Gibson’s movie

You’re forgetting about representatives from our country’s large Aramaic-speaking population. Incidentally, has Peggy Noonan written a column about it yet? Please God, tell me she has… I need a fix from “Magical Dolphin Girl” very very badly.

According to one published source, Michael Medved, an Orthodox Jew, has seen the film.

See > (” So far, the only Jew to be granted a viewing was Michael Medved”)

Somehow I don’t think anything will allay your concerns.

To get everyone, everywhere frothing at the mouth, they should show ‘The Passion’ back to back with ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’.

Anyone who’s interested in the controversy over Gibson’s movie should read Paula Fredriksen’s dynamite article in the New Republic. Fredriksen was part of a group of concerned Jewish and Catholic biblical scholars (she teaches at Boston College, I think) who examined a draft of the script. TNR requires a subscription but the whole article was reproduced on a blog somewhere; I forget where, unfortunately. (Tacitus linked to it but I can’t find the post in his archives, dammit.) I must admit to an instinctive roll of the eyes when I first heard that some people were saying that the movie was antisemitic, but Fredriksen’s account makes it clear that there are very serious problems with the movie, and that most of its claims to scriptural ‘accuracy’ are bogus.

Who cares if it’s accurate. No-one who isn’t christian is going to find it accurate anyway, which is perhaps why it hasn’t been shown to many Jews.

It seems somewhat spurious to whine on about how the film misrepresents some aspect of a story, when we have to ignore the bits with miracles and the rising of the dead of the son of God.

I’m sure if the Jews made a film about the great pretender Jesus Christ, that they might not be granting previews to too many Christians.

On one hand. There is certainly reason to suspect that Gibson has drawn on questionable scriptural sources that may have a specifically anti-Semitic bias, based on what I’ve read about this controversy. Plus Gibson has a track record of sticking unnecessary and anachronistic stereotypes into his work–vz. the absurdly over the top queeny-faggotry of the villainous prince in “Braveheart”.

On the other hand. I can’t help but feel that this film gets a certain level of aggressive scrutiny from cultural critics who would otherwise go into paroxyms of delight about a nine-hour film that tries to present a narrative accessible to viewers on a primal emotional level even when they can’t understand any of the dialogue. If Gibson was Matthew Barney and the film was the Cremaster Cycle–or more pungently, if he was Claude Lanzmann making “Shoah”–you can’t help but feel that some of the people who are gunning for him would be rooting for him instead.

I don’t think that calling it fiction would make much of a difference as far as most of the critics are concerned. I’ve spent more time recently reading about the controversy over “The Last Temptation of Christ” than I ever wanted to, and none of the million ministers circulating petitions against it were going “oh, well, it’s fiction, so really it’s no big thing if Our Lord is shown getting it on with Mary Magdalene.”

One of the crucial points made in the Times article, as far as I can see, is that many of the people upset about this movie are Catholics, and that Mel Gibson is part of a sect “considered beyond the pale even by conservative [Catholics].” That, combined with his self-evidently massive ego, looks like trouble to me. And the argument advanced by someone involved with the film that the things the Romans are shown doing to Christ are so disgusting and brutal that by the end you’ve totally forgotten about what the Jews did does not make the strongest case that the film is not anti-semitic. Or that anyone but a sadist could enjoy it.

“So long as the movie doesn’t stray from the biblical story how can that be anti-semitic?

reg.
the TNR article by Fredericksen is apropos to your comment.

The movie, apparently, is based not only on the gospels, but on the visions of some 17th century nuns which put the local Jews in a bad light. In a text with contradictions, there are logical interpretations that play up the “Jews wanted Jesus dead” angle and interpretations that play up the “Rome was in charge, and the Jews were an easy place to place the blame” angle.

If there are multiple acceptable interpretations, chosing the one that puts the Jews in the worst possible light may reasonably be interpreted as anti-Semitic.

I disagree Walter. Choices have to be made and choosing the ignore the risks of anti-Semitism is itself a choice. Meanwhile, from the TNR article:

“Finally, details of the film as reviewed by the insider-fan on June 26 conform exactly, alas, to what we had seen in the script. Satan inciting the executioners at their task; “a vicious riot of frenzied hatred between Romans and Jews with the Savior [en route to Golgotha] on the ground in the middle of it getting it from both sides”; the post-crucifixion Mary-and-Jesus pietà–no such scenes exist in the Gospels. But they are all in the screenplay that we saw.”

Frenzied hatred of Jesus by Jews in a scene not in the Gospels is evidence enough for me.

Dialogue in Latin, Greek, and Aramaic.
No subtitles. Long. The only people who will
watch this movie will each have enough sense
not to see it as a pretext for starting a
kike-bashing riot. This Jew isn’t worried and
doesn’t think the ADL should worry either.

Timothy: I know that art house audiences like Cremaster, but do art house critics? Here in Seattle, even the local weeklies (who are so very, very artsy) panned it.

Back40: The movie has subtitles? He’s sold out!

pathos, unless I’m mistaken, merely “choosing to ignore the risks of anti-Semitism” is frankly not anti-Semitic. You seem to be discounting out of hand the possibility that someone could have non-anti-Semitic reasons for choosing the acceptable interpretation that just so happens to put the Jews in the worst possible light. Without more information, the belief that the choice was made anti-Semitically is simply arbitrary.

Fist, I do not believe that those interested enough in the crucifixion to sit through this film will see it as a direct rendition from history. That would, after all, be extremely stupid, wouldn’t it, and not something that we would expect of ourselves. It seems very arrogant to impute such studpidity upon others.

Second and with that in mind, what would be so unacceptable and wrong about Gibson’s film if it did criticise the jews? I’m British and there’s a long history of film critical of my kinsmen’s role in various historical events. I don’t expect them to be immune from criticism.

I think the original NY Times article on the movie suggested that it should (for accuracy’s sake), look more like “Rashomon”, in that the accounts of Jesus’ last hours vary greatly from Gospel to Gospel.

(http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html, about 2/3rds of the way down)

The reaction to Gibson’s movie is hysterical. What it all boils down to is a back-handed assertion that the Gospel stories are anti-semitic and unhistorical. Fine. Everyone is entitled to his opinion. But the attempt to attempt to paint Gibson’s movie as peculiarly anti-semitic is intellectually dishonest.

The notion that population of Jerusalem turned against Jesus and the religious establishment of the City (i.e. that High Priest et al.) played the forceful role in his crucifiction is a central part of the Western Christian tradition. Why should a modern telling have to revise or soft-peddle that? The story of the man persecuted by the mob is one of the central ideas of western culture and religion. (E.g. watch “Meet John Doe”) It’s unfortunate that these same themes have been exploited by anti-semites. But to demand that they be expurgated from the Christian story is offensive and stupid.

This is all anti-religious bigotry and politically correct censorship masquerading as high-mindedness.

Not having seen the movie, I would still side with Mel Gibson (a fine actor and director who has created real art in the past) against the loathsome Frank Rich (who is an incompetent political commentator now and was little more than a destructive force as a broadway critic in the past).

BTW, what is it about Matt Drudge and David Horowitz amd Micahel Medved that disqualifies them as Jews? Is it because they are conservatives? I say bullshit. Horowitz is extraordinarily sensive to real anti-semitism in its contemporary form. The left, which now seeks to condemn Gibson, was (and is) strangely silent about vile instances of anti-semitism in Europe and in the anti-war movement.

Better, and thanks. When you first said “choosing to ignore the risks of anti-Semitism,” I thought you merely meant, “choosing to ignore the risks of being interpreted as anti-Semitic.”

Consider me more informed.

Check out the ADL’s statement on the film.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Mise_00/4275_00.asp

Of course, all I can provide is innuendo and association because I have not seen the film. All I can do is point to what others are saying. This is from the above link.

“Based upon the scholars’ analysis of the screenplay, ADL has serious concerns regarding the Mr. Gibson’s “The Passion” and asks:

Will the final version of The Passion continue to portray Jews as blood-thirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of Jesus?

Will it correct the unambiguous depiction of Jews as the ones responsible for the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus? Will it show the power of the rule of imperial Rome-including its frequent use of crucifixion-in first-century Palestine?

Will the film reject exploiting New Testament passages selectively to weave a narrative that does injustice to the gospels, that oversimplifies history, and that is hostile to Jews and Judaism?

Will it live up to its promise “to tell the truth?” To do so, the final product must rid itself of fictitious non-scriptural elements (e.g. the high priest’s control of Pontius Pilate, the cross built in the Temple at the direction of Jewish religious officials, excessive violence, Jews physically abusing Jesus before the crucifixion, Jews paying “blood money” for the crucifixion), all of which form an inescapably negative picture of Jewish society and leadership.

Will it portray Jews and the Temple as the locus of evil?”

A lot of the confusion over this film arises from a sort of intellectually lazy conflation of relatively specific and valid criticism of its alleged historicity and adherence to the Gospels, with the far more vague and unsubstantiated allegations of anti-Semitism. There are also a lot of factual claims being thrown around out of context, which can easily mislead people into believing a certain scene is in the film, for instance, when there is no proof of this.

john’s post above is a prime example. Gibson stated in an interview that he was drawing inspiration from the writings of two nuns, one of whom is Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich, “a 19th-century mystic whose visions included extrabiblical details like having the Jewish high priest order that Jesus’ cross be built in the Jewish temple.” (NYT)

Organizations such as as the Anti-Defamation League have seized on this one detail and written about it as if this event occurs in the film itself. However, there is nothing in the record to suggest that this scene actually does appear in the film. It’s not john’s fault that he was confused. It’s the fault of those who are leveling these very serious charges, without a single piece of concrete evidence drawn from the screenplay or the film itself.

Another example is posted by pathos above. He quotes from one account of the film, which describes “a vicious riot of frenzied hatred between Romans and Jews with the Savior [en route to Golgotha] on the ground in the middle of it getting it from both sides.”

He then goes on to misinterpret this scene as “frenzied hatred of Jesus by Jews.” The obvious interpretation is what it actually says: Romans and Jews are fighting EACH OTHER, while Jesus is caught between the two sides. (An interesting metaphor, and hardly an obviously anti-Semitic viewpoint, as pathos would have us believe.)

There are dozens of other egregious examples of leaps of logic and unfair inferences in all the articles and comments written about this film. The campaign against Gibson’s film before it’s even released reminds me of “The Minority Report” — a desperate attempt to head off a potential crime before the poor defendant has a chance to commit it — if indeed he will commit a crime at all.

Poor Gibson has been tried and convicted by the supposedly pro-free-expression media before the public gets a chance to see his movie for themselves. I for one will reserve judgment until my own eyes have seen it.

Exactly. Does any serious person honestly believe that contemporary Christians are just one Passion film away from reviving the Inquisition?

The obvious source of anti-Semitism today is the ongoing Middle East conflict, not millennia-old grudges over who killed Jesus. The most significant threat to Jews everywhere is not a relative handful of idiotic “Christian” skinheads, but the millions who adhere to militant fundamentalist Islamism and preach death to Israel.

There is indeed a disturbing rise in anti-Semitism today, particularly in Europe. But those anti-Semites who aren’t Muslim are fueled not by Christian zeal but rather by anger, justified or not, over Israel’s perceived ill treatment of the Palestinians (as portrayed in the European media).

In fact, I’d venture to guess that most contemporary Europeans, especially among the elites, who engage in anti-Semitic rhetoric and actions are atheists, and couldn’t give a fig about who killed Jesus. The secular far left’s drift into anti-Semitism is a very disturbing development that cries out for greater scrutiny.

If there’s confusion about the content of this film, I’m willing to put the blame squarely on Gibson’s people. They’ve shown this movie to a lot of influential right-wing talking heads, presumably so that they can talk it up. So you have Matt Drudge telling Pat Buchanon that the movie is a “miracle” that left him in “total tears,” or this “blogger”:http://churchofthemasses.blogspot.com/2003_06_22_churchofthemasses_archive.html#105664179273691486, who says she’s seen the movie and thinks that “Every Christian needs to see this film at least once.” If Gibson is showing the movie to his friends (many of them, apparently, on the right) and then letting them loose to tell the world how great it is, then it shouldn’t be any surprise when the critics come calling. If he wanted criticism of the movie to be more accurate, then he should have shown the rough cut of the movie to critics, or perhaps selectively released the final script, or told his “friendly” audiences that the preliminary screening was for their personal benefit and not a marketing stunt.

Good point. When Christians complain about certain movies or art exhibits they haven’t actually seen, they’re routinely mocked.

There’s also a double standard with respect to Christian sensibilities. Irate Christians are told to relax and “get over it” when such films as “The Last Temptation of Christ” come along that they find insulting to their beliefs. The same applies to art exhibits like “Piss Christ.”

I haven’t done a Nexus search, but I would wager a day’s pay that Frank Rich, who denounces Gibson’s film sight unseen, is guilty of all of the above.

As for the negative criticism all being Gibson’s fault, it should be noted that it all started with a leaked early draft of the screenplay to a self-appointed committee of “experts.” And this committee has claimed the script is anti-Semitic without providing a single quote from this screenplay — not one line of dialogue or scene direction — to back their claim.

Committee member Paula Fredriksen in her TNR article makes great hay out of Gibson’s citing of Sister Emmerich as a source of inspiration, but she fails to cite specific instances in the script itself where the anti-Semitic aspects of Emmerich’s writings are represented.

Fredriksen read the script. If Emmerich’s description of the crucifix being constructed in the temple on the orders of the high priest occurs in the script, why not say so?

A close reading of all the articles that have been written about this subject reveals that no specific evidence has ever been presented of the script’s (let alone the film’s) alleged anti-Semitism — only the vaguest sort of innuendo and inference. It’s a shame that the Times has signed on to this specious campaign to destroy a work of art before it can even see the light of day.

Re: Braveheart, you’ve gotta remember that Gibson only directed it. Some other dude, last name ‘Wallace’, wrote the screenplay. Gibson could’ve easily changed some things around, but I don’t think that the basic interpretation of Wallace or bedding Edward’s wife was his idea.

Yes, but this is just poetic license. It’s pretty well conceded that Braveheart (or just about any Hollywood adaptation) gets the facts wrong, and on purpose.

Oh Dear! I was defending Gibson from Tim’s criticism of anachronism in his (Gibson’s) treatment of Edward II and now I am hoist by my own petard. What to say?

Every dramatist from Euripidies on, who has used history as his plot source, has been criticized for distorting history. Each of them has defended himself with the shield of poetic license.

It seems to me that poetic license can only get you so far. It is well within the the realm of poetic licence to have an actor, depicting character who was a open homosexual, use some of the cues used by homosexuals in contemporary society to communicate an important trait that brought him into conflict with another primary character. OTOH, puting a historical character in to a plot, that she could not possibly have been part of, is pushing the envelope. And yes the love interest is an important part of the drama.

To say that Stone is a worse offender than Gibson is not a defense of Gibson. IMHO, Stone is much the better auteur. Wall Street is one of the great films of the recent era because Stone’s art in portraying Gordon Gekko far surpases his jejune politics. OTOH, Stone’s politics dragged him under in JFK and Nixon.

Whether Stone’s sin in making those movies was worse than Gibson’s because of the more contemporary subject may depend on your viewpoint. Clearly, you don’t live in Scotland. And does anybody take Stone’s history seriously. I stopped listening to JFK assasination conspiracy theories when I quit smoking:-)

great discussion and all, but the biggest thing is, here is a man willing to step out and do what he believes what is right. Here is a man bold enough to proclaim to the world what he believes in even though society rejects him. Many of you speak of him as a bad person, a criminal. He’s a man just showing his faith. that’s all that it is in the end. my pastor already has seen this film, and he said when it was over, there was silince for a little then prayer and weeping. full grown men bawling and praying and praising. maybe to some people this movie is outcasted shouldnt be allowed, but to others its a sign of new life. This life is shown in the movie because Mel Gibson himself found it. He’s just a man showing his faith. If he was Jewish during the holocost times and spoke out against the Nazis people whould have considered him a hero for professing his faith, but that’s all he is doing right now. professing his faith

I don’t believe this will just be “a movie that is going to be watched by very, very few people….” This movie will be watched by a LOT of Christians, who (I pray) will remember as I do the words of our God concerning the nation of Israel “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Gen. 12:3) He is the same God who also told His people (Israel): “See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me.” Isaiah 49:16

I marvel at a statement I read that the ADL was pressing for a post-script reminder to be added to the film which states “Jesus died for the sins of all men.” I can only reply “Amen!” to the ADL. Now if only the rest would get it. I hope Gibson added it. If not, he should have. Because *that* is what it is all about.

I am a Jew and saw the movie yesterday with a mixed group of gentiles who eagerly awaited my responses. I have yet to sift through what I saw/learned and don’t wish to enter into verbal communications at this time. However, was a scribe at the foot of the cross taking notes? By the time the story was written, it had passed through too many sources to be accurate. Kinda like playing the game of “TELEPHONE.” People have still to realize that PEACE and not WAR was and still is the bottom line.