deeply disturbed. You must be prepared for whippings, flayings, beatings, the crunch of bones, the agony of screams, the cruelty of the sadistic centurions, the rivulets of blood that crisscross every inch of Jesus' body. Some will leave before the end.
This is not a Passion like any other ever filmed. Perhaps that is the best reason for it. I grew up on those pious Hollywood biblical epics of the 1950s, which looked like holy cards brought to life. I remember my grin when Time magazine noted that Jeffrey Hunter, starring as Christ in "King of Kings" (1961), had shaved his armpits. (Not Hunter's fault; the film's Crucifixion scene had to be re-shot because preview audiences objected to Jesus' hairy chest.)
If it does nothing else, Gibson's film will break the tradition of turning Jesus and his disciples into neat, clean, well-barbered middle-class businessmen. They were poor men in a poor land. I debated Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" with commentator Michael Medved before an audience from a Christian college, and was told by an audience member that the characters were filthy and needed haircuts.
The Middle East in biblical times was a Jewish community occupied against its will by the Roman Empire, and the message of Jesus was equally threatening to both sides: to the Romans, because he was a revolutionary, and to the establishment of Jewish priests, because he preached a new covenant and threatened the status quo.
In the movie's scenes showing Jesus being condemned to death, the two main players are Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, and Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest. Both men want to keep the lid on, and while neither is especially eager to see Jesus crucified, they live in a harsh time when such a man is dangerous.
Pilate is seen going through his well-known doubts before finally washing his hands of the matter and turning Jesus over to the priests, but Caiaphas, who also had doubts, is not seen as sympathetically. The critic Steven D. Greydanus, in a useful analysis of the film, writes: "The film omits the canonical line from John's gospel in which Caiaphas argues that it is better for one man to die for the people [so] that the nation be saved.
"Had Gibson retained this line, perhaps giving Caiaphas a measure of the inner conflict he gave to Pilate, it could have underscored the similarities between Caiaphas and Pilate and helped defuse the issue of anti-Semitism."
This scene and others might justifiably be cited by anyone concerned that the movie contains anti-Semitism. My own feeling is that Gibson's film is not anti-Semitic, but reflects a range of behavior on the part of its Jewish characters, on balance favorably. The Jews who seem to desire Jesus' death are in the priesthood, and have political as well as theological reasons for acting; like today's Catholic bishops who were slow to condemn abusive priests, Protestant TV preachers who confuse religion with politics, or Muslim clerics who are silent on terrorism, they have an investment in their positions and authority. The other Jews seen in the film are viewed positively; Simon helps Jesus to carry the cross, Veronica brings a cloth to wipe his face, Jews in the crowd cry out against his torture.
A reasonable person, I believe, will reflect that in this story set in a Jewish land, there are many characters with many motives, some good, some not, each one representing himself, none representing his religion. The story involves a Jew who tried no less than to replace the established religion and set himself up as the Messiah. He was understandably greeted with a jaundiced eye by the Jewish establishment while at the same time finding his support, his disciples and the founders of his church entirely among his fellow Jews. The libel that the Jews "killed Christ" involves a willful misreading of testament and teaching: Jesus was made man and came to Earth in order to suffer and die in reparation for our sins. No race, no man, no priest, no governor, no executioner killed Jesus; he died by God's will to fulfill his purpose, and with our sins we all killed him. That some Christian churches have historically been guilty of the sin of anti-Semitism is undeniable, but in committing it they violated their own beliefs.
This discussion will seem beside the point for readers who want to know about the movie, not the theology. But "The Passion of the Christ," more than any other film I can recall, depends upon theological considerations. Gibson has not made a movie that anyone would call "commercial," and if it grosses millions, that will not be because anyone was entertained. It is a personal message movie of the most radical kind, attempting to re-create events of personal urgency to Gibson. The filmmaker has put his artistry and fortune at the service of his conviction and belief, and that doesn't happen often.
Is the film "good" or "great?" I imagine each person's reaction (visceral, theological, artistic) will differ. I was moved by the depth of feeling, by the skill of the actors and technicians, by their desire to see this project through no matter what. To discuss individual performances, such as James Caviezel's heroic depiction of the ordeal, is almost beside the point. This isn't a movie about performances, although it has powerful ones, or about technique, although it is awesome, or about cinematography (although Caleb Deschanel paints with an artist's eye), or music (although John Debney supports the content without distracting from it).
It is a film about an idea. An idea that it is necessary to fully comprehend the Passion if Christianity is to make any sense. Gibson has communicated his idea with a singleminded urgency. Many will disagree. Some will agree, but be horrified by the graphic treatment. I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it.
Note: I said the film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it. The MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or was intimidated by the subject matter. If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic.
Copyright é Chicago Sun-Times Inc.[/QUOTE]
2004-02-25 06:25 | User Profile
Jesus, the Christ: James Caviezel Mary: Maia Morgenstern
Maia Morgenstern? Oy vey!, a jew! And not just any jew, but a [url=http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=36&art_id=22396]child of Holocaust survivors![/url]
I wonder how much money this jew bitch's parents have scammed from the German government, and does she get any payments?
[CENTER][img]http://www.hungary.com/evd/witman/wm2.jpg[/img][/CENTER] [FONT=Arial Narrow][CENTER]Yes goyim, see The Passion. Make me richer![/FONT][/CENTER]
Hmm...an anti-Semitic film starring a child of holocaust survivors? Vhat a concept!
2004-02-25 08:04 | User Profile
[I]Another, more meaningful, review.[/I]
[QUOTE][B]Gibson and His Enemies [/B]
February 19, 2004 According to a verse in the Book of Proverbs, I believe (though, being a Catholic, I can’t find it), “There is no such thing as bad publicity.”
Thanks in large part to vitriolic protests by Jewish groups, Mel Gibson’s forthcoming film The Passion of the Christ will surely be a stupendously popular movie. Jewish-owned media have given it enormous pre-release advertising — hostile, to be sure, but free of charge.
Gibson risked more than $20 million of his own money on the film, filling out the spare Gospel accounts of the Crucifixion with vivid details. As many who have seen it attest, it’s very hard to watch. Unlike most films, it makes violence horribly ugly and repulsive. To watch even a terrible criminal crucified — a routine Roman punishment — would sicken most modern viewers. But to see a re-creation of Christ’s torture and death is far worse for Christian audiences, who can only see in it what their own sins did to their Savior.
I saw a screening of it in November. When the film ended, the small audience sat in appalled silence for several minutes. And this is the reported reaction at every screening.
The notion that The Passion (as it was then called) could inspire hatred, let alone violence, against Jews, or anyone else, is hysterical. It’s perhaps the most violent film ever made, precisely because it shows how hideous violence really is.
But Gibson isn’t the only one who is getting free publicity. Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League is getting it too, as he makes the wild accusation, in countless interviews and newspaper columns, that the film will cause “anti-Semitism.”
Well, maybe it will — if you equate “anti-Semitism” with Christianity, which seems to be the implication. According to many Jewish writers, even the Gospels are anti-Semitic, as was the entire Christian tradition until the Second Vatican Council in 1965. Some, like Hyam Maccoby, actually blame Christianity for Hitler and the Holocaust.
But why stop with the Gospels? If the entire religion centered on hostility to the Jews, why not blame the founder himself? Foxman and his ilk never explain why they exempt Jesus from the accusation. But if all his early followers and their successors were anti-Semitic for two millennia, this calls for an explanation.
According to the Talmud and other authoritative Jewish writings, Jesus was a “bastard” and “sorcerer” who deserved his death and is now in hell, “boiling in excrement.” These lurid writings, which date from centuries after the Crucifixion, are disgusting to a degree that might shock Larry Flynt.
Foxman never mentions these “religious” texts. Would he object to a film about Jesus based on them?
Such obscene smears bear out Christ’s own prediction that he and his disciples would be hated by the world. So have the innumerable Christian martyrs even to our own time, some of whom are still being persecuted from the Sudan to China.
Nobody today actively hates anyone else from that period, not even such horrifying tyrants as Nero and Caligula. But after two thousand years, the gentle Savior, Jesus Christ, is still hated. That is one perverse testimony to the power of his message — and of the Gospels that bear it.
A watered-down or distorted image of Jesus, as in Martin Scorsese’s Last Temptation of Christ, doesn’t move the Foxmans of this world to fury. Nobody would bother crucifying Scorsese’s bland Jesus, who could excite neither hatred nor devotion, let alone change even the secular world forever.
If Gibson’s film can be faulted for anything, it may be for failing to show how popular Jesus was among the ordinary Jews of Jerusalem, who had wildly welcomed him only days before his murder. This popularity, the Gospels tell us, was the reason both the Jewish and Roman authorities feared him and decided to try him at night, in secret.
Not that Gibson’s enemies would applaud him for showing the adoring crowd greeting Christ on Palm Sunday. That might offend them worse than the vicious crowd he does show.
One can only marvel at the almost lunatic self-absorption of those who feel victimized by The Passion of the Christ. This film is not about them, any more than it’s about the Roman Empire. It’s about the Son of God.
Joseph Sobran [/QUOTE]
2004-02-25 08:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kurt]He's a pee-cee, liberal, asshole who's married to a negress.
[img]http://www.filmthreat.com/UploadImages/000007366_rogerchaz1X.jpg[/img] [FONT=Arial Narrow]Roger Ebert and his lovely wife Chaz at the opening night reception.[/FONT][/QUOTE]
And here I thought he was a poofter.
Seriously. Like Siskel (maybe I'm wrong about him, too?)
Walter
2004-02-25 08:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE]And here I thought he was a poofter.
Seriously. Like Siskel (maybe I'm wrong about him, too?)[/QUOTE]
Wrong as usual, Walter. Siskel did sort of mince a bit, but in a squishy Mike Farrell sort of way - he was otherwise a normal white hetero with wife and tots in tow, God help us.
2004-02-25 08:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Wrong as usual, Walter. Siskel did sort of mince a bit, but in a squishy Mike Farrell sort of way - he was otherwise a normal white hetero with wife and tots in tow, God help us.[/QUOTE]
Hmmm . . .
And they were both MOVIE CRITICS?
My world is shattered. Shattered.
Walter
2004-02-25 09:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Wrong as usual, Walter. Siskel did sort of mince a bit, but in a squishy Mike Farrell sort of way - he was otherwise a normal white hetero with wife and tots in tow, God help us.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/10667/edition_id/204/format/html/displaystory.html]Siskel[/url] was a zhid.
I've heard that Ebert's new sidekick, [url=http://www.suntimes.com/output/roeper/cst-nws-roep24.html]Richard Roeper[/url], is gay, but I don't know for certain.
2004-02-25 09:32 | User Profile
CBN founder and [url=http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=19687]Israeli Ministry of Tourism award winner[/url] Pat Roberston also seems to love The Passion...
[img]http://www.rense.com/1.imagesD/patr.jpg[/img]
[url=http://www.cbn.com/special/PassionOfChrist.asp]CBN's Passion site[/url]
and let's not forget ... [url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1084596/posts]the Fweepers![/url]
2004-02-25 11:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kurt][url=http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/10667/edition_id/204/format/html/displaystory.html]Siskel[/url] was a zhid.
I've heard that Ebert's new sidekick, [url=http://www.suntimes.com/output/roeper/cst-nws-roep24.html]Richard Roeper[/url], is gay, but I don't know for certain.[/QUOTE]
I always assumed that they were both Kosher and Gay.
Go figure.
My default settings betrayed me!
Walter
2004-02-25 11:04 | User Profile
Robertson doesn't look so good in that picture.
Is he sick?
2004-02-25 12:14 | User Profile
Here is today's followup story to the Jami Bernard review. Again the pathetically see-through Zuckermanisms shine through: the umpteenth use of 'blood-drenched' in a purported news story on the film; the simultaneous multi-front attack without ever pausingto acknowledge the arguments made on the other side, let alone acknowledging their legitimacy; the non-stop co-opting of the Catholic clergy; the Judaically selective selection of reader response (The DAILY NEWS has traditionally been the gentile paper in town, ie, Jews stick with the POST and the TIMES.) Which at least [I]explains [/I] the revoltingly Orwellian indoctrination-by-repetition the NEWS' coverage has consisted of, like a wind-up toy monkey banging his drum endlessly: Team Zuckerman is hard at work [B]yet again [/B] re-educating the goyim for their own swinish good.
[QUOTE]http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/167790p-146637c.html
[B]Cardinal warns against bias [/B] [I]Pens letter on eve of film premiere [/I] By KERRY BURKE, CARRIE MELAGO and CORKY SIEMASZKO DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Edward Cardinal Egan spoke up for the Jews as Mel Gibson's controversial "The Passion of the Christ" was expected to play to packed houses when it opens today. Worried that Gibson's blood-drenched depiction of Christ's Crucifixion could spark a backlash, Egan reminded his flock that anti-Semitism is "morally reprehensible and totally rejected" by Catholic doctrine.
"One can safely conclude that what will appear on our movie screens will entail a good deal of extreme human suffering," Egan wrote in a letter to be read at Sunday Mass in March.
He stressed that Jews should not be blamed for the death of Christ and pointed out that Catholic teachings hold that Christ "gave His life for us. No one took it from Him." Egan had no plans to see Gibson's movie, which was expected to have a smashing Ash Wednesday debut in 35 New York theaters and at more than 2,000 cinemas across the country.
In addition to conservative Christians, who have bought tickets in bulk, the prerelease hype also has piqued the interest of many New Yorkers not inclined to see a religious movie.
"I think we'll see it out of morbid curiosity," said Catherine Crawford, 32, of Brooklyn, a Catholic married to a nonobservant Jew.
Many movie critics - including the Daily News' Jami Bernard - panned the movie, ripping Gibson for scapegoating Jews and for playing down the role of the Romans in the death of Christ.
Worried Jewish leaders staged a noisy protest yesterday outside a Times Square movie theater where "The Passion" was playing. "It was beyond anything that I imagined prior to seeing the film," said Assemblyman Dov Hikind (D-Brooklyn), who saw it Monday. "I don't have any doubt this film will cause anti-Semitism. I don't have any doubt that this film will result in violence."
David Weprin, chairman of the City Council Finance Committee, added: "This is not the type of film we need in New York. It brings back ancient divisions." Even some of those who were allowed into early showings expressed reservations about the way Jews were depicted.
"If I was Jewish myself, I'd be angry about certain parts of it," said A.J. Thompson, 52, of Harlem. "They welcome Jesus into town and a few days later they want to crucify him."
But Thompson's view was not widely held among those who have seen the film. "It's not at all anti-Semitic," said Jason Ingrassia, 26, of Staten Island, a Jew who describes himself as born-again. "It wasn't just Jews. They showed the Romans beating and whipping him."
Leora Hines, 45, of Brooklyn, said, "Jews played a role" in the death of Christ. "But it was also part of God's plan," Hines said. "I hope they come out with part two." It's that kind of talk that frightened former Mayor Ed Koch, who urged Gibson "to be decent" and add an explainer to the movie reminding viewers that Romans killed Christ.
"You're playing with fire and you have to be particularly careful," he said. Gibson, an ultra-conservative Catholic, repeatedly has denied that his movie is anti-Semitic. He also boasted to Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly last night that the movie would be a hit because of the prerelease controversy the movie has generated. Nonetheless, Rep. Ed Towns (D-Brooklyn) warned the movie "has the potential to create rifts between communities through a depiction of powerful caricatures and stereotypes."
He requested extra police protection for the heavily Jewish neighborhoods of Canarsie, Midwood and Williamsburg. Police said they have Brooklyn covered.
[I]The sound & the fury[/I]
Readers of the Daily News found passion of their own in E-mail responses to two Daily News critics on "The Passion of the Christ," the controversial movie by Mel Gibson that opens today. Hundreds of E-mails poured in yesterday to Jami Bernard, who gave the movie one star for its explicit violence, and to Jack Mathews, who described the cynicism of the movie's marketing campaign. Reaction from readers was both positive and negative. But many of the E-mails included personal diatribes - attacking the critics for their looks and presumed religious beliefs in language not fit for a family newspaper. Here's a sampling:
"[I]How is 'Passion' an anti-Semitic movie when it is displaying what is considered to be the truth by millions? I am shocked [you] call such a great film anti-Semitic." [/I]
[I]"I agree with you, Jami. If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck." [/I]
[I]"Careful Jack - Mel might want to rip out your intestines and kill your dog for daring to criticize him. ... Keep up the good work." [/I]
[I]"You're an idiot. Didn't you know before going to see the film that the Crucifixion of Christ was a deeply violent one? Did you think they were going to tickle His feet? Get your head outta the sand and get a grip." [/I]
[I]"God bless you and your guts and your sensibilities. I have three kids in Catholic schools in Salt Lake City - 3rd, 7th and 10th grades - and some of the teachers have been talking about organizing trips to see this film. Can you imagine that? . . . There is enough real violence and hate in this insane world." [/I]
[I]"Up until now, I have enjoyed many of Mel's films, but after viewing his Diane Sawyer interview, I sadly believe he is 'losing it' and heading for some kind of nervous breakdown." [/I]
[I]"You don't know jack, Jack. Satan couldn't have written your slanderous comments of 'The Passion of the Christ' any better." [/I]
[I]"Hollywood ALWAYS portrays Christianity as stupid, Southern, and backwards. To them, that's okay." [/I]
[I]"Finally, a sensible verdict on 'The Passion of the Christ'! The whole selling of this film is nauseating. Thanks for articulating my exact sentiments." [/I]
[I]"Your review was not the least bit objective. By calling this movie false and anti-Semitic, you're basically calling our Bible and our beliefs the same." [/I]
[I]"Thank you for speaking frankly about the hypocrisy surrounding the Gibson film. I view your column as an act of great moral courage." [/I] [/QUOTE]
2004-02-25 12:39 | User Profile
I've tried to stay out of this controversy for a long time, but this morning I woke up to the local tv newscast talking about the "controversy" over The Passion. The little anchor chick was furrowing her brow with that "concerned" face that kindergarten teachers get when they're reading about the Big Bad Wolf to their students. "The film is considered controversial" she says [[COLOR=Navy]CONTROVERSIAL TO WHOM?-[/COLOR]I think to myself-[COLOR=Navy]THE 80% OF THE POPULATION THAT SUBSCRIBES TO ONE FORM OR ANOTHER OF CHRISTIANITY?[/COLOR]] "because of its violence and depictions of Jews"-she tut-tutted at me with that mock concern before they went to the man-on-the street interviews to get their selected reviews. I'm treated to a recap of Andy Rooney's smart-alecky declaration that Mel Gibson is "wacko" before I manage to shut off the poison spewing box.
I just couldn't take it. I'm not a Christian. I don't think Jesus was God. He may have been crazy for all I know. But how insane is it that a movie that merely presents, verbatim, what the founding document of the ostensible beliefs of 80% of the population says, is controversial because it might reflect negatively on 2% of the population? I mean, I wanted to grab every Christian I know and sit them down in front of a chalkboard with these two numbers written on it and force them to answer some very simple questions. SINCE WHEN DID ANYONE IN HOLLYWOOD WORRY ABOUT THE VIOLENCE IN A MOVIE? SINCE WHEN WAS THERE A CONTROVERSY ABOUT ANY MOVIE'S PORTRAYAL OF CHRISTIANS, LET ALONE WHITES? NEVER! Yet these two majority groups are constantly undermined and ridiculed by Hollywood. Why is this? Why doesn't anybody care about what offends you, Christian? Come on, I know you can put it together!!
Okay, I feel a little better now. Readjusting to the insanity of the times I live in. Relax. Breathe. Relax. I just have to get used to this sort of thing or I'll end up with my own weblog characterized by the overuse of the word "itz". :shocking: I think I'll go have some herbal tea now.
2004-02-25 12:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I mean, I wanted to grab every Christian I know and sit them down in front of a chalkboard with these two numbers written on it and force them to answer some very simple questions. [/QUOTE]
Please do so as soon as possible.
I'm trying to do it, but those darned Christians can't seem to sit still long enough to hear the question.
Please keep me informed of your results.
Walter
2004-02-25 12:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I think I'll go have some herbal tea now.[/QUOTE]
Only sissies drink Camomille.
Stick with Earl Grey.
Walter
2004-02-25 13:32 | User Profile
So far reaction is about 50-50, though even the praise is heavily weighted with the fear of offending the juiced-in ZioTrash over at Command Control in NYC.
From IMDb:
[QUOTE]Movie Reviews: 'The Passion of the Christ'
Although film critics had been expected to crucify Mel Gibson when his The Passion of the Christ was released, the reviewers have turned out to be about equally divided over its merits. Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times, for example, anoints it with four stars, although commenting, "This is the most violent film I have ever seen." (Earlier in the week, Richard Roeper, Ebert's colleague on his syndicated TV show, commented "This is the most powerful, important and by far the most graphic interpretation of Christ's final hours ever put on film.") Ebert adds: "The film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it." Clearly, some critics have not been able to endure it. Writes Gene Seymour in Newsday: "This movie is little else besides a depiction of punishment so ruthless and unyielding that watching it unfold feels like punishment. (And what, one wonders, did we do to deserve such punishment?)" Indeed, some critics who find much to praise about the movie, wind up concluding that the unrelenting violence in it makes it virtually unwatchable. In the words of Lou Lumenick in the New York Post: "Passion is the closest we've come to a must-see movie this year, but the real question is: How many audience members will have the stomach to actually satisfy their curiosity?" There is also the criticism voiced by early viewers of the movie. Jami Bernard in the New York Daily News writes [B]in a review published on the newspaper's front page*[/B]: "Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of World War II. It is sickening, much more brutal than any Lethal Weapon." Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times is not among the film's boosters either, and he remarks that the polarized reaction to it has left him in "the grip of a profound despair." He writes: "What is profoundly disheartening is that people of goodwill will see this film in completely different ways. Where I see almost sadistic violence, they will see transcendence; where I see blame, they will see truth." Still others point out that the film represents Gibson's vision. Richard Corliss, in Time magazine, while critical of much of that vision, nevertheless writes: "In dramatizing the torment of Jesus' last 12 hours, [Gibson] has made a serious, handsome, excruciating film that radiates total commitment. Few mainstream directors have poured so much of themselves into so uncompromising a production. Whatever the ultimate verdict on Gibson's Passion, it's hard not to admire Gibson's passion." [/QUOTE]
*Yes! It is being noticed and noted in the media. The Bernard review is THE single most heinous PASSION-related Jewish icepick to the heart of the better half of Judaeo-Christianity, and the very type of thing that Information Age Shabgoys have been trained from the cradle to feign total ignorance of. That it's even drawing comment is a sign of hope that The Backlash Iz Coming.
You think Hymie will [I]ever [/I] figure out that it's not anything in the movie, but his own typically Jewish smear-and-vilify campaign to prevent anyone else from seeing it, that will herd him [I]right back [/I] onto the cattle car?
Or are they counting on this? When the time comes to factually assess the blame for WW4, 9/11, mass-mud immigration, the emasculation of the white male and the last 50 years of Western decline, will they point 'n' shriek that they've been framed by a friggin' [I]movie [/I]? How soon after [I]that [/I] do the missiles aimed at Europe & America leave Tel Aviv at 2am?
2004-02-25 14:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kurt]He's a pee-cee, liberal, asshole who's married to a negress.
That is true. But, I find Ebert's reviews always worth reading, especially in a world where most movie reviewers do a lousy job. And, I had expected him to knock a star off of his review for The Passion just for PC sakes. But, he overcame his bias (which still shows in his Passion review) where most movie reviewers panned the movie because of their bias (judging from the content of their reviews).
I was fishing for some word of defense of his reviews. "Intelligent" is what I settled for after dismissing any synonym for "great" or any word that would give him credit for his PC perspective.
2004-02-25 15:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE]You think Hymie will [I]ever [/I] figure out that it's not anything in the movie, but his own typically Jewish smear-and-vilify campaign to prevent anyone else from seeing it, that will herd him [I]right back [/I] onto the cattle car?[/QUOTE]
I agree in general, but would add that it's more than that.
The astonishing fact that the Pharisees are still fighting Christ after 2,000 years is strong evidence for me that something HAPPENED when Jesus was crucified in the spirit world that we can only dimly see through a glass darkly now.
I know you don't share that belief, and that's okay with me.
I only ask that in the midst of the pell-mell action, take a step back and consider that we're talking about Pharisees who not only still exist after all the other sects like the Zealots mentioned in the NT died out, but we actually have them going ape - I mean completely NUTSO - over a realisitic depiction of events that took place 2,000 years ago.
It's all just so bizarre. Surreal. I don't have words to describe this. I just think that we don't let the bizarre-ness of this entire thing sink in, because we just lack the capacity to handle that sort of complete weirdness. It's so far beyond the pale of common sense, that the mind shrinks from it.
And I believe that there's a reason for that - namely, because we're not dealing with anything common here. We're dealing rather with something that happened on another plane that is refracted somehow in this world.
Were I to guess, I'd say it's that the Pharisees went from being the messengers of God to being the children of Satan when Jesus died. He was their last chance (good Biblical grounds for that, BTW, but I know it's not your thing), and they blew it big time.
I'll shut up.
Walter
2004-02-25 20:04 | User Profile
[I]I love the controversy over the production and release of "The Passion of the Christ"!!! Even the liberal spinsters and lemmings in my office are saying "what's up the jews!?" Bwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaabwwwhaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! Let the truth ring people and let eyes be opened.[/I]
[I]Here's idiot O'Reilly's take on Mel's pic. I don't like O'Reilly, who moralizes in his smug way in this review/commentary.... but he had Mel on his show last night, so......[/I]
Bill's Talking Points Memo: [B]The Passion of the Christ[/B] Mel Gibson's movie, which opens on Ash Wednesday, February 25, is a faithful depiction of the execution of Jesus, according to the Four Gospels.
Only twice does Gibson stray from the scripture.
First, he creates a Satan character, who encourages the catastrophe.
Second, Gibson expands the role of Simon of Cireen - the Jew forced by the Romans to carry the cross Jesus could no longer bear.
Simon is portrayed as a hero, and is given a definition far beyond his appearance in the gospel. This is an obvious attempt by Gibson to show Jewish heroism during the execution of Jesus.
There are Jewish villains as well. According to the gospels and most historians, some powerful Jews resented the popularity of Jesus.
Is this a shock?
Of course not - any preacher straying from orthodoxy will be vilified, then and now.
Is it a shock that some Jews behaved badly? Come on - as the Islamic killers on 9/11 and the Catholic priest scandal have proven, people of any religion are capable of evil.
Mr. Gibson portrays the Romans as the true killers of Jesus, although he does go a bit soft on Pontius Pilate - I would have been tougher.
The movie is ultra-intense and violent - to me, the violence was numbing. But the suffering Jesus endured is important to understand, because despite all that was done to him, he still forgave his brutalizers.
"The Passion of the Christ" is certainly not an anti-Semitic film, and those who say it is are to be pitied.
I saw the movie with a Jewish friend who believes the danger of possible resentment against the Jews overrides the worthiness of the film.
I do not believe that. Hateful people will find a reason to hate. This film is not anti-Jewish. It is an exposition of how good triumphs over evil.
Mel Gibson wanted people to see how Jesus suffered. He has succeeded in doing that. It would be unfair to deny the world this movie because of what some nut might do.
Americans who do not believe there is a struggle between good and evil in this world will not like the film. People who have no spirituality in their lives will find the movie confusing and off-putting because of the violence.
For the rest of us, "The Passion of the Christ" drives home this singular point: We all must make a choice. Do we throw in with the Romans, who brutally murdered an innocent man, or do we forgive our enemies and devote our lives to helping others, as Jesus did?
Mel Gibson's movie is not for everyone. But if you see it, you may wonder why Gibson has been so brutally attacked (in the media). His apparent sin is being faithful to the Gospels, and wanting people to imitate the compassionate philosophy of Jesus.
If that's a bad thing, than we have truly lost our way.
And that's the Memo. [url]http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/general/genericpage.jsp?pageID=54[/url]
2004-02-25 20:16 | User Profile
Re: Jami Bernard---
[QUOTE=il ragno][I]The violence is grotesque, savage and often fetishized in slo-mo. At least in Hollywood spectacles that kind of violence is tempered with cartoonish distancing effects; not so here. [/I]
Oy, the bloodshed and violence - grotesque, itz! Pretty nice about-face for a writer whose 'work' once appeared regularly in FANGORIA magazine (a horror-movie publication lovingly devoted to gore and brutality for their own sakes, that proudly displays scenes of sickening carnage on its covers - and which, by the way, is marketed and sold to children).
[IMG]http://www.nyfilmcritics.com/images/jami_pic.gif[/IMG] Ms. Bernard, just out of Dallas Theological Seminary...
2004-02-25 20:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=weisbrot]Re: Jami Bernard---
[IMG]http://www.nyfilmcritics.com/images/jami_pic.gif[/IMG] Ms. Bernard, just out of Dallas Theological Seminary...[/QUOTE]
That's a woman?? Oy, i feel feklempt, i'm schvitzing!
2004-02-25 20:59 | User Profile
The complete unreality of the IP reaction to this movie (and it seems to be an uncoordinated reflex that only appears to us to be coordinated) makes me think that Yggdrasil was right in his recent writings: the IP really do see reality differently from us.
Where we see ugly IP art, they see something that is somehow not ugly. Where we see a beautiful (albeit violent) religious film that isn't about Jews per se, much less about blaming Jews for anything, they see "antisemitism" and every horror they ever had nightmares about. They can't help themselves, the poor dears. They are literally frightening themselves to death, over nothing.
They got it all backwards: it is not true, as the IP say, that "if there were no Jews, antisemites would have to invent them". The fact is, if there were no antisemites, the Jews would have to invent them. And that is what they are instinctively trying to do, even now.
2004-02-25 21:00 | User Profile
If that puss doesn't summon one's inner-Nazi, then I think nothing will. It's even better than the "smirking jewess" avatar. A cartoonist who pencilled an accurate reproduction of that...face...would immediately be denounced as an anti-semite.
Now if y'all will excuse me, I've got a date with some Naval-Jelly rust remover and an eye-dropper.
Can we ever un-see a thing?
2004-02-25 21:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]The complete unreality of the IP reaction to this movie ...makes me think that Yggdrasil was right in his recent writings: the IP really do see reality differently from us. [/QUOTE]
For sure. Ygg's writing on this topic has really opened me up to this simple fact. They have a differrent aesthetic sense. I've seen this first-hand for years. I just didn't understand what I was seeing.
[QUOTE=grep14w]They are literally frightening themselves to death, over nothing. [/QUOTE]
I disagree; it's not nothing. Mel has provided an example to the world of a work that is Jew-free. He's not asking for permission, money, approval... most importantly, he's not asking for INPUT. This is what has them hysterical.
The Goy lives in a world where EVERY F**KING THOUGHT IN HIS HEAD has been run through the IP filter. Even the literate Goy who shuns TV in favor of books has the jew as his interpreter whispering in his ear...and he doesn't even know it.
With "Passion", Mel is saying: "No, you will NOT interpret the gospels for my audience. This is not a debate. There will be no bargain."
That's a paradigm shift, right? It's visible. It appeals to a huge audience...critical mass for sure. AND he's going to make a huge profit in doing it. Perhaps the goyim, emboldened to interpret their religion WITHOUT the help of the IP, will next interpret other aspects of their world without help. This dangerous trend could even lead a liberated mind to review the fallout from decades of IP interpretation. Then...no debate, since that's not really our thing...just detox, and retribution...ohh, the red, red krovvy will flow.
(See? They're right to equate even mild criticism to gas chambers.)
While we're on the subject, the series about Portnoy's complaint, "funny jews", and cultural subversion at VNN is very good reading. Links below:
[url]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/lettersOct-Nov03/22404jonesjoomor.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/lettersOct-Nov03/22404jonesjoomor2.htm[/url]
2004-02-25 21:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The complete unreality of the IP reaction to this movie (and it seems to be an uncoordinated reflex that only appears to us to be coordinated) makes me think that Yggdrasil was right in his recent writings: the IP really do see reality differently from us.....Where we see ugly IP art, they see something that is somehow not ugly. [/QUOTE]
Excellent point - allow me to back it up with three prior Jami Bernard reviews. Bad taste and carnage never seemed to bother her before...nor is she any stranger to seeing different realities than the rest of us:
[QUOTE]http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/story/95921p-86917c.html
[B]CHARLIE'S ANGELS: FULL THROTTLE. With Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu, Bernie Mac and Demi Moore. Directed by McG. Running time: 104 mins. Rated PG-13: Action violence, sensuality, language/innuendo.[/B]
The charm of "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" is spread like an even tan over a series of full-bore, semi-erotic action sequences that are as exciting as they are ridiculous. This heavenly sequel, again directed by "McG" (aka Joseph McGinty NIchol), is infused with an irresistibly joyous spirit that simply cannot be faked. You don't need the star cameos (the most notable of which is unbilled but delicious) or outtakes to persuade you that everyone on this set had a blast. Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu reprise their roles as undercover, semi-clad agents who giggle their way through outrageous crime-fighting scenarios with senses of fashion and humor intact, to the beat of a rip-snorting soundtrack. They are devils on dirt bikes in the movie's dynamite motocross set piece, and they are fearless in the face of loaded odds, free falls and vengeful ex-boyfriends. On orders from the unseen Charlie via speakerphone, these Angels are just as happy to provide a lap dance as to leap tall buildings in a single bound, if that is what is required to retrieve two stolen rings whose encoded information endangers members of the Witness Protection Program. Barrymore's down-to-earth cheer and Diaz's magnificent silliness (see her ride the mechanical yak in Mongolia!) remain the high points. But Liu faces competition for Most Deadly Serious from guest star Demi Moore as Madison Lee, a bitter former Angel with soiled wings, and inventor of the "molar mike." If nothing else, Moore proves that having children and being 40 are no impediment to the body beautiful. It's also a body untouchable, as hard and cold as her character is meant to be. She's a beautiful gargoyle. Madison is tough enough to reset her own dislocated shoulder, but Moore does not have Cruella De Vil's flamboyance. The only time her line delivery truly sends shivers is when the former box-office star goes all Gloria Swanson on us: "I was never good, I was GREAT!" Based on the ludicrously popular TV series of the late '70s and early '80s, this sequel refines and expands on the first "Charlie's Angels" movie of three years ago. The ladies line up in pseudo-kung-fu fighting formation, are blown backward in slo-mo by frequent explosions, perform aerial combat with "Matrix"-style, gravity-defying theatrics, and groove on the rough-and-tumble of their day job. They also have time for boys. Natalie (Diaz) has moved in with the waiter (Luke Wilson) she met in the last installment. Dylan (Barrymore) remains the Angel most likely to melt for Mr. Wrong, and Alex (Liu) is still with her actor boyfriend (Matt LeBlanc), an action hero who only pretends to do in his films what Alex comes by so naturally. The only thing that didn't work in the first "Angels" was Bill Murray as Bosley. His replacement, the great Bernie Mac, gallantly (and wisely) takes a back seat. Although there is indeed a plot, it isn't strictly necessary. The movie is strung together on a strand of franchise sparklers. Here are the bikinis, there are the bad puns. Natalie once again pursues her private dream of dancing her butt off, and Dylan's wild side nips at her heels. As its own collection of Angels' Greatest Hits, "Full Throttle" winds up embracing the spirit of the original TV series, supplanting it and gleefully eviscerating it.
[B]KILL BILL: VOLUME 1. With Uma Thurman, Lucy Liu, Vivica Fox A. Fox, Michael Madsen, Daryl Hannah. Written and directed by Quentin Tarantino. Running time: 93 mins. Rated R: Strong bloody violence, language and some sexual content. [/B]
You want blood? You can shower in it in "Kill Bill: Volume 1," a giddy and only occasionally brilliant homage to all the kung fu fighting, B-movies and spaghetti Westerns Quentin Tarantino scarfed down during his movie-centric adolescence. It's writer-director Tarantino's love of genre flicks and his will to cram in a little of everything that gets you through the rough spots of this uneven revenge fantasy - grandly billed as his "fourth film" after an absence of six years. But this long-awaited movie has been unwisely chopped into two pieces - the second is due in February - when it really needed to be one long, delirious ride. Uma Thurman barely has a chance to catch her breath as the protagonist, dubbed the Bride. She's a steely killing machine who was mowed down in late pregnancy along with her entire wedding party by the DiVAS (Deadly Viper Assassination Squad), her former gang. After this "Once Upon a Time in the West" opening, the Bride managed to hang on in a coma. When she springs back to life some years later, with not quite the potency of Thurman's resurrection in "Pulp Fiction," she's all about revenge, ticking her opponents off a to-do list as she visits the farthest corners of the globe to kill them. The action is presented in chapter form. One slugfest takes place in a suburban kitchen, with frying pans and kitchen implements as weapons. Another takes place in a snowy Japanese tea garden to the beat of flamenco. Meanwhile, there's an anime segment providing one character's backstory and a stopover for a deliberately obscure negotiation with Japanese martial arts legend Sonny Chiba, playing a retired samurai. What's cool is that Thurman speaks Japanese in several scenes, complete with English subtitles, just the way James Bond would in similar circumstances. The Vipers are played by Lucy Liu, Daryl Hannah, Michael Madsen and Vivica A. Fox. Each goes by a nom de snake (the Bride, for example, is also known as Black Mamba). Liu is allowed to have more fun than in "Charlie's Angels," while Hannah gets laughs merely from her outfit, one of many visual non sequiturs - a starchy nurse uniform with a red cross over a white eyepatch. Bill, played by an unseen David Carradine (of that TV chestnut "Kung Fu"), is the Vipers' leader. Presumably he will get his in "Volume 2." "Pulp Fiction" and "Reservoir Dogs" fans will be delighted with the in-jokes, gore, movie references, and chunks of flesh and brain splattering the walls. (For the record, I wrote the 1995 book "Quentin Tarantino: A Man and His Movies.") The humor in "Kill Bill" resides in those references, in the variations of intensity with which the blood spurts, and with the way the fight scenes, choreographed by Woo-ping Yuen and Chiba, both recall and one-up their sources. At the same time, the movie has no emotion beneath all this mirthless mirth. There's enough material to fuel an eternity of Trivial Pursuit, but no one to root for, nothing to take home - not even a good debate about Quarter Pounders - nothing really to keep the fires burning until "Volume 2." There's as little feeling as the Bride has in her stubbornly non-wiggling toes when she first awakens. There's a lot to admire in "Kill Bill," and a lot that should have been lopped off like the arms and legs and scalps that go flying. What this undoubtedly enthusiastic writer-director needed was someone who would just say no, be it an editor or Miramax mogul Harvey Weinstein.
[url]http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/moviereviews/story/88091p-80031c.html[/url]
[B]CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS. Documentary directed by Andrew Jarecki. At the Angelika and Loews Lincoln Square. Running time: 107 mins. Unrated: Adult subject matter, language. [/B]
"Capturing the Friedmans" is more than just a documentary about a dysfunctional Long Island family that collapsed inward with a sonic boom. This extraordinary film refracts truth through the prism of memory, until what you get is a tragedy of Shakespearean dimensions, full of sacrifice and betrayal. It is also a commentary on how the media of film and home video can distort or reveal. Andrew Jarecki, the creator of Moviefone, set out to document David Friedman, who works in Manhattan as children's party clown Silly Billy. David is one tense and angry clown. His fury can be traced to the '80s, when his suburban Great Neck family came undone. Jarecki finds that David's father, Arnold Friedman, and youngest brother, Jesse (then 18), were convicted on massive, mostly improbable, counts of pederasty. Amazingly, Arnold and his three sons had a habit of videotaping themselves, not just at birthday parties, but during arguments, blame-fests, trial preparations and just clowning around outside the courthouse. Clowning, it turns out, like recording themselves, was their chief means of communication, as well as a handy way of maintaining personal distance and staying in denial. Their mother, not privy to the clubhouse humor, was shunned and despised by her boys. The footage provides an eerie look at a household in upheaval. What is known for certain is that Arnold liked to look at child-pornography magazines, which the FBI traced to his home. Arnold also later admitted to "crossing the line" a couple of times in his life. But did he cross that line under his own roof? Zealous detectives began amassing evidence that Arnold's home-based computer tutorials afforded him a stream of neighborhood child victims. However, the testimony of these youngsters was preposterous and unlikely. "Capturing the Friedmans" does not get a clear read from its "Rashomon"-like interviewees. But it demonstrates what Charles Mackay warned about in his book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds": that "whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit."[/QUOTE]
PS:
[QUOTE]http://www.courttv.com/people/2004/0218/friedmans_ap.html
Victims from Capturing the Friedmans film protest Oscar nomination
NEW YORK (AP) — Two men whom Jesse Friedman pleaded guilty to sexually abusing as boys have written an open letter to Academy Awards voters, speaking out against the Oscar-nominated documentary about the Friedman family.
"Capturing the Friedmans," by director Andrew Jarecki, is among the favorites to win best documentary at the Feb. 29 Oscar ceremony. It examines the cases against Arnold and Jesse Friedman, a Long Island father and son imprisoned in the late 1980s for sexually abusing dozens of children.
The victims, now in their 20s, wrote that Jesse Friedman was "being paraded like a celebrity."
"If this film does win an Oscar, it will be won at the expense of silencing the plaintive voices of abused children once again, just as our own voices were silenced 16 years ago by the threats and intimidation of our tormentors, Arnold and Jesse Friedman," said the letter.
Jarecki said his film was a balanced piece, and that he had reached out to every child involved. He pointed out that the film's longest interview is with someone who has recollections of being abused.
"The film doesn't exclude that perspective in the slightest," he said Tuesday. "I didn't set out to make an advocacy film for the Friedmans, and I didn't make one."
However, Jesse Friedman, now 34, is seeking a new trial to overturn his conviction based on information revealed in the documentary. And in an earlier interview, Jarecki told The Associated Press that he was "very supportive" of Friedman's quest for a new trial, and that people "come away from the film thinking that Jesse was railroaded."
The men who wrote the letter list their ages as 24 and 27 and their occupations as graduate student and businessman, respectively. They did not reveal their names.
The judge who dealt with their case, Abbey Boklan, who is now retired from her Nassau County court, confirmed that the two men had been among the 13 children Jesse Friedman pleaded guilty to abusing.
A copy of the letter was provided to The Associated Press by Joyanna Silberg, a child psychologist and member of the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence, which is conducting a campaign against the movie.
"Whether it was on purpose or whether Jarecki was misled, he presented a documentary that conveys an impression of the case that is erroneous," Silberg said.
"Capturing the Friedmans" won the documentary grand prize at the 2003 Sundance Film Festival and was named best nonfiction film by the New York Film Critics Circle.
Jesse was 19 when he pleaded guilty to the sex abuse charges in 1988. Authorities said he and Arnold Friedman molested dozens of children during computer classes in their home.
Jesse was sentenced to 6 to 18 years and was paroled after 13 years in prison; he is now a registered sex offender who lives in Manhattan. His father, an admitted pedophile who was also convicted of sending child pornography through the mail, died in prison in 1995.[/QUOTE]
2004-02-25 21:47 | User Profile
Can whites build their own entertainment? There must be market for that, as the success of "Euro-centric" movies has shown. Come on, it's a money-making proposition. Investors, enterpreneuers?
2004-02-25 22:04 | User Profile
I disagree; it's not nothing. Mel has provided an example to the world of a work that is Jew-free. He's not asking for permission, money, approval... most importantly, he's not asking for INPUT. This is what has them hysterical.
By "nothing" I was referring to their hysterical fears of "antisemitism". There is no chance that anyone is going to see this movie and say "hey, we're long overdue for a pogrom; those Jews killed Christ so let's string them up and burn down their houses!" That's what I meant about their getting hysterical over "nothing".
What you are saying is true; however I doubt your rank and file "little Jew" understands the larger issue of media control. The IP "big Jews" of course do understand.
2004-02-25 22:31 | User Profile
I've read a number of reviews, the most negative review I found is [URL=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112427,00.html#2]linked[/URL] at the top of the Fox News webpage -- the prominent position spared me from wading through Fox News' pro-homosexual and pro-Isreali slop to find their review.
It seems to be that even mainstream Fox viewers should be offended by this.
The Poisonous Legacy of 'The Passion'
Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" opens today following a lot of cheesy hoopla and cynical exploitation on the part of Gibson and his distributor, Newmarket Films. For Gibson's part, there isn't much of a surprise there. For Newmarket, which will release a film this fall starring Kevin Bacon as a pederast, well, we're just getting to know them, aren't we?
I saw "The Passion" at midnight last night in Los Angeles, since neither Newmarket nor Gibson's people would accommodate me with a press screening. Never mind, though, it was far more interesting to plunk down $11 at the Hollywood ArcLight and see "The Passion" with a big group.
Is the movie anti-Semitic? Several reviewers have already said it is. I can tell you this: Thanks to Gibson, when non-Jews around the world now see the Jewish prayer shawl, the tallis, on the heads of praying Jews, they will think, 'Oh yeah, those were worn by the angry crowds in "The Passion" who insisted that Jesus be killed and then patiently watched him be tortured to death.' Thanks to Gibson, we are reminded that Jesus' friend Judas ââ¬â a Jew ââ¬â was easily sold out for some gold that was thrown at him in exchange for his betrayal. It's the return of the money-grubbing Jew, straight out of the old anti-Semite playbook.
There's more, of course, but none of this is a revelation at this point. Gibson's Jews are caricatures with bulbous noses. To say they lack compassion is an understatement. They are almost always pictured as an angry, unrelenting mob that wants Jesus dead no matter what. It's so stupid that it's almost not anti-Semitic. It just makes Gibson look like an idiot.
But the real problem with "The Passion" is that it is graphic beyond belief, and unrelenting. How anyone will be able to sit through this thing is the real mystery. There is blood, blood, everywhere. The violence toward Jesus is sadistic and grotesque. Basically, the entire second half of the film is spent watching Jesus endure physical torture never before seen in a movie. By the time it's done, actor James Caviezel's body is a map of bloody rivers and lakes with craters of flesh excised from his torso.
Is this disgusting? You bet. It's also puzzling, because what Gibson hasn't done in "The Passion" is explain his love of Christ or his own passion or devotion. We have no idea why Christ is so reviled by the Jews, what he's done to earn their anger, or what he's done to earn Gibson's respect. From the moment the film begins, Jesus is simply a target for unbridled, unrestrained bloodlust. Yes, we get to see the nails driven through him, blood spurting in every direction, skin being torn in the process.
Is there anything that's learned by witnessing this enactment? I wish I could say there was, but there isn't. It's simple brutality, with a hard rock music track playing in the background. I'm not sure that it's so different from Gibson's character dislocating his shoulder on purpose in one of the "Lethal Weapon" movies.
So here's the problem. Since we don't know who Jesus was before the day of his death, and since all we see are rabid packs of Jews in shawls who want him dead, followed by the long merciless death itself, what is Gibson's point? That Christ died for our sins? Or that he was murdered by crazy, vicious mobs who didn't understand him? My question is, How will the Hollywood cognoscenti respond to "The Passion"? Will they remain silent and hope it goes away? Or will someone speak out? There is no end of voices when it comes to sex and violence in mainstream movies. Where are those voices now?
2004-02-26 00:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kurt]Maia Morgenstern? Oy vey!, a jew! And not just any jew, but a [url=http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=36&art_id=22396]child of Holocaust survivors![/url]
I wonder how much money this jew bitch's parents have scammed from the German government, and does she get any payments?
[CENTER][img]http://www.hungary.com/evd/witman/wm2.jpg[/img][/CENTER] [FONT=Arial Narrow][CENTER]Yes goyim, see The Passion. Make me richer![/FONT][/CENTER]
Hmm...an anti-Semitic film starring a child of holocaust survivors? Vhat a concept![/QUOTE] I have no gripe with the Blessed Mother being portrayed by a Jewish actress. Why do you ? Although there is only a preponderance or circumstantial evidence that Jesus even was Jew to begin with. Prophecy stated that he would be born into the House of David, a descendant of Judah .. that is through Saint Joseph, His step-father, and not in His Blood. It does not however compromise the Old Testament prophesies. He was born into that house. It wasn't until he was an adult and started to fulfill God's plan that he was perceived by others to be any other than a son of Joseph, although the Holy Family knew from Day One. Chances are that Mary was a Jew. The meaning of the word Jew is for all intensive purposes not applicable at all, however. Do much had happenned in the 500 years preceding Christ, never mind the destruction of all records in 70 AD and everything since. It really doesn't matter to me. But I can tell you this. She was NOT a daughter of Cain. She was not a Caanite. Nor was she of the seed of Esau. Hey, if Jesus was German or English , would you love Him more ? Would you feel more comfortable in believing in the Word Of Life ? Yeah, he's just a good bar buddy , someone who was a war hero and leads us into success on this Earth and all our desires... YOU are the one who is more Jew than those you perfile, because that is EXACTLY what the Jewish establishment wanted at that time, and thought their Messiah would be. You profane yourself and go down the the level of wanting a war king. But that's not what life is about, and more so, that's not what Salvation is ABOUT. SO conquer your lands, conquer the Earth, kill my family, kill me., and dominate as long as you shall, then die. I have eternal life by the blood of God.You can too, so stop acting like there is any kind of Glory in your rotten bones. Are you Glorious, Sir ? Can you move mountains and change the color of your hair, make water to wine ? Can you do these things without the aid of demons ? Your demaons are working within you. They will separate you from the only God there ever was and ever is. I could care less about seeing this " moo-vie " and I truly do not want to, I have not yet made a decision. But I will tell you THIS. BLESSED ARE THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SEEN BUT BELIEVE. Word Of God to Saint Thomas spoken by the resurrected Jesus one week after.. I don't need to see this moo-vie.
2004-02-26 09:22 | User Profile
Here's Maureen Dowd's take on Gibson's "Passion" that appeared in the [URL=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/26/opinion/26DOWD.html?th]New York Times[/URL] 26 February 2004.
This is really over the top, even for Dowd.
Enjoy!
Walter
OP-ED COLUMNIST Stations of the Crass By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: February 26, 2004
Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.
Mel Gibson and George W. Bush are courting bigotry in the name of sanctity.
The moviemaker wants to promote "The Passion of the Christ" and the president wants to prevent the passion of the gays.
Opening on two screens: W.'s stigmatizing as political strategy and Mel's stigmata as marketing strategy.
Mr. Gibson, who told Diane Sawyer that he was inspired to make the movie after suffering through addictions, found the ultimate 12-step program: the Stations of the Cross.
I went to the first show of "The Passion" at the Loews on 84th Street and Broadway; it was about a quarter filled. This is not, as you may have read, a popcorn movie. In Latin and Aramaic with English subtitles, it's two gory hours of Jesus getting flayed by brutish Romans at the behest of heartless Jews.
Perhaps fittingly for a production that licensed a jeweler to sell $12.99 nail necklaces (what's next? crown-of-thorns prom tiaras?), "The Passion" has the cartoonish violence of a Sergio Leone Western. You might even call it a spaghetti crucifixion, "A Fistful of Nails."
Writing in The New Republic, Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor, scorns it as "a repulsive, masochistic fantasy, a sacred snuff film" that uses "classically anti-Semitic images."
I went with a Jewish pal, who tried to stay sanguine. "The Jews may have killed Jesus," he said. "But they also gave us `Easter Parade.' "
The movie's message, as Jesus says, is that you must love not only those who love you, but more importantly those who hate you.
So presumably you should come out of the theater suffused with charity toward your fellow man.
But this is a Mel Gibson film, so you come out wanting to kick somebody's teeth in.
In "Braveheart" and "The Patriot," his other emotionally manipulative historical epics, you came out wanting to swing an ax into the skull of the nearest Englishman. Here, you want to kick in some Jewish and Roman teeth. And since the Romans have melted into history . . .
Like Mr. Gibson, Mr. Bush is whipping up intolerance but calling it a sacred cause.
At first, the preacher-in-chief resisted conservative calls for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. He felt, as Jesus put it in the Gibson script (otherwise known as the Gospels), "If it is possible, let this chalice pass from me."
But under pressure from the Christian right, he grabbed the chalice with both hands and swigged ââ¬â seeking to set a precedent in codifying discrimination in the Constitution, a document that in the past has been amended to correct discrimination by giving fuller citizenship rights to blacks, women and young people.
If the president is truly concerned about preserving the sanctity of marriage, as one of my readers suggested, why not make divorce illegal and stone adulterers?
Our soldiers are being killed in Iraq; Osama's still on the loose; jobs are being exported all over the world; the deficit has reached biblical proportions.
And our president is worrying about Mars and marriage?
When reporters tried to pin down White House spokesman Scott McClellan yesterday on why gay marriage is threatening, he spouted a bunch of gobbledygook about "the fabric of society" and civilization.
The pols keep arguing that institutions can't be changed when, in fact, they change all the time. Haven't they ever heard of the institution of slavery?
The government should not be trying to legislate what's sacred.
When Bushes get in trouble, they look around for a politically advantageous bogeyman. Lee Atwater tried to make Americans shudder over the prospect of Willie Horton arriving on their doorstep; and now Karl Rove wants Americans to shudder at the prospect of a lesbian ââ¬â Dick Cheney's daughter Mary, say ââ¬â setting up housekeeping next door with her "wife."
When it comes to the Bushes' willingness to stir up base instincts of the base, it is as it was.
As the Max von Sydow character said in Woody Allen's "Hannah and Her Sisters," while watching a TV evangelist appealing for money: "If Jesus came back and saw what's going on in his name, he'd never stop throwing up."
2004-02-26 10:37 | User Profile
[URL=http://www.savethemales.ca]HERE [/URL] Surprisingly for me, Henry Makow goes completely off the deep end and even accuses Mel Gibson of being a closet satanist!
Why I May NOT See "The Passion of the Christ" By Henry Makow Ph.D. February 25, 2004
I hate violence, especially gratuitous violence. I shield my eyes when it comes on and, given reports, "The Passion" is mostly about violence. There is little depiction of Christ's Gospel of Love which is the reason for his Crucifixion.
This gives credence to claims by the owner of the very credible Watch Unto Prayer web site that "The Passion" is a hoax, and that the intention is in fact satanic.
She quotes Mel Gibson as saying he held with his own left hand the first nail that is used to crucify Christ in the movie . Apparently this is a satanic signal.
A reviewer Allison Gilmour said the movie "celebrates humanity's hatred for Christ rather than Christ's love for humanity."
Hatred for Christ!? If this is true, it is certainly satanic in nature. If it is true, I am disappointed and disgusted with Mel Gibson. As readers know, I had hoped this movie would inspire a revival of interest in the Gospel.
I'd be glad to hear from readers who have seen the movie.
Henry Makow
2004-02-26 11:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]This gives credence to claims by the owner of the very credible Watch Unto Prayer web site that "The Passion" is a hoax, and that the intention is in fact satanic.
Whether or not this claim by Barbara Aho (Watch Unto Prayer's webmaster) has any basis in fact, IMHO she is a slanderous person who does some sloppy research and likes to submit her speculations as facts. That conspiratorial Makow swallows whatever she writes hook, line and sinker is telling, though maybe not all that surprising.
2004-02-26 11:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]Whether or not this claim by Barbara Aho (Watch Unto Prayer's webmaster) has any basis in fact, IMHO she is a slanderous person who does some sloppy research and likes to submit her speculations as facts. That conspiratorial Makow swallows whatever she writes hook, line and sinker is telling, though maybe not all that surprising.[/QUOTE]
Aho is a Jewish name - at least I knew a Jewish fellow named Aho. If that's true, then she'd be quite similar to Makow in being a converso.
I once had an email exchange with Makow, who I think generally is a good egg although he gets a bit off base with this Illuminati stuff, IMHO.
I wrote that he should check out the film "Screamers", which is a sci-fi "B" movie about self-replecating machines called Screamers that were programed to kill humans that evolved into ever-newer and more effective killers. The final product of this evolution was a perfect human look alike that was not only self-aware but was so deeply evolved to the task of infiltrating human ranks that she herself DIDN"T EVEN SUSPECT that she was the Screamer until it was too late. In fact, she was appalled to learn that she was the Screamer.
I told Makow that this is a good analogy for Jews, or for any other group for that matter. Jews don't know the damage that they do because of their highly evolved "wetware" hardwiring (cultural wiring?) that prevents their conscious minds from perceiving their true motives to acquire for their group the resources of the host society.
That suggestion ended what had been a friendly exchange, which makes me suspect that Makow himself might fear that he's a Screamer.
And he is, c'mon. The Inquisition was forced to deal, finally, with the converso issue. It just doesn't work - they turn to crypsis, which is why I think history proves that you just can't trust them. They may be (and quite often are) the best individuals on Earth (I know that's heresy here, but that's my experience) but they can't help but be what they are. They're Screamers. They really are.
The only moral way forward is separation.
Walter
2004-02-26 12:00 | User Profile
(I don't know what just happened with my computer, I hope this isn't a repeat post.)
[QUOTE=Centinel]Whether or not this claim by Barbara Aho (Watch Unto Prayer's webmaster) has any basis in fact, IMHO she is a slanderous person who does some sloppy research and likes to submit her speculations as facts. That conspiratorial Makow swallows whatever she writes hook, line and sinker is telling, though maybe not all that surprising.[/QUOTE]
Aho is a Jewish name - at least I knew a Jewish fellow named Aho. If that's true, then she'd be quite similar to Makow in being a converso.
I once had an email exchange with Makow, who I think generally is a good egg although he gets a bit off base with this Illuminati stuff, IMHO.
I wrote that he should check out the film "Screamers", which is a sci-fi "B" movie about self-replecating machines called Screamers that were programed to kill humans that evolved into ever-newer and more effective killers. The final product of this evolution was a perfect human look alike that was not only self-aware but was so deeply evolved to the task of infiltrating human ranks that she herself DIDN"T EVEN SUSPECT that she was the Screamer until it was too late. In fact, she was appalled to learn that she was the Screamer.
I told Makow that this is a good analogy for Jews, or for any other group for that matter. Jews don't know the damage that they do because of their highly evolved "wetware" hardwiring (cultural wiring?) that prevents their conscious minds from perceiving their true motives to acquire for their group the resources of the host society.
That suggestion ended what had been a friendly exchange, which makes me suspect that Makow himself might fear that he's a Screamer.
And he is, c'mon. The Inquisition was forced to deal, finally, with the converso issue. It just doesn't work - they turn to crypsis, which is why I think history proves that you just can't trust them. They may be (and quite often are) the best individuals on Earth (I know that's heresy here, but that's my experience) but they can't help but be what they are. They're Screamers. They really are.
The only moral way forward is separation.
Walter
2004-02-26 14:20 | User Profile
[I]This review from our friend.......[/I]
[SIZE=3][B]The Passion[/B][/SIZE] By Edgar J. Steele 2-26-4
The Passion of Christ operates simultaneously on many different levels, therefore it isn't surprising that it draws different reports from different people.
As a piece of entertainment, this film is not a movie so much as it is an experience. I didn't expect anything like the way this film took hold and refused to let go until well after the closing credits. Think about your very first roller coaster ride...now, imagine it going on for two straight hours.
"Bad trips" on LSD result from the eleven-hour forced introspection that the drug creates. Most cannot stand to look that closely at themselves, certainly not for that long. That's why Leary and company were getting complete cures of psychotics after five or six guided LSD trips, of course, before the government stepped in and outlawed the drug. Well, this movie is like being on acid for two straight hours, only the subject isn't yourself, it is Jesus Christ.
The Passion gripped me like nothing I've ever seen. Maybe it's the subject matter, which occupies such a special position in Western civilization. Surely, it must be that. Watching this movie is like watching a horrible auto accident take place in slow motion, up close and personal, right before your eyes. You want to look away, but you can't. You know how it must end, yet still you hope, somehow, some way, it will be different.
It was surreal to emerge into the glitz of a theatre lobby afterwards. A long walk down a dusty road after the credits should have been included in the price of admission. Nobody from the audience was speaking, other than in hushed tones. Everybody seemed to sense that something truly significant had just taken place.
I want to shake Mel Gibson's hand and thank him for making this very important motion picture.
There is no question in my mind that this is one of the best written, directed, acted and filmed movies I have seen. The Academy Awards should be cancelled this year altogether. To have other movies jockeying for awards alongside this one, which so clearly is in a class by itself, seems obscene. Yet, I will be surprised if this film gets even a single nomination, considering who controls Hollywood.
Violent? No. Nothing like what is standard fare for America's teenagers, such as Halloween or so many other slasher movies or, even, Gladiator, the huge hit from two years ago. What insults the senses about this movie is not so much what is being done to Christ throughout, as the reality that people actually did this sort of thing to one another, let alone the Savior.
Religious propaganda? No, there is no danger of being converted during this movie.
AntiSemitic? Only in the minds of some Jews. Only Jews could expect Gentiles to hold them responsible today for the acts of their forbears two thousand years ago. However, some of the rhetoric I have heard coming from the likes of Abraham Foxman this week is reminiscent of the impression left by The Passion's Jewish elders, I must confess. It must really be genetic. I actually had one Jew email me that, "He (Jesus) had it coming." Imagine.
Why does it (everything, that is) always have to be about the Jews? The only thing AntiSemitic about The Passion is the furor being created over it by the Jews! If only they knew when to shut up.
I've said it before. Let me say it again, as the Jewish reaction to this film more than amply demonstrates: AntiSemitism is a disease - you catch it from Jews.
It is okay, in fact it is de rigueur, for Hollywood's Jews to produce filth like The Last Temptation of Christ, a trashy piece of total fiction, yet a production like this, hewn faithfully from the four main Gospels, is somehow not acceptable. It is okay to desecrate the memory of Christ, but don't you go hinting that Jews are anything other than God's gift to the world. The real problem with Christians is a sincere belief in Jesus' admonition to turn the other cheek. The Chosen certainly have no such proscription for themselves.
See this exceptional movie. See it now in a theatre with lots of other people so that you can experience the majesty of how differently this film affects people. See it this week so that its opening week gross through Saturday night goes through the roof and sends a message to the troglodytes in Hollywood.
See it by yourself first, then see it again with your children. Be there for them throughout this very disturbing film. It will hurt you to watch them experience it, but, as they say, it hurts so good.
"I didn't say it would be easy. I just said it would be the truth." - Morpheus
Copyright é2004, Edgar J. Steele Forward as you wish. Permission is granted to circulate among private individuals and groups, post on all Internet sites and publish in full in all not-for-profit publications. Contact author for all other rights, which are reserved.
2004-02-26 14:21 | User Profile
Gibson's 'Passion of Christ' A Potential Setback for Christian-Jewish Relations
New York, NY, February 25, 2004 ââ¬Â¦ After screening the commercially released version of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ," which was virtually indistinguishable from earlier versions of the film shown to select audiences, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today said Mr. Gibson's failure to make alterations to the film and its unambiguous portrayal of Jews as being responsible for the death of Christ, "represents a potential setback for Jewish-Christian relations."
Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, and Gary Bretton-Granatoor, ADL Advisor on Interfaith Affairs, issued the following statement:
The final version of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" now in theaters repeats all of the stereotypes and images surrounding the death of Jesus that have generated anti-Semitism for 2,000 years. We had hoped that Mel Gibson would hear our concerns and make changes; sadly, the epiphany did not happen. Instead of listening to our concerns about the history of the charge of deicide being used to foment anti-Semitism through the centuries, Mr. Gibson attacked his critics and refused to listen to the concerns of Christians and Jews.
All we have asked for the past 11 months is for Mr. Gibson to understand our concerns. Our request that he add a postscript to the film, or to make other changes to help sensitize his viewers, was not so outlandish, for another director in history, when filming his version of the Passion, listened to our concerns and did just that. In 1928, Cecil B. DeMille decided to revise his film "The King of Kings" after hearing concerns from Jews, Catholics and others. Additionally, Mr. DeMille added a forward to his film in which he explained that the Jews, then and now, should not be held responsible for the death of Jesus.
Unfortunately, Mr. Gibson's film represents a setback to more than 40 years of Jewish-Christian relations. Yet as problematic as the film is, its negative consequences can be contained. The last 40 years of Church teaching has eroded the base of anti-Semitic thinking among many Christians. We are heartened that since the controversy began, some Christian leaders, including the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Ecumenical and Evangelical Protestant leaders, have stood up for the new Church teachings about Jews. It is critical that in the weeks and months ahead, many more Christians stand up against the demonizing of Jews that has led to tragic anti-Semitism.
We are greatly concerned about how this film will be received by the public in countries in Europe, South America and the Middle East that will not have had the benefit of the discussion, debate and sensitivity that has taken place in this country surrounding Mr. Gibson's film.
Read more online on our web site at [url]http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4454_12[/url]
The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's lead... yada, yada, yada...
One caller stated to one of the hosts that Gibson should make a movie showing the final 12 hours in the Temple before the Romans stormed it in 70 A.D. Only if they use Josephus as a source.
No pleasing the Foxmans of the world.
2004-02-26 15:10 | User Profile
Like Maxmillian, I have also managed to avoid getting into all of this "Passion of the Christ" [B]controversy[/B] (media creation). I have made a few observations along the way from what I have seen via TV.
First, on Lou Dobbs' "Moneyline" (CNN), he was interviewing a rabbi, and priest, and a Protestant theologian. The rabbi and theologian apprently were in support of the film, especially the theologian. The priest, on the other hand, a weasel-looking man at best, opposed the film's "anti-Semitic" overtones and gore. CNN also allowed a caption that appeared at the bottom of the screen (ticker) that Gibson is a "so-called 'Traditionalist Catholic'".
Second, on a regional TV network, a reporter made comments after she interviewed some movie watchers. Apparently, the Chosen are still protesting the movie, some even appearing in "concentration camp" uniforms during the protests. The new Black Panther party (and lest we should think this reporter assumes that whether the new ain't nothin' like the ol'-she just had to slip that one in-, Black Panther is Black Panther is Black Panther....) protested that Jesus wasn't depicted as black. Hollywood-funded "animal rights" group PETA was also there protesting, for whatever friggin' reason.
Third, the obsession of the film's supposed "anti-Semitism" has subsided in favor of the film's violent tones (obviously, now that film has opened). But has it ever dawned on the sheeple and the media hounds that the kind of violence seen in the selected scenes of "The Passion" is not necessarily the kind of violence one sees in any random film made today? Maybe it's because the viewer is now seeing the [B]face[/B] of the afflicted for the first time, in all its detail, as opposed to in a quick, short manner that they are so used to seeing quite a distance away.
When I see the people getting themselves in a frenzy over "The Passion", I sense a great deal of satisfaction because right now Eurocentrism and white cultural defiance is beginning to bite society in the arse.
2004-02-28 05:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Robbie] First, on Lou Dobbs' "Moneyline" (CNN), he was interviewing a rabbi, and priest, and a Protestant theologian.[/QUOTE]
C'mon, with that lead in I was expecting a joke. :lol:
2004-02-29 15:30 | User Profile
A Funny Thing Happened...
by Doug Collins
A FUNNY thing happened on the way to the movies the other day. A British reporter in Hollywood raised international dust by writing about Jewish control of Tinsel Town. His name is William Cash and his story was published in The Spectator, a major magazine published in London.
The article and the reaction to it even warranted a page in the Globe and Mail, which usually steers away from such delicate stuff.
The Globe's headline was 'Why Hollywood is seeing stars."
This space has dealt with the same subject, but my meanderings were wimpish compared with what this fellow Cash had to say. If my column had been anything like his I would probably have been in the clink by now.
The story began with a group portrait of some powerful people in New York's Vanity Fair magazine, which asked: "What have these men got in common?'
It showed 16 bosses including Steven Spielberg, the Schindler's List man. And Vanity Fair answered its own question by stating that this was the New Establishment - leaders of the computer, entertainment and communication industries in America.
The New Establishment, said the magazine, had replaced the Old Establishment. But Cash said that that didn't tell the whole story.
He pointed out that the New Establishment was predominantly Jewish, whereas the Old Establishment had been predominantly WASP. And he quoted Auberon Waugh, a waspish writer in more ways than one, who had called Hollywood bosses the Titans of Tripe.
Cash went on to say that the New Establishment was 'a white sock meritocracy' (white socks are supposedly popular in the film industry), and that it ran a network that kept WASPS out. The new boys, his article suggested, were clannish and vulgar, and also "talented negotiators".
He described a WASP would-be producer who had gold chains on his wrist and a chunky Star of David round his neck. Asked why he dressed like that, the man replied: "I'm trying to look Jewish.'
Cash said the New York Times was the official mouthpiece for U.S. Jews, and that 'every major studio head is Jewish today, just as they were 60 years ago.
It was a shot heard round the world.
The Times' story was headed "Stereotype of Jews is Revived".
"Few in Hollywood can recall such an anti-Semitic article in a major publication," it huffed.
Others said the piece was "a classic portrayal of Jews that goes back to an embellished image of Shylock". And Cash was "talking in the tradition of Goebbels and the Nazis".
Neil Gabler, the Jewish author of "An Empire Of Their Own: How the Jews invented Hollywood", said Cash was "spewing out anti-Semitic bile."
The object of this wave of rage wondered what all the fuss was about. No anti-Semitism was intended. In a letter to the Times he stated:
"Gabler attacks me ... but what is so ludicrous is that all the historical evidence I present in my article about how Jews always worked together in the movie business comes straight from his book.
"In it, he refers to 'the Jewish network,' specifies how Jews preferred to work with other Jews, and details how Hollywood Jews practised 'reverse discrimination'" .
"While it is acceptable for a Jewish writer like Mr.Gabler to use words like 'network' or 'reverse discrimination', when a Brit uses similar phrases he is publicly barbecued."
British journalism, he pointed out, is "colorfully subversive". But in Hollywood, attacks on a personal level are seen as being "as out of place as badly capped teeth".
He got some support. A letter in the Los Angeles Times said it was OK for that paper's Jewish TV critic to call the Irish 'potato heads', but not for Cash to say the wrong thing.
There are some ironies here. The editor of The Spectator is a Jew and he too wondered what the fuss was about.
"American papers have a code of political correctness and it's impossible to run views counter to that product," he added.
Here in Canada it's twice as bad. If the Cash article had appeared in any Canadian magazine its editor and the guy who wrote it would have been hung, drawn and quartered.
They would probably have been charged with spreading 'hatred" under the federal laws. Failing that, the Canadian Jewish Congress would have laid a complaint under our misnamed Human Rights Act. But in the U.S., and apparently in the U.K., they still have something called freedom of the press.
2004-02-29 18:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kurt]He's a pee-cee, liberal, asshole who's married to a negress.
[img]http://www.filmthreat.com/UploadImages/000007366_rogerchaz1X.jpg[/img] [FONT=Arial Narrow]Roger Ebert and his lovely wife Chaz at the opening night reception.[/FONT][/QUOTE]
He married her fairly recently. No danger of any offspring. I can forgive him for that.
2004-03-01 08:26 | User Profile
This appeared in the 01 March 2004 [URL=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/01/opinion/01SAFI.html?th]New York Times.[/URL] (free registration required).
Walter
Not Peace, but a Sword By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Published: March 1, 2004
WASHINGTON ââ¬â The word "passion" is rooted in the Latin for "suffer." Mel Gibson's movie about the torture and agony of the final hours of Jesus is the bloodiest, most brutal example of sustained sadism ever presented on the screen.
Because the director's wallowing in gore finds an excuse in a religious purpose ââ¬â to show how horribly Jesus suffered for humanity's sins ââ¬â the bar against film violence has been radically lowered. Movie mayhem, long resisted by parents, has found its loophole; others in Hollywood will now find ways to top Gibson's blockbuster, to cater to voyeurs of violence and thereby to make bloodshed banal.
What are the dramatic purposes of this depiction of cruelty and pain? First, shock; the audience I sat in gasped at the first tearing of flesh. Next, pity at the sight of prolonged suffering. And finally, outrage: who was responsible for this cruel humiliation? What villain deserves to be punished?
Not Pontius Pilate, the Roman in charge; he and his kindly wife are sympathetic characters. Nor is King Herod shown to be at fault.
The villains at whom the audience's outrage is directed are the actors playing bloodthirsty rabbis and their rabid Jewish followers. This is the essence of the medieval "passion play," preserved in pre-Hitler Germany at Oberammergau, a source of the hatred of all Jews as "Christ killers."
Much of the hatred is based on a line in the Gospel of St. Matthew, after the Roman governor washes his hands of responsibility for ordering the death of Jesus, when the crowd cries, "His blood be on us, and on our children."
Though unreported in the Gospels of Mark, Luke or John, that line in Matthew ââ¬â embraced with furious glee by anti-Semites through the ages ââ¬â is right there in the New Testament. Gibson and his screenwriter didn't make it up, nor did they misrepresent the apostle's account of the Roman governor's queasiness at the injustice.
But biblical times are not these times. This inflammatory line in Matthew ââ¬â and the millenniums of persecution, scapegoating and ultimately mass murder that flowed partly from its malign repetition ââ¬â was finally addressed by the Catholic Church in the decades after the defeat of Naziism.
In 1965's historic Second Vatican Council, during the papacy of Paul VI, the church decided that while some Jewish leaders and their followers had pressed for the death of Jesus, "still, what happened in his passion cannot be charged against all Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today."
That was a sea change in the doctrinal interpretation of the Gospels, and the beginning of major interfaith progress.
However, a group of Catholics rejects that and other holdings of Vatican II. Mr. Gibson is reportedly aligned with that reactionary clique. (So is his father, an outspoken Holocaust-denier, but the son warns interviewers not to go there. I agree; the latest generation should not be held responsible for the sins of the fathers.)
In the skillful publicity run-up to the release of the movie, Gibson's agents said he agreed to remove that ancient self-curse from the screenplay. It's not in the subtitles I saw the other night, though it may still be in the Aramaic audio, in which case it will surely be translated in the versions overseas.
And there's the rub. At a moment when a wave of anti-Semitic violence is sweeping Europe and the Middle East, is religion well served by updating the Jew-baiting passion plays of Oberammergau on DVD? Is art served by presenting the ancient divisiveness in blood-streaming media to the widest audiences in the history of drama?
Matthew in 10:34 quotes Jesus uncharacteristically telling his apostles: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." You don't see that on Christmas cards and it's not in this film, but those words can be reinterpreted ââ¬â read today to mean that inner peace comes only after moral struggle.
The richness of Scripture is in its openness to interpretation answering humanity's current spiritual needs. That's where Gibson's medieval version of the suffering of Jesus, reveling in savagery to provoke outrage and cast blame, fails Christian and Jew today.
2004-03-11 16:29 | User Profile
Based on the $$ take, it appears that my wife and I are some of the few folks in this country who still have not seen Gibson's latest offering.
weisbrot,
Have you seen the film? If so, what'd you think?
2004-03-11 17:18 | User Profile
Fox News, home of the most negative Passion review I've read, is still "dissin" The Passion.
[URL=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113751,00.html] 'Tis the Season for Mediocre Movies[/URL] NEW YORK ââ¬â With the Oscar season over and summer blockbusters still two months away, movie fans are suffering through the dog days of film releases, that time of year when "Starsky & Hutch" is the best thing out there.
2004-03-14 08:25 | User Profile
[url]http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=13&art_id=iol1079174071473P256&set_id=1[/url]
If anyone ever needed a reason to hate Jews - it might just be found in this review. I assume Aschmann is a jewess.
A snuff movie for Christians
March 13 2004 at 12:34PM By Angela Aschmann
The Passion Of The Christ is a pointless and sick film. It has been mired in controversy ever since devout Catholic Mel Gibson first announced that he was making a movie about Jesus Christââ¬â¢s Crucifixion. At first the project seemed praiseworthy: unknown actors were to be cast (instead of buff starlets with impossibly perfect teeth), the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were to be consulted and the dialogue was to be rendered in Aramaic and Latin.
So far, so good.
But something went wrong. And instead of making a film that explains why Jesus was persecuted, or reinvigorates Christian faith, or even clarifies some aspects of Christianity to non-Christians, Gibson has made a snuff movie ââ¬â with the Son of God as the victim.
Much has been made of the flogging. And it is the most memorable image from the film. It goes on and on and on and on...
In fact, by the time we get to the really important and symbolic wounds that Jesus suffered ââ¬â the embedding of a crown of thorns in his skull, the hammering of nails through his hands and feet and the plunging of a sword into his side ââ¬â youââ¬â¢ve already seen so much blood and guts that they have no impact whatsoever.
Endless and relentless gore desensitises one. Itââ¬â¢s almost as though your brain shuts down to protect from the horror. Remember how outraged the country was about the ââ¬Åfirstââ¬Â baby rape? And are we still so outraged and vocal now that we hear these stories every week?
If the flogging had been cut down to the initial strokes, the other injuries would have been far more shocking. And its hard to believe a man who ends up looking demonic ââ¬â dripping blood, his one eye swollen closed so that he peers out of the other like Quasimodoââ¬â¢s first cousin ââ¬â would have been able to carry a heavy wooden cross through the town and up a hill. It beggars belief.
And when Jesus, by now a putrid lump of oozing mincemeat, says that heââ¬â¢s thirsty, the Romansââ¬â¢ cruelty in offering him a sponge soaked in vinegar loses all its power because the audience has a case ââ¬Åcompassion fatigueââ¬Â. You just CANââ¬â¢T care anymore.
What was the point of this film? If you are a Christian it will sadden and confuse you. There are bizarre and cringe-worthy incidents of the writersââ¬â¢ own imagination, like a "funny" scene where weââ¬â¢re supposed to believe that every dining room suite on sale at Furniture City was ââ¬Åinventedââ¬Â by Jesus.
And Herod is portrayed so camply that he looks as if heââ¬â¢s off to the Mother City Queer Project party. (So how did Salome seduce him into cutting off the head of John the Baptist?) As a friend quipped to me, Melââ¬â¢s done "a Peter Jackson" on a fine piece of literature.
If youââ¬â¢re not a Christian and want to know why millions of people are, Iââ¬â¢m afraid you wonââ¬â¢t increase your knowledge much. There is so little contextualisation that if you are not familiar with the New Testament youââ¬â¢ll simply be bewildered.
Another gripe is that Gibson digs out all sorts of special effects and imaginary characters, one of whom looks a little like the Emperor in The Empire Strikes Back crossed with Darth Maul from Episode IV. Why does supposedly the greatest story ever told need gimmicks like John Woo-style slow motion or childrenââ¬â¢s faces morphing into screeching devils? Why do we need stirring music all along (was it just my imagination or was the soundtrack ââ¬ÅArabicââ¬Â when something sinister was afoot and ââ¬ÅEuropeanââ¬Â when some happy was happening?)
Yes, the cinematography is stirring, the settings magnificent, the costumes marvellous and the actors realistic enough ââ¬â but so what? Today's cinema audiences take high artistic standards for granted.
And I burst out in indignant laughter at the second credit ââ¬â Screenplay by. No ââ¬ÅBased on a true storyââ¬Â. No ââ¬ÅInspired by the Gospelsââ¬Â. No ââ¬ÅAdapted fromââ¬Â. Just the names of two publicity hungry men.
Think of the really affecting films youââ¬â¢ve seen. Perhaps Life Is Beautiful, Schindlerââ¬â¢s List, Lemumba, Dancer In The Dark or Gandhi. Simple stories about suffering that are shocking in their accounts of manââ¬â¢s inhumanity to man. They have a humanity that even the most cynical among us grudgingly admit.
But the story of manââ¬â¢s inhumanity to the Son of God?
The Bible for the Terminator generation. Expect the computer game soon.
2004-03-19 10:17 | User Profile
This appeared in the 19 March 2004 [URL=http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?art_id=22960]Catholic Exchange[/URL].
Walter
The Passion Will Inspire Other Religious Films
03/19/04
Mel Gibson's unprecedented hit, The Passion of the Christ, already has changed Hollywood forever. Those industry insiders who deny the significance of the transformation are fooling only themselves.
[U]A Revolutionary Achievement[/U] A recent article in USA TODAY, headlined "The Passion could be a hard act to follow," displayed a subhead baldly declaring, "Hollywood is unlikely to get religion."
Experts cited in the piece emphasized the unique circumstances surrounding Gibson's film and observed that even Titanic, the all-time box office champion, failed to spawn a spate of successful imitations. Meanwhile, a report in The New York Times indicated that far from embracing the revolutionary nature of Gibson's achievement, prominent leaders of the entertainment establishment planned to punish him for his project and shut him out of future big studio undertakings.
Yet, regardless of personal reactions from top executives, and despite a general temptation to ignore or downplay the vast scope of the film's success, several factors suggest that the influence of this blockbuster will prove widespread and lasting:
The relatively low budget of The Passion makes it much easier ââ¬â and much less risky ââ¬â to imitate. Gibson reportedly spent $30 million of his own money on the project, compared with a price tag that has been estimated at $200 million (with big money from two different studios) for Titanic. Any attempt to replicate Titanic required approval of cautious corporate bean counters, but following Gibson's example involves only a single powerful star or producer willing to commit personal resources to a project of uncompromising spiritual vision. Early reports about Gibson's purportedly eccentric project provoked ridicule, but the phenomenally positive outcome of his venture means the next celebrity to put his or her personal faith on film will receive a more open-minded response from peers.
The bitter condemnation of The Passion by some Jewish leaders did nothing to undermine its public appeal and demonstrated that a religious movie can achieve major success even if prominent organizations find it offensive. The charges of anti-Semitism against Gibson and his movie began a full year before its release and continue to this day ââ¬â even as the film shatters records at the box office.
Conventional wisdom used to argue that controversy kills any movie with religious themes, thereby discouraging projects with powerful spiritual messages that inevitably will look controversial to someone. The Passion of The Christ teaches future filmmakers that they need not feel timid about affirming religious values out of fear of public conflict; in fact, they might even welcome such attacks as a means of winning attention.
[U]Just Exactly Who is ââ¬ÅMainstreamââ¬Â?[/U] The overwhelming public response to Gibson's project shows Hollywood doesn't need to rely so heavily on mind-numbing gross-out comedies and action films marketed to the already overserved teenage/young adult audience. Another huge segment of the population is ready to support quality projects that touch on the most important issues of life and faith.
"We're polling people who never set foot into a theater before this," Robert Bucksbaum, president of the industry tracking firm ReelSource, said of those attending The Passion of The Christ. "They are turned off by Hollywood, but this was seen as something completely out of the mainstream."
Actually, it's the entertainment industry that has placed itself outside the American mainstream by stubbornly ignoring repeated public demands for films that both respect and reflect the more traditional attitudes cherished by tens of millions of Americans. Survey data suggest that nearly 40% of us regularly participate in church or synagogue worship, with nearly four times more people flocking to religious services every week than waiting in line at the local multiplex.
Until now, most producers disregarded this faith-based audience, claiming that they seldom went to the movies anyway so it made no sense to appeal to them. The explosive response to The Passion blows that theory to smithereens: The movie's projected box-office gross is some $400 million in its North American theatrical run alone.
[U]They Will Come[/U] For many years, some lonely dissenters (including this writer) have argued that leading studios could improve their bottom lines by ending their frequent bashing of Christian symbols and substance and launching new efforts to tap into the nation's resurgent religiosity. Gibson has put that theory into triumphal practice, and other idealistic movie moguls already have prepared to follow his lead.
Less than a week after the release of The Passion, a colorful ad covering two full pages appeared in USA TODAY and other national newspapers, announcing an ambitious film (scheduled for Christmas 2005) based on The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe written by the great Christian thinker, C.S. Lewis. The willingness of Walt Disney Pictures, newly partnered with Walden Media, to announce this undertaking so far in advance and in such splashy style surely relates to the astonishing ability of the Gibson film to draw wary moviegoers back to theaters.
As a heavenly voice explained in Field of Dreams, another classic film about eternity and timeless values: "If you build it, he will come." The already visible eagerness to create additional projects that appeal to the nation's deep commitment to its Judeo-Christian heritage suggest that The Passion will be remembered as an historic turning point, rather than a freakish anomaly or an isolated experiment. The movie has helped Hollywood discover not just a new formula, but also a new audience.
(Film critic and USA TODAY contributing board member Michael Medved hosts a daily, nationally-syndicated radio show focusing on the intersection of politics and pop culture. You can visit his website by clicking here.)