Does Mel Gibson's 'passion' Incite Anti-semitism?

I saw an interesting debate on CNN between a Christian chap and a Rabbi. The Rabbi feels Mel Gibson's film portray's Jews very badly and will bring a return to the old medieval "Christ-killer" stereotype.

The Christian chap was, I think, just grateful that somebody had made the movie and effectively dismissed the claim saying it would make people more pro-Jewish.

As a complete aside he also claimed that this had been the observed effect from a Christian network film on Jesus which has been seen by 5 billion people. At this point I thought he had simply got his numbers wrong, but he then said only 1 billion have still to see it, clearly showing he was talking about the world population. ???? Quite how they got all 2 billion Chinese to watch it, the 1 billion Indian Hindus and the 1 billion Moslems is quite quite beyond me. I have never seen said movie (whose title I unfortunately can't remember). However, I suspect as a piece of empirical evidence to support his argument that the Mel Gibson movie will not adversely affect the Jews is, at the very least, disingenuous.

I have only seen clips of the movie, but it looks true Mel Gibson, lots of colour and atmosphere. Any views out there?

A previous controversial movie on the Passion (which I really liked) The Last Temptation, did not, as I recall, have an adverse effect on peoples attitude to the Jews. The Jewish characters in that movie were real people, I believe the Rabbi's claim is that all the Jewish characters in Mel Gibson's movie are dark caricatures of the worst kind.

Like you I have not seen this film. As I understand it the film has not been widely released as yet. I believe that it is called "The Passion of The Christ" and that it will be available on February 25th or shortly thereafter. If nothing else I approve of the title as it uses the term "The Christ", it never ceases to amaze me how many people think Christ is part of His name as a opposed to a description of who He is.

Correct me if I am wrong, I'm sure you will, but is it not recorded in Latin and Aramaic, with no subtitles. As such the chances of it being seen by huge numbers of people are fairly low.

It was never intended as a "Hollywood Blockbuster" it is more Mr Gibson's Grand Opus. A statement of what he believes, surely that is not a bad thing. One may not agree with what he says, however he has had the courage to say it.

With regard to your complete aside, I totally concur. I find this at best dubious. I have no way of supporting this view. However I think that for such an extravagant claim it is for him to prove it, rather than for us to disprove.

I look forward with great anticipation to the opportunity to see the much-ballyhooed movie.

My impression (not having seen it, of course) is that it is presented to be as literal an interpretation as is possible.

The mere mention of Mr. Gibson's intent to create a film depicting the "Passion" was sufficient to stir the pot six ways from hunger, ay least in the U.S.

I hope the movie is as great as it has been billed by Gibson and it's sponsors, and hope it is not overtaken by all the attempts at spin/prejudice undertaken beforehand.

I cannot speak to the aforementioned claim as to how many have seen it.

I think if you re-read you will find that

"a Christian network film on Jesus which has been seen by 5 billion people."

relates to something else and not Mr Gibson's work. At least that is my understanding.

Making the claim, if anything, more preposterous.

I could of course have totally missed the mark. It would not be that unusual.

J'Pol

That was my understanding of the claim. I have heard of neither the said film or the network (I would say that is not surprising except that I am somewhat disturbed to know nothing of someting seen by 5 out of every 6 people on the planet) I rather suspect the good gentleman succumbed to hyperbole in order to convince the Rabbi that we were not going to re-enact 'crystal nacht' on the back of Mel's opus.

Mr. Gibson is a good director and I will no doubt see his movie at some point. I will, of course, now be curious as to whether I can see the Rabbi's perspective. He seemed quite concerned regarding the treatment of Jews in this specific movie (as opposed to other movies on this subject).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@25 January 2004 - 03:18
J'Pol

That was my understanding of the claim. I have heard of neither the said film or the network (I would say that is not surprising except that I am somewhat disturbed to know nothing of someting seen by 5 out of every 6 people on the planet) I rather suspect the good gentleman succumbed to hyperbole in order to convince the Rabbi that we were not going to re-enact 'crystal nacht'  on the back of Mel's opus.

Mr. Gibson is a good director and I will no doubt see his movie at some point. I will, of course, now be curious as to whether I can see the Rabbi's perspective. He seemed quite concerned regarding the treatment of Jews in this specific movie (as opposed to other movies on this subject).

---

I suspect that you will be one of the few who can manage without subtitles.

To be honest my Aramaic is at best rusty. When the film is available I will give it my best shot.

No, Jesus was a jew killed by jews.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J'Pol@25 January 2004 - 02:49

To be honest my Aramaic is at best rusty. When the film is available I will give it my best shot.

---

See mate we got loads in common. I got a CSE grade 9 in English!!

We is a linguistic dynamic duo. :blink:

My recollection is that the film has been presented only to a select few media types.

Those who have seen it report (uniformly, and apparently including the Pope!) that any fear of anti-Semitic content is unfounded.

The other numbers must be someone's attempt at deflection; might have the effect of forestalling protests, somehow. :huh:

Just in passing...

The movie is subtitled and will open here in the US on two thousand screens, making it the widest release of a subtitled film ever.

I have yet to even see a clip of the movie, but find it amusing that it has generated so much contraversy for so long ( seems like I've been reading about it for nearly a year) without it ever being seen.

Two men enter, one man leave. That is the law.
http://www.artistdirect.com/soundtra...hunderdome.gif

I'm not really sure that this movie will be the most accurate version of the Bible, after all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@25 January 2004 - 06:26
Just in passing...

The movie is subtitled and will open here in the US on two thousand screens, making it the widest release of a subtitled film ever.

I have yet to even see a clip of the movie, but find it amusing that it has generated so much contraversy for so long ( seems like I've been reading about it for nearly a year) without it ever being seen.

---

Sir Mel's advisors may have convinced him that much as his decision may be laudable, it would perhaps minimize the audience.

:D

Still anything that aids literacy can't be a bad thing.

Fugley, your paper must have been a joy to read. :blink:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@24 January 2004 - 21:26
Just in passing...

The movie is subtitled and will open here in the US on two thousand screens, making it the widest release of a subtitled film ever.

---

i think the rumors went that Mel Gibson wanted to release the movie without subtitles... but either more sensible heads prevailed, or the rumor wasn't true after all. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+25 January 2004 - 12:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC &#064; 25 January 2004 - 12:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-clocker@24 January 2004 - 21:26
Just in passing...

The movie is subtitled and will open here in the US on two thousand screens, making it the widest release of a subtitled film ever.

---

i think the rumors went that Mel Gibson wanted to release the movie without subtitles... but either more sensible heads prevailed, or the rumor wasn&#39;t true after all. :lol:[/b][/quote]

Quote:

---

Mel Gibson produced this film in Sassi of Matera, as Pasolini did in 1964 with his Gospel According to St. Matthew. Even Richard Gere did his David here in 1985. It focuses on the 12 hours of Jesus&#39; life leading to his crucifixion. Jesus speaks Latin and Aramaic without the aid of subtitles.

"Obviously, nobody wants to touch something filmed in two dead languages," Mel Gibson explained at a news conference Friday in the Sala Fellini at Cinecitta. "They think I&#39;m crazy, and maybe I am. But maybe I&#39;m a genius.

"I want to show the film without subtitles," he added. "Hopefully, I&#39;ll be able to transcend language barriers with visual storytelling. If I fail, I&#39;ll put subtitles on it, though I don&#39;t want to."

"The idea came to me 10 years ago and has been rambling around in my empty head, very slowly taking shape ever since," Gibson said. "I think this is a pretty timeless and timely story to tell, involving an area where there&#39;s turbulence now just as there was turbulence then because history repeats itself.

"I want to show the humanity of Christ as well as the divine aspect," he continued. "It&#39;s a rendering that for me is very realistic and as close as possible to what I perceive the truth to be."

---

If Source is to believed then it was more than a rumour laughing boy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@25 January 2004 - 04:59
If Source is to believed then it was more than a rumour laughing boy.

---

OKAY THEN, serious boy.

guess i&#39;ve been reading the wrong websites, going to mainstream ones instead of... uh... hollywoodjesus.com. :frusty:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+25 January 2004 - 14:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 25 January 2004 - 14:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@25 January 2004 - 04:59
If Source is to believed then it was more than a rumour laughing boy.

---

OKAY THEN, serious boy.

guess i&#39;ve been reading the wrong websites, going to mainstream ones instead of... uh... hollywoodjesus.com. :frusty: [/b][/quote]
Don&#39;t you get all your info from hollywoodjesus.com.

Flip sake man, it is the source of all knowledge, the font if you will.

It describes itself as

Visual movie reviews, with explorations into the deeper more profound meaning behind film, music and pop culture.

You can&#39;t say fairer than that. Oh and that was the first time I had ever gone there, I may however return to see if there is any validity in it&#39;s extravagant claim.

I remain as ever, your humble and obedient servant

Serious Boy.

God loves this movie so much, he struck the actor playing Jesus with lightning - twice :D

He then proceeded to hit the assistant director iirc. Might even have been Mel himself.

On topic, the leading cause of anti semitic violence is Isreal. It attacks semites every day.

Quote:

---

On topic, the leading cause of anti semitic violence is Isreal. It attacks semites every day.

---

Oh boy.

I&#39;m going to see this movie partly just because alot of movie companies didn&#39;t want to make it.

I saw a clip of it (when Jesus has the cross on back) and looks brutal.
If Jews believe the movie to be anti-semitic so be it. Jews killed him.

edit: changed comics to companies (weird)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1234@25 January 2004 - 15:35
On topic, the leading cause of anti semitic violence is Isreal. It attacks semites every day.

---

I&#39;m sure the Arabs agree, although the fact might come as a surprise to the Jewish Semitic contingent.

When exactly was it the Arabs (Palestinians, et. al.) "lost" their Semitic status, anyway?

I always thought the term "anti-semite" was inappropriate, but then I wasn&#39;t around when Hitler was doing his thing.

Semite....descended from Shem.

When was this exclusivity "bestowed"?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@26 January 2004 - 00:07

---

Quote:

---

I&#39;m sure the Arabs agree, although the fact might come as a surprise to the Jewish Semitic contingent.

When exactly was it the Arabs (Palestinians, et. al.) "lost" their Semitic status, anyway?

I always thought the term "anti-semite" was inappropriate, but then I wasn&#39;t around when Hitler was doing his thing.

Semite....descended from Shem.

When was this exclusivity "bestowed"?

---

Bestowed, huh? Nice choice of words.

Anyways, Wilhelm Marr a German journalist and Jew-hater coined the term in 1879 when he founded the League of Anti-Semites. The term stuck and although Arabs are indeed Semites, anti-Semitism is used to describe prejudice against Jews.

Those who have a problem with this and feel that this exclusivity has been improperly bestowed upon Jews, I hope that you&#39;ll raise the same hoopla to defend Chileans who are technically as "American" as people from the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by putty@25 January 2004 - 20:46

Those who have a problem with this and feel that this exclusivity has been improperly bestowed upon Jews, I hope that you&#39;ll raise the same hoopla to defend Chileans who are technically as "American" as people from the USA.

---

Granted.

Will they then be Chilamericans?

You see, I think it has some connection to our having copped the word "America" in the naming of our nation.

Even having thought of it first, I will, on behalf of all my fellow "United Staters" (snazzy, huh?) volunteer to undergo an immense and unremitting blast of utter shame, if you insist-

AAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

There.

Feel better?

New sig, eh J2?

Gee, I never knew you were a "United Stateser".

Quote:

---

There.

Feel better?

---

Oh yes, much better.

Isn&#39;t is amusing though that if you read the Lefty anti-Israel websites, you read alot of folks complaining about this whole "Arabs are Semites too&#33;&#33;&#33;" garbage, when in fact the term "anti-semitism" was coined by an anti-semite??

I dunno, I guess I find the whole Middle East topic amusing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@26 January 2004 - 02:36
New sig, eh J2?

Gee, I never knew you were a "United Stateser".

---

Just so-

New year, new outlook, I guess.

I will try out these politically correct thingies one-by-one, and reject them the same way-I am becoming richly experienced thus, and also gaining a new empathy; the net effect being a heightened ability to "share".

InternetNews should be pleased.


Putty-

You&#39;ve hit on the exact point I was trying to make:

Always this easy and misguided acceptance of bastardized terms; I don&#39;t claim to have a comprehensive understanding of the the "Amorphous Dictionary of Floating Terms and Context", but this one certainly predates the current spate of political correctness.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+26 January 2004 - 06:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 26 January 2004 - 06:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-putty@25 January 2004 - 20:46

Those who have a problem with this and feel that this exclusivity has been improperly bestowed upon Jews, I hope that you&#39;ll raise the same hoopla to defend Chileans who are technically as "American" as people from the USA.

---

Granted.

Will they then be Chilamericans?

You see, I think it has some connection to our having copped the word "America" in the naming of our nation.

Even having thought of it first, I will, on behalf of all my fellow "United Staters" (snazzy, huh?) volunteer to undergo an immense and unremitting blast of utter shame, if you insist-

AAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

There.

Feel better?[/b][/quote]
Why do we call ourselves Americans?

"United States of America" is a description of a relationship and a vague locale. At the time it was coined, it was probably a sufficient description. New World (the Americas)vs Old World (Europe).

So the issue is NOT, why do we call ourselves Americans, but rather, why have we not named our country&#33;

It&#39;s so simple, it&#39;s not about attitude or swagger, but simply that "I&#39;m a United Stateser of America" sounds absolutely ridiculous. I&#39;m not saying it, no way.

If you want to make this an issue, then each and everytime someone calls themselves "American", just respond with, "Yeah, but where?, Greenland or Argentina?"

Eventually we will get so sick of clarifying this that we will finally name our country. As it is now, since we are the only country containing the continent name, "American" functions quite nicely.

I believe I had suggested the name: Trailerparktrashistan, but it has yet to catch on.

"United Statesmen" has a certain gravitas.

You can call yourselves that if you like. You&#39;re all Yanks to me.

how about the other word in the phrase Yankee-Doodle. we could be called Doodles. or "Doods," for short.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@26 January 2004 - 14:00
how about the other word in the phrase that Yanks derives from: Yankee Doodle.&nbsp; we could be called Doodles.&nbsp; or "Doods," for short.

---

Not bad, 3RA1N1AC.

Hobbes-

We must continue to refer to ourselves as Americans so as not to deprive our denigrants of their vast menu of complaint.

Much as I prefer Trailerparktrashistan.

It heartily satifies my polysyllabic bent (perhaps that is why I prefer "United States of America")"), and besides, all the individual states have been named.

U.S. of A. is the collective reference, much as "U.S.S.R." was; I don&#39;t see a problem.

Seems to me an Argentinian could easily and very satisfactorily refer to him/herself as Argentinian American, yes?

Unless they are afraid of the practice of polysyllabic reference?

Chalice-

"United Statesmen" loses all of the aforementioned gravitas when it becomes the PC "United Statespersons".

Regretful.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by putty@26 January 2004 - 01:46
I hope that you&#39;ll raise the same hoopla to defend Chileans who are technically as "American" as people from the USA.

---

Oh god WTF does that have to do with the price of sliced bread?&#33;&#33; :blink:

Oh the semantics of wordplay......like we "United Statesers" prohibited the use of American.
If someone wants the use of the word American...........

they need a permission slip signed by their parents and turned in to me with a fingerprint form.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman+26 January 2004 - 14:19--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman &#064; 26 January 2004 - 14:19)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-putty@26 January 2004 - 01:46
I hope that you&#39;ll raise the same hoopla to defend Chileans who are technically as "American" as people from the USA.

---

Oh god WTF does that have to do with the price of sliced bread?&#33;&#33; :blink:

Oh the semantics of wordplay......like we "United Statesers" prohibited the use of American.
If someone wants the use of the word American...........

they need a permission slip signed by their parents and turned in to me with a fingerprint form.[/b][/quote]
Will there be a fee, also, sir? :)

(Capitalist swine&#33;)

Slow news day at all chaps.

Could we perhaps discuss the Hutton Report, due out 28th January. It may rock the foundations of the UK Government and even lead to the abdication of HRH Tony the First.

Not very USAian I know, but it is something.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@26 January 2004 - 15:46
Slow news day at all chaps.

Could we perhaps discuss the Hutton Report, due out 28th January. It may rock the foundations of the UK Government and even lead to the abdication of HRH Tony the First.

Not very USAian I know, but it is something.

---

Sounds like a relief to me, JP. :)

What&#39;s it about?

It is an enquiry led by Lord Hutton into the death of Doctor Kelly. The weapons advisor who allegedly commited suicide after having been grilled by a parliamentary select committee. He was also the subject of much media attention which he did not want and for which he was not equiped to cope

I watched some of it on television at the time and it was appaling. They treated this man, basically an academic with total contempt and all concerned should be ashamed of themselves. It was small politicians having their moment in the spotlight and caring not one jot about the man who they were mauling to get it.

As I said he ultimately is said to have taken his own life. It is felt by those who knew him, or at least some of them that this was unlikely. There is no question that the way he was treated was a large contributing factor to his death.

However as I understand it the inquiry is also about how he was "outed" as a source of certain material. Hence the select committee interrogation. Did the PM know about this (or indeed authorize it) and the whole sorry state of affairs which led to this mans death.

Some Info

It sounds like a true cluster-fuck.

Odd, or perhaps telling, that the Beeb and 10 Downing are more-or-less mum; they must both feel a chance at the existence of a hard-fought vindication.

But then, tactics and rhetoric abound (witness Menzies&#39; statement); the flames must be fanned, eh?

It still seems to me (in the informational vacuum extant) that suicide was a bit extreme.

Is foul play somehow suspected? :huh:

Better start a thread, J&#39;Pol. ;)