Gibson, God and big bucks!

[Catch22]

Passion furore surprises Gibson


Hollywood actor and director Mel Gibson has hit back at critics of his controversial film, The Passion of The Christ, complaining some threw mud without having even seen the movie.

The film, starring Jim Caviezel, Maia Morgenstern and Monica Bellucci, is Gibson's interpretation of the final 12 hours in the life of Jesus Christ and is based on Gospel narratives.

Gibson, a Catholic, has fielded sharp criticism over his interpretation in the lead-up to the film's release on February 25, Ash Wednesday.

Some Jewish leaders have expressed concern that the movie could spark anti-Semitism.

However, other religious groups support the movie, saying it follows closely the literal interpretation of the Gospel.

Gibson, in an interview with Readers Digest magazine, said he was surprised by the reaction to the film.

"It kind of put me back on my heels a little bit. I expected some level of turbulence because whenever one delves into religion and politics - people's deeply held beliefs - you're going to stir things up."

Most surprising for Gibson was the amount of attention the film received prior to its release.

"It was a surprise, to have shots being fired over the bow while I was still filming, and then to have various loud voices in the press - people who hadn't seen the work - really slinging mud."

Following concerns from lobby groups, Gibson cut a controversial scene about Jews from the film.

The scene had been a focus of allegations that the graphically violent movie would fuel anti-Jewish bigotry by portraying Jews as the instigators of Christ's death.

Jewish leaders had warned that the passage from Matthew 27:25 was the historic source for the allegations of deicide and Jewish collective guilt in the death of Jesus.

Also sparking concern, Gibson's father, Hutton, said in an interview with The New York Times, he doubted the scale of the Holocaust during the Second World War.

"My dad taught me my faith, and I believe what he taught me," Gibson said.

"I'll slug it out until my heart is black and blue if anyone ever tries to hurt him."

While defending his father, Gibson said there was no doubt millions died during the Holocaust.

"I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms," he said.

"Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives."

Another criticism has been that it is too graphic and violent.

The film depicts the final moments of Jesus' life, including his crucifixion, in detail.

To that, Gibson said it had to be.

"That's the reality of it," he said.

"From many accounts I've read, I think it was actually more violent than what you're going to see in this film."

The film contains dialogue only in Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic, the common speech of ancient Palestine, something Gibson believes will create a more realistic feel.

"It gave me an extra impetus to have the visual aspect of the film be very strong, so that it wasn't as dependent on the spoken word," he said.

"And I find that the film has a tremendous amount of clarity because of that."

The Australian edition of Readers Digest will be released next Wednesday, coinciding with the international release of the film on the same day.


Gibson defends cross vision


AFP - Mel Gibson said critics who found his controversial film The Passion of the Christ anti-Semitic were missing the point, and defended his violent depiction of the crucifixion, saying he had deliberately set out to make a movie that would shock.

Decrying anti-Semitism as an "un-Christian" sin that went against the tenets of his faith, Gibson told ABC's Diane Sawyer in a Primetime interview that he had never intended the film to trigger a "blame game" over responsibility for Christ's death.

"It's about faith, hope, love and forgiveness. That's what this film is about. It's about Christ's sacrifice," he said, in excerpts of the interview released ahead of its broadcast on Monday evening.

The Passion, which gets its US release on February 25, purports to be a faithful and graphic account of Christ's last 12 hours on earth.

Jewish leaders who have attended advance screenings have voiced concerns that its portrayal of the Jews' role in Christ's execution could stir up anti-Semitic sentiment.

Gibson, who belongs to an ultra-conservative Catholic group that does not recognise the reforms of Vatican II, poured $US25 million of his own money into making the film, which he directed.

In comments to be broadcast alongside the interview, Abraham Foxman, national director of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, argued that while Gibson may not be anti-Semitic, he was being slightly naive about the film's potential impact.

"This is his vision, his faith; he's a true believer, and I respect that," Foxman said. "But there are times that there are unintended consequences. I believe that this movie has the potential to fuel anti-Semitism, to reinforce it."

Asked by Sawyer who he considered culpable for Christ's death, Gibson said mankind as a whole was responsible.

Jesus Christ "was beaten for our iniquities," Gibson said. "He was wounded for our transgressions and by his wounds we are healed. That's the point of the film. It's not about pointing fingers."

The star of the Lethal Weapon series and Braveheart acknowledged that the depiction of Christ's punishment and eventual crucifixion was "very violent" but insisted that the movie's R-rating was enough to warn cinemagoers in advance.

"I wanted it to be shocking," he said. "And I also wanted it to be extreme.

"I wanted it to push the viewer over the edge so that they see the enormity - the enormity of that sacrifice - to see that someone could endure that and still come back with love and forgiveness, even through extreme pain and suffering and ridicule."

Gibson traced the genesis of The Passion back to his own spiritual crisis 13 years ago when he became suicidal and came close to throwing himself out of a window.

"I was looking down thinking, 'Man, this is just easier this way'," he said. "You have to be mad, you have to be insane, to despair in that way. But that is the height of spiritual bankruptcy. There's nothing left."

Those feelings led him to reexamine Christianity, and ultimately to create The Passion - "my vision, with God's help" of the final hours in the life of Jesus.

"This is my version of what happened, according to the Gospels and what I wanted to show," he said.

[LixyChick]

Very contraversial topic......but then you wouldn't expect anything less from Mel! He makes good movies and I don't think this one will be any different! And just like the bible......some will interpret it one way and some will interpret it another.

I know there are priests and ministers in my area recommending that their congregation's see the film with an open mind before they judge it based on the media hype about anti-semitism.

Damn the media for missing the point.....again!

[jseal]

Catch22,

Given the current tide of political correctness, it seems somewhat disingenuous of Mr. Gibson to claim surprise that his film controversial. That some of the criticism originated from people who had not yet seen what they were criticizing is not unusual, even if it may be intellectually unsound.

The relations between Jews and Christians has beet strongly influenced by rather different interpretations of the Passion of Jesus Christ over the last few centuries. I would have though that Mr. Gibson should have anticipated some criticism, even perhaps some intolerance.

[Catch22]

It is a good way to get people to go see a film. That they may otherwise not.

[jseal]

Catch22,

I suspect you have it there.

[Lilith]

I think his daddy just sealed his fate.

[curvyredhead]

Originally posted by jseal
Catch22,

Given the current tide of political correctness, it seems somewhat disingenuous of Mr. Gibson to claim surprise that his film controversial. That some of the criticism originated from people who had not yet seen what they were criticizing is not unusual, even if it may be intellectually unsound.

The relations between Jews and Christians has beet strongly influenced by rather different interpretations of the Passion of Jesus Christ over the last few centuries. I would have though that Mr. Gibson should have anticipated some criticism, even perhaps some intolerance.

First let me say that I am a big fan of Mel's, I think that he gives a great deal to his craft. That being said, it is very disingenuous of him to make statements of suprise. Approximately 18 months ago the story of what he was doing was reported and even then people were up in arms about it. If Mel chooses to explore some part of his inner faith (and would like to take others with him), I support him, but I find it very disappointing that he would hide away from the reprecussions of his choices.

As for the movie itself, the topic is controversial but I've never had a problem with people delving into controversial topics, and individuals have the right to veiw the movie or not. I think this is one I won't be waiting in line for.

[LixyChick]

"It kind of put me back on my heels a little bit. I expected some level of turbulence because whenever one delves into religion and politics - people's deeply held beliefs - you're going to stir things up."

I think Mel was "put back on his heels" at someone calling him an anti-semitic........NOT that there would be people up in arms about the movie's content!!!! I am sure he knew it would cause an uproar....and to be bold here....I don't find anything disingenuous about his reaction to the misinterpretations that have already been brought up......sight unseen, as yet, by the masses. Why should he have to defend this media hyped bullshit? The media gets a hold on a catch phrase (anti-semitism....in this case) and it's infused in the minds of those who choose to believe it before they've even seen it! I've always thought of Mr. Gibson as one of the few deep souls amoungst his peers of disingenuous actors! He puts his heart and soul into a flim....and I can't find fault with that, even if I don't particularly care for the content!

Again I say....this movie is up for interpretation....just as the bible itself is!

My 2 cents!

[Lilith]

Has anyone heard his father's interview? His father's words were definitely ones of an anti-semite. Many people will associate him ...many will feel that the apple must not fall far from the tree.

[jseal]

Lilith,

Perhaps if they saw the movie, and then formed an opinion ,,,

[LixyChick]

I heard what he said Lil. And....then they interviewed Mel and he made his feelings clear......that he loves his dad and would fight to the death for him if anyone tried to harm him for his opinions.....but that in Mel's heart it would be a sin to be anti-semitic!

I also heard an interview with the actress who played Jesus's mother in the movie and she happens to be jewish. She said she hoped she knew Mel enough to know that he didn't hire her because he needed her to back his movie and prove his forthrightness......but that he hired her because she was right for the role. She has no ill will towards Mel....and she doesn't like the insinuations directed toward him!

[dicksbro]

Thanks, Lixy. I have such respect for Mel and didn't want to believe anything negative. I'm sure, from what I've heard, that the movie is pretty graphic and attempts to be realistic based on biblical accounts ... but I can't believe he meant it as anything more than the most realistic portrayal possible. Reckon we'll just have to wait until it's release and find out.

I'm betting that the media, as so often happens, is feeding the fires to sell air time or newpapers. I've got so little respect for the media anymore. :(

[paprclphd]

I agree guys! This move will be a controversial topic because of our society. I plan to see the movie, I am a little worried about how graphic it is going to be. However, I do think that its just a movie and people can choose whether or not they would like to see it. Curiosity is going to get my $8 plus popcorn, and that is what it's all about in the long run!

[jseal]

dicksbro,

I am minded of General John Shalikashvili. In 1993, he succeeded General Powell as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a post he held until his retirement in 1997.

When President Clinton appointed him, there was some particularly mean-spirited comments made – not about him, but his father – who had made anti-Semitic comments. In Poland. Before WWII. As if that somehow suggested that General Shalikashvili was unfit for duty. Even by the rock-bottom standards accepted inside the Washington Beltway, I felt it was scraping the bottom of the barrel.

While I am more than a little suspicious of Mr. Gibson’s "surprise," I find pitiful those who would deride the movie because of his father’s intemperate comments.

[Lilith]

His father's comments were unbelievably disrespectful. I have a serious problem with people who do not fully realize or attempt to realize the tremendous impact that the holocaust has had not only on the Jewish culture but of the entire world. When we deny and turn a blind eye to genocide it is as good as sanctioning it, IMHO.

ABC's coverage of his father's views (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1048468.htm)

[Lilith]

Oh ...that being said^^^ I will see the movie cause frankly it matters not what Mel's personal views are as it's a movie. I will save my criticism of the film and it's content or message til I have actually viewed it and see what impression it leaves me with.

[Belial]

I don't see his (Mel's father's) comments as necessarily anti-semitic (or anti-Jewish, which is not the same as anti-semitic), but it smells like speculation, and if he really believes what he's saying then he should follow up with some research and present it the next time he airs that particular view, and until he does, he's going to be more prone to harm than help.

[curvyredhead]

ok, this one has been with me all day... I'm still chewing on it!

1) Mel's father... while I do feel that his opinions are misguided, and yes if you don't work against the evils of society it is the same as condoning them, but he does have the right to his opinion. Mel is right to defend his father even if he disagrees with his point of view, after all he is his father.

2) Mel's feelings and the movie... I don't believe that Mel is anti-semitic. I don't believe that he made the movie to portray Jews in any negative way. I think that he is trying to show a deep faith and wants to share his opinions about Christ. I am, however, not so naive as to believe that a financial bottom line didn't enter the picture...

3) The media... there are not strong enough words in the English language for the contempt that I hold for the media (esp. American media). I think the media is one of the factors in why the US is going to hades in a handbasket! Between politics and the media (and the synergy of the two) there is a great mountain for US society to climb before we will be free. (Anybody ever see "Wag the Dog"?)

Thanks for letting me get this off my chest... I guess its been in the back of my head since I first heard about 'the new movie Mel is making'
*climbing down off soap box*

[Catch22]

MEL AND CHRIST



Mel Gibson's powerful but troubling new movie, 'The Passion of the Christ,' is reviving some of the most explosive questions. What history tells us about Jesus' last hours, the world in which he lived, anti-Semitism, Scripture and the nature of faith itself. Jon Meacham reports.



It is night, in a quiet, nearly deserted garden in Jerusalem. A figure is praying; his friends sleep a short distance away. We are in the last hours of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, in the spring of roughly the year 30, at the time of the Jewish feast of Passover. The country – first-century Judea, the early 21st's Israel – is part of the Roman Empire. The prefect, Pontius Pilate, is Caesar's ranking representative in the province, a place riven with fierce religious disputes. Jesus comes from Galilee, a kind of backwater; as a Jewish healer and teacher, he has attracted great notice in the years, months and days leading up to this hour.

His popularity seemed to be surging among at least some of the thousands of pilgrims gathered in the city for Passover. Crowds cheered him, proclaiming him the Messiah, which to first-century Jewish ears meant he was the "king of the Jews" who heralded the coming of the Kingdom of God, a time in which the yoke of Roman rule would be thrown off, ushering in an age of light for Israel. Hungry for liberation and deliverance, some of those in the teeming city were apparently flocking to Jesus, threatening to upset the delicate balance of power in Jerusalem.

The priests responsible for the Temple had an understanding with the Romans: the Jewish establishment would do what it could to keep the peace, or else Pilate would strike. And so the high priest, Caiaphas, dispatches a party to arrest Jesus. Guided by Judas, they find him in Gethsemane. In the language of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, there is this exchange: "Whom do you seek?" Jesus asks. "Jesus of Nazareth." The answer comes quickly. "I am he."

Thus begins the final chapter of the most influential story in Western history. For Christians, the Passion – from the Latin passus, the word means "having suffered" or "having undergone" – is the very heart of their faith. Down the ages, however, when read without critical perspective and a proper sense of history, the Christian narratives have sometimes been contorted to lay the responsibility for Jesus' execution at the feet of the Jewish people, a contortion that has long fueled the fires of anti-Semitism. Into this perennially explosive debate comes a controversial new movie directed by Mel Gibson, "The Passion of the Christ," a powerful and troubling work about Jesus' last hours. "The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film," Gibson has said. The movie, which is to be released on Feb. 25, Ash Wednesday, is already provoking a pitched battle between those who think the film unfairly blames the Jewish people for Jesus' death and those who are instead focused on Gibson's emotional depiction of Jesus' torment. "It is as it was," the aged Pope John Paul II is said to have remarked after seeing the film, and Billy Graham was so moved by a screening that he wept. One can see why these supremely gifted pastors were impressed, for Gibson obviously reveres the Christ of faith, and much of his movie is a literal-minded rendering of the most dramatic passages scattered through the four Gospels.

But the Bible can be a problematic source. Though countless believers take it as the immutable word of God, Scripture is not always a faithful record of historical events; the Bible is the product of human authors who were writing in particular times and places with particular points to make and visions to advance. And the roots of Christian anti-Semitism lie in overly literal readings – which are, in fact, misreadings – of many New Testament texts. When the Gospel authors implicated "the Jews" in Jesus' passion, they did not mean all Jewish people then alive, much less those then unborn. The writers had a very specific group in mind: the Temple elite that believed Jesus might provoke Pilate.

Gibson is an ultraconservative Roman Catholic, a traditionalist who does not acknowledge many of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). He favors the Latin mass, does not eat meat on Fridays and adheres to an unusually strict interpretation of Scripture and doctrine – a hard-line creed he grew up with and rediscovered about a dozen years ago. "He began meditating on the passion and the death of Jesus," James Caviezel, the actor who plays Jesus in "The Passion," told NEWSWEEK. "In doing so, he said the wounds of Christ healed his wounds. And I think the film expresses that." Gibson set out to stick to the Gospels and has made virtually no nod to critical analysis or context. As an artist, of course, he has the right to make any movie he wants, and many audiences will find the story vivid and familiar.

The film Gibson has made, however, is reviving an ancient and divisive argument: who really killed Jesus? As a matter of history, the Roman Empire did; as a matter of theology, the sins of the world drove Jesus to the cross, and the Catholic Church holds that Christians themselves bear "the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus." Yet for nearly 2,000 years, some Christians have persecuted the Jewish people on the ground that they were responsible for the death of the first-century prophet who has come to be seen as the Christ. Now, four decades after the Second Vatican Council repudiated the idea that the Jewish people were guilty of "deicide," many Jewish leaders and theologians fear the movie, with its portraits of the Jewish high priest Caiaphas leading an angry mob and of Pilate as a reluctant, sympathetic executioner, may slow or even reverse 40 years of work explaining the common bonds between Judaism and Christianity. Gibson has vehemently defended the film against charges of anti-Semitism, saying he does not believe in blood guilt and citing the church teaching that the transgressions and failings of all mankind led to the Passion – not just the sins of the Jewish people. "So it's not singling them out and saying, 'They did it.' That's not so," Gibson told the Global Catholic Network in January. "We're all culpable. I don't want to lynch any Jews ... I love them. I pray for them."

The fight about God, meanwhile, has been good for Mammon: Gibson has made what is likely to be the most watched Passion play in history. Prerelease sales are roaring along. Evangelical congregations are buying out showings, and religious leaders are urging believers to come out in the film's opening days because of the commercial and marketing significance of initial box-office numbers. The surprising alliance between Gibson, as a traditionalist Catholic, and evangelical Protestants seems born out of a common belief that the larger secular world – including the mainstream media – is essentially hostile to Christianity. Finding a global celebrity like the Oscar-winning Gibson in their camp was an unexpected gift. "The Passion of the Christ," Billy Graham has said, is "a lifetime of sermons in one movie."

Shot in italy, financed by Gibson, the $US25 million film is tightly focused on Jesus' final 12 hours. In the movie there are some flashbacks giving a hint – but only a hint – of context, with episodes touching on Jesus' childhood, the triumphant entry into Jerusalem, the Sermon on the Mount, the Last Supper. The characters speak Aramaic and Latin, and the movie is subtitled in English, which turns it into a kind of artifact, as though the action is unfolding at a slight remove. To tell his story, Gibson has amalgamated the four Gospel accounts and was reportedly inspired by the visions of two nuns: Mary of Agreda (1602-1665) of Spain and Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) of France; Emmerich experienced the stigmata on her head, hands, feet and chest – wounds imitating Jesus'. The two nuns were creatures of their time, offering mystical testimony that included allusions to the alleged blood guilt of the Jewish people.

The arrest, the scourging and the Crucifixion are depicted in harsh, explicit detail in the R-rated movie. One of Jesus' eyes is swollen shut from his first beating as he is dragged from Gethsemane; the Roman torture, the long path to Golgotha bearing the wooden cross, and the nailing of Jesus' hands and feet to the beams are filmed unsparingly. The effect of the violence is at first shocking, then numbing, and finally reaches a point where many viewers may spend as much time clinically wondering how any man could have survived such beatings as they do sympathizing with his plight. There are tender scenes with Mary, Jesus' mother, and Mary Magdalene. "It is accomplished," Jesus says from the cross. His mother, watching her brutally tortured son die, murmurs, "Amen."

As moving as many moments in the film are, though, two NEWSWEEK screenings of a rough cut of the movie raise important historical issues about how Gibson chose to portray the Jewish people and the Romans. To take the film's account of the Passion literally will give most audiences a misleading picture of what probably happened in those epochal hours so long ago. The Jewish priests and their followers are the villains, demanding the death of Jesus again and again; Pilate is a malleable governor forced into handing down the death sentence.

In fact, in the age of Roman domination, only Rome crucified. The crime was sedition, not blasphemy – a civil crime, not a religious one. The two men who were killed along with Jesus are identified in some translations as "thieves," but the word can also mean "insurgents," supporting the idea that crucifixion was a political weapon used to send a message to those still living: beware of revolution or riot, or Rome will do this to you, too. The two earliest and most reliable extra-Biblical references to Jesus – those of the historians Josephus and Tacitus – say Jesus was executed by Pilate. The Roman prefect was Caiaphas' political superior and even controlled when the Jewish priests could wear their vestments and thus conduct Jewish rites in the Temple. Pilate was not the humane figure Gibson depicts. According to Philo of Alexandria, the prefect was of "inflexible, stubborn, and cruel disposition," and known to execute troublemakers without trial.

So why was the Gospel story – the story Gibson has drawn on – told in a way that makes "the Jews" look worse than the Romans? The Bible did not descend from heaven fully formed and edged in gilt. The writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John shaped their narratives several decades after Jesus' death to attract converts and make their young religion – understood by many Christians to be a faction of Judaism – attractive to as broad an audience as possible.

The historical problem of dealing with the various players in the Passion narratives is complicated by the exact meaning of the Greek words usually translated "the Jews." The phrase does not include the entire Jewish population of Jesus' day – to the writers, Jesus and his followers were certainly not included – and seems to refer mostly to the Temple elite. The Jewish people were divided into numerous sects and parties, each believing itself to be the true or authentic representative of the ancestral faith and each generally hostile to the others.

Given these rivalries, we can begin to understand the origins of the unflattering Gospel image of the Temple establishment: the elite looked down on Jesus' followers, so the New Testament authors portrayed the priests in a negative light. We can also see why the writers downplayed the role of the ruling Romans in Jesus' death. The advocates of Christianity – then a new, struggling faith – understandably chose to placate, not antagonize, the powers that were. Why remind the world that the earthly empire which still ran the Mediterranean had executed your hero as a revolutionary?

The film opens with a haunting image of Jesus praying in Gethsemane. A satanic figure – Gibson's most innovative dramatic device – tempts him: no one man, the devil says, can carry the whole burden of sin. As in the New Testament, the implication is that the world is in the grip of evil, and Jesus has come to deliver us from the powers of darkness through his death and resurrection – an upheaval of the very order of things. Though in such anguish that his sweat turns to blood, Jesus accepts his fate.

In an ensuing scene, Mary Magdalene calls for help from Roman soldiers as Jesus is taken indoors to be interrogated by the priests. "They've arrested him," she cries. A Temple policeman intervenes, tells the Romans "she's crazy" and assures them that Jesus "broke the Temple laws, that's all." When word of the trouble reaches Pilate, he is told, "There is trouble within the walls. Caiaphas had some prophet arrested." It is true that the Temple leaders had no use for Jesus, but these lines of dialogue – which, taken together, suggest Jewish control over the situation – are not found in the Gospels.

The idea of a nighttime trial as depicted in Gibson's movie is also problematic. The Gospels do not agree on what happened between Jesus' arrest and his appearance before Pilate save for one detail: Jesus was brought before the high priest in some setting. In the movie, Jesus is interrogated before a great gathering of Jewish officials, possibly the Sanhedrin, and witnesses come forth to accuse him of working magic with the Devil, of claiming to be able to destroy the Temple and raise it up again in three days, and of calling himself "the Son of God." Another cries: "He's said if we don't eat his flesh and drink his blood, we won't inherit eternal life." Gibson does indicate that Jesus has supporters; one man calls the proceeding "a travesty," and another asks, "Where are the other members of the council?" – a suggestion that Caiaphas and his own circle are taking action that not everyone would agree with. The climax comes when Caiaphas asks Jesus: "Are you the Messiah?" and Jesus says, "I am..." and alludes to himself as "the Son of Man." There is a gasp; the high priest rends his garments and declares Jesus a blasphemer.

There is much here to give the thinking believer pause. "Son of God" and "Son of Man" were fairly common appellations for religious figures in the first century. The accusation about eating Jesus' flesh and blood – obviously a Christian image of the eucharist – does not appear in any Gospel trial scene. And it was not "blasphemy" to think of yourself as the "Messiah," which more than a few Jewish figures had claimed to be without meeting Jesus' fate, except possibly at the hands of the Romans. The definition of blasphemy was a source of fierce Jewish argument, but it turned on taking God's name in vain – and nothing in the Gospel trial scenes supports the idea that Jesus crossed that line.

The best historical reconstruction of what really happened is that Jesus had a fairly large or at least vocal following at a time of anxiety in the capital, and the Jewish authorities wanted to get rid of him before overexcited pilgrims rallied around him, drawing down Pilate's wrath. "It is expedient for you," Caiaphas says to his fellow priests in John, "that one man should die for the people" so that "the whole nation should not perish."

As the day dawns, Jesus is taken to Pilate, and it is here that Gibson slips farthest from history. Pilate is presented as a sensible and sensitive if not particularly strong ruler. "Isn't [Jesus] the prophet you welcomed into the city?" Pilate asks. "Can any of you explain this madness to me?" There is, however, no placating Caiaphas.

The scene of a crowd of Jews crying out "Crucify him! Crucify him!" before Pilate has been a staple of Passion plays for centuries, but it is very difficult to imagine Caesar's man being bullied by the people he usually handled roughly. When Pilate had first come to Judea, he had ordered imperial troops to carry images of Caesar into the city; he appropriated sacred Temple funds to build an aqueduct, prompting a protest he put down with violence; about five years after Jesus' execution, Pilate broke up a gathering around a prophet in Samaria with cavalry, killing so many people that he was called to Rome to explain himself.

Jesus seems very much alone before Pilate, and this raises a historical riddle. If Jesus is a severe enough threat to merit such attention and drastic action, where are his supporters? In Gibson's telling, they are silent or scared. Some probably were, and some may not have known of the arrest, which happened in secret, but it seems unlikely that a movement which threatened the whole capital would so quickly and so completely dwindle to a few disciples, sympathetic onlookers, Mary and Mary Magdalene.

In the memorable if manufactured crowd scene in the version of the movie screened by NEWSWEEK, Gibson included a line that has had dire consequences for the Jewish people through the ages. The prefect is again improbably resisting the crowd, the picture of a just ruler. Frustrated, desperate, bloodthirsty, the mob says: "His blood be on us and on our children!" Gibson ultimately cut the cry from the film, and he was right to do so. Again, consider the source of the dialogue: a partisan Gospel writer. The Gospels were composed to present Jesus in the best possible light to potential converts in the Roman Empire – and to put the Temple leadership in the worst possible light. And many scholars believe that the author of Matthew, which is the only Gospel to include the "His blood be on us" line, was writing after the destruction of the Temple in 70 and inserted the words to help explain why such misery had come upon the people of Jerusalem. According to this argument, blood had already fallen on them and on their children

A moment later in Gibson's movie, Pilate is questioning Jesus and, facing a silent prisoner, says, "You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?" Jesus then replies: "... he who delivered me to you has the greater sin." The "he" in this case is Caiaphas. John's point in putting this line in Jesus' mouth is almost certainly to take a gibe at the Temple elite. But in the dramatic milieu of the movie, it can be taken to mean that the Jews, through Caiaphas, are more responsible for Jesus' death than the Romans are – an implication unsupported by history.

The Temple elite undoubtedly played a key role in the death of Jesus; Josephus noted that the Nazarene had been "accused by those of the highest standing amongst us," meaning among the Jerusalem Jews. But Pilate's own culpability and ultimate authority are indisputable as well. If Jesus had not been a political threat, why bother with the trouble of crucifixion? There is also evidence that Jesus' arrest was part of a broader pattern of violence or feared violence this Passover. Barabbas, the man who was released instead of Jesus, was, according to Mark, "among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection" – suggesting that Pilate was concerned with "rebels" and had already confronted an "insurrection" some time before he interrogated Jesus.

Except for the release of Barabbas, there is no hint of this context in Gibson's movie. "The Passion of the Christ" includes an invented scene in which Pilate laments his supposed dilemma. "If I don't condemn him," he tells his wife, "Caiaphas will start a rebellion; if I do, his followers will." Caiaphas was in no position to start a rebellion over Jesus; he and Pilate were in a way allies, and when serious revolt did come, in 66, it would be over grievances about heavy-handed Roman rule, not over a particular religious figure, and even then the priests would plead with the people not to rebel. In the movie, far from urging calm, the priests lead the crowd, and Pilate, far from using his power to control the mob, gives in. And so Jesus is sentenced to death.

Clear evidence of the political nature of the execution – that Pilate and the high priest were ridding themselves of a "messiah" who might disrupt society, not offer salvation – is the sign Pilate ordered affixed to Jesus' cross. The message is not from the knowing Romans to the evil Jews. It is, rather, a scornful signal to the crowds that this death awaits any man the pilgrims proclaim "the king of the Jews."

The Roman soldiers who torture Jesus and bully him toward Golgotha are portrayed as evil, taunting and vicious, and they almost certainly were. Without authority from the New Testament, Caiaphas, meanwhile, is depicted as a grim witness to the scourging and Crucifixion as Gibson cuts back to the Last Supper and to moments of Jesus' teaching. After Jesus, carrying his cross, sees the faces of the priests, he is shown saying: "No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of my own accord." Is this intended to absolve the priests? Perhaps. From the cross, Jesus says: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."

As clouds gather and Jesus dies, a single raindrop – a tear from God the Father? – falls from the sky. A storm has come; the gates of hell are broken; back in the Temple, Caiaphas, buffeted by the earthquake, cries out in anguish amid the gloom. Then there is light, and a discarded shroud, and a risen Christ bearing the stigmata leaves the tomb. It is Easter.

Are the gospels themselves anti-Semitic? Not in the sense the term has come to mean in the early 21st century, but they are polemics, written by followers of a certain sect who disdained other factions in the way the Old Testament was dismissive of, say, Israelite religious practices not sanctioned by Jerusalem. Without understanding the milieu in which the texts were composed, we can easily misinterpret them. The tragic history of the persecution of the Jewish people since the Passion clearly shows what can go wrong when the Gospels are not read with care.

Most of the early Christians were Jewish and saw themselves as such. Only later, beginning roughly at the end of the first century, did some Christians start to view and present themselves as a people entirely separate from other Jewish groups. And for centuries still – even after Constantine's conversion in the fourth century – some Jewish people considered themselves Christians. It was as the church's theology took shape, culminating in the Council of Nicaea in 325, that Jesus became the doctrinal Christ, the Son of God "who for us men and our salvation," the council's original creed declared, "descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead."

As the keeper of the apostolic faith, the Roman Catholic Church has long struggled with the issue of Jewish complicity in Jesus' death. Always in the atmosphere, anti-Semitism took center stage with the coming of the First Crusade in the 11th century, when Christian soldiers on their way to expel Muslims from the Holy Land massacred European Jews. By the early Middle Ages, Christian anti-Semitism lent a religious veneer to political decisions by the secular authorities of the day, decisions that often penalized or curtailed the rights of the Jewish people. The justification for anti-Semitism was articulated by Pope Innocent III, who reigned in the early years of the 13th century: "the blasphemers of the Christian name," he said, should be "forced into the servitude of which they made themselves deserving when they raised their sacrilegious hands against Him who had come to confer true liberty upon them, thus calling down His blood upon themselves and their children."

After the horror of Hitler's Final Solution, the Roman Church began to reassess its relationship with the Jewish people. The result from Vatican II was a thoughtful and compelling statement on deicide. "True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today... in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved... by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone."

The council went on to make another crucial point undercutting the use of Passion to fuel anti-Semitism, either in fact or in drama. "Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now," Nostra Aetate (In Our Time) says, "Christ underwent his passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation." And his mercy is not limited to those who confess the Christian faith. "The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion."

If pointing to a 40-year-old church teaching is not enough, we can also look back more than 400 years to find the seeds of reconciliation and grace. At the Council of Trent in the 16th century, the Roman Church stated as a theological principle that all men share the responsibility for the Passion – and that Christians bear a particular burden. "In this guilt [for the death of Jesus] are involved all those who fall frequently into sin..." read the catechism of the council. "This guilt seems more enormous in us than in the Jews since, if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory; while we, on the contrary, professing to know him, yet denying him by our actions, seem in some sort to lay violent hands on him."

In the battle over his project, Gibson has veered between defiance and conciliation. "This film collectively blames humanity [for] the death of Jesus," he said in his Global Catholic Network interview. "Now there are no exemptions there. All right? I'm the first on the line for culpability. I did it. Christ died for all men for all times." Of critics who think his film could perpetuate dangerous stereotypes, he said: "They've kind of, you know, come out with this mantra again and again and again. You know, 'He's an anti-Semite.' 'He's an anti-Semite.' 'He's an anti-Semite.' 'He's an anti-Semite.' I'm not." In a letter to Anti-Defamation League national director Abraham Foxman last week, Gibson wrote: "It is my deepest belief, as I am sure it is yours, that all who ever breathe life on this Earth are children of God and my most binding obligation to them, as a brother in this waking world, is to love them." The news of the letter broke on Tuesday; late last week David Elcott, the U.S. director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee, reported that he had been present at a screening when someone asked Gibson, "Who opposes Jesus?" Gibson's Manichaean reply: "They are either satanic or the dupes of Satan."

Was there any way for him to have made a movie about the Passion and avoided this firestorm? There was. There are a number of existing Catholic pastoral instructions detailing the ways in which the faithful should dramatize or discuss the Passion. "To attempt to utilize the four passion narratives literally by picking one passage from one gospel and the next from another gospel, and so forth," reads one such instruction, "is to risk violating the integrity of the texts themselves... it is not sufficient for the producers of passion dramatizations to respond to responsible criticism simply by appealing to the notion that 'it's in the Bible'." The church also urges "the greatest caution" when "it is a question of passages that seem to show the Jewish people as such in an unfavorable light." The teachings suggest dropping scenes of large, chanting Jewish crowds and avoiding the device of a Sanhedrin trial. They also note that there is evidence Pilate was not a "vacillating administrator" who "himself found 'no fault' with Jesus and sought, though in a weak way, to free him." A reference in Luke, instructions point out, and historical sources indicate that he was, rather, a "ruthless tyrant," and "there is, then, room for more than one dramatic style of portraying the character of Pilate and still being faithful to the biblical record." The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, NEWSWEEK has learned, is publishing these teachings in book form to coincide with the release of Gibson's movie.

In the best of all possible worlds, "The Passion of the Christ" will prompt constructive conversations about the origins of the religion that claims 2 billion followers around the globe, conversations that ought to lead believers to see that Christian anti-Semitism should be seen as an impossibility – a contradiction in terms. To hate Jews because they are Jews – to hate anyone, in fact – is a sin in the Christian cosmos, for Jesus commands his followers to love their neighbor as themselves. On another level, anti-Semitism is a form of illogical and self-defeating self-loathing. Bluntly put, Jesus had to die for the Christian story to unfold, and the proper Christian posture toward the Jewish people should be one of respect, for the man Christians choose to see as their savior came from the ancient tribe of Judah, the very name from which "Jew" is derived. As children of Abraham, Christians and Jews are branches of the same tree, linked together in the mystery of God.

[Catch22]

Let us end where we, and Gibson's movie, began – in the garden, in darkness. The guards have come to arrest Jesus. He watches as his disciples come to blows with the troops. Punches are thrown, and one of Jesus' men lashes out with a weapon, slashing off the ear of a servant of the high priest. Watching, removed from the fray, Jesus intervenes, commanding: "Put up thy sword," making real the New Testament commandment to love one another as he loved us, even unto death – a commandment whose roots stretch back to the 19th chapter of Leviticus: "... you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord." Amid the clash over Gibson's film and the debates about the nature of God, whether you believe Jesus to be the savior of mankind or to have been an interesting first-century figure who left behind an inspiring moral philosophy, perhaps we can at least agree on this image of Jesus of Nazareth: confronted by violence, he chose peace; by hate, love; by sin, forgiveness – a powerful example for us all, whoever our gods may be.

Newsweek

[Catch22]

I recall there was a beef up by media over braveheart when he made that.

[LixyChick]

I keep reading and hearing the phrase, "the movie seems to suggest".....and that is pissing me off! The author of each particular article, or the interviewer who speaks to the actors or persons related to the movie, about the movie, is making HIS/HER own interpretation by prefacing an explaination of a scene from the movie with that common phrase. That's were I slight the media the most. This, to me, is nearly as bad as yelling "FIRE" in a movie theatre!

[jseal]

Lilith,

Alas, the senior Gibson’s comments and opinions are all too easy for me to believe.

Dr. Lipstadt is a historian who documented those who assert that the Nazi atrocities never occurred, or if they did occur were only a trifling detail. One of her books, 'Denying the Holocaust' identified an author, David Irving. He sued her publisher, her, and others in England in 1996. English libel law is, by American standards, weighted in favor of the plaintiff. You may recall that Liberace successfully sued the Daily Telegraph (I think that was the news paper) when it alleged that he was homosexual.

Despite the fact that British law effectively puts the burden of proof on the defendants, Dr. Lipstadt and her team were able to expose the manipulation, distortion, and misrepresentations of Mr. Irving. When Justice Gray ruled for Dr. Lipstadt, he wrote 334 pages, citing example after example where Irving "significantly misrepresented... the evidence... [and where he was guilty of] misrepresentation . . . misconstruction... omission... mistranslation... misreading... double standards." The judge found Irving explanations for what he wrote "tendentious... unjustified... specious... distorted... fanciful... hopeless... disingenuous... [and] a travesty."

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/ieindex.html

Truth and accuracy won this one, but there are a LOT of people out there who buy into “ah, it’s just a big lie”.

[paprclphd]

That is the truth Jseal - and it is sooooo sad

[GingerV]

Ignorance bugs me. Ignorance about that particular topic pisses me off on a personal level, although my head knows that it's just another example of the human animal being able to choose the "truth" that comforts it most...for whatever twisted reason people would find holocaust denial comforting.

But so help me, I'd hate to be held responsible for my father's opinions. With that said, so long as Mel isn't coming out as a holocaust denier...he HAS to be given the benefit of the doubt.

AS far as the movie goes.....it's a movie. Anyone who uses it as a justification for racism of any sort is already damaged goods. If you want to argue it's historicity, I'm there and happy to help. If you think it's too violent, well, that's a valid question in terms of taste...but more than that begs censorship.

But I think there are bigger issues in the world, and that this one little movie is a tempest in a teacup...fueled by public obsession with celebrity. If it was a small indie film that wasn't associated with Gibson, few of us would ever have heard of it.

As far as the evil press goes....if it didn't sell mags/papers...they wouldn't report it. Some portion of the blame has got to be aportioned back to us, the reading public.

More than my 2cents...I hereby surrender the soap box.

[naughtyangel]

omg, I had my response all typed out and got timed out! Probably a good thing though, since I typed without thinking and probably got carried away, lol

Mel has said clearly that he does not deny that the holocaust happened. I think it's terrible that the media would take his refusal to bash his father publicly and twist it to mean that he shares the same views. He has neither defended nor agreed with his father's opinions, and he has the right to remain loyal to his family without being questioned about it.

As for the movie, I can sympathize that it may make some Jewish people nervous. Historically, Passion plays/films have been known to incite a "Christ killer" mentality. But to say that it is anti-Semitic is like calling the people who made Schindler's List anti-German. People who claim that Mel is anti-Jewish seem to forget that his entire belief system is founded on the life, death and resurrection of a Jewish man :rolleyes: He's simply portraying what is historical, Bible supported fact (to Christians, anyway ;) ).

I'll stop now, while the going's good :D

[Sharni]

Originally posted by Catch22
Passion furore surprises Gibson

....."It kind of put me back on my heels a little bit. I expected some level of turbulence because whenever one delves into religion and politics - people's deeply held beliefs - you're going to stir things up."......

Jseal ~ I would think that this quote of Mels would say that he expected some yes...but not what he got

[Sharni]

Originally posted by LixyChick
I think Mel was "put back on his heels" at someone calling him an anti-semitic........NOT that there would be people up in arms about the movie's content!!!! I am sure he knew it would cause an uproar....and to be bold here....I don't find anything disingenuous about his reaction to the misinterpretations that have already been brought up......sight unseen, as yet, by the masses. Why should he have to defend this media hyped bullshit? The media gets a hold on a catch phrase (anti-semitism....in this case) and it's infused in the minds of those who choose to believe it before they've even seen it! I've always thought of Mr. Gibson as one of the few deep souls amoungst his peers of disingenuous actors! He puts his heart and soul into a flim....and I can't find fault with that, even if I don't particularly care for the content!

Again I say....this movie is up for interpretation....just as the bible itself is!

My 2 cents!
I agree with you totally Lixy....

[LixyChick]

Originally posted by jseal
Truth and accuracy won this one, but there are a LOT of people out there who buy into “ah, it’s just a big lie”.
And the same can be said about the moon landing! Some actually think it was shot in a Hollywood sound stage!!!!!!!

I figure it this way.......once a (not so open) mind is made up.......you, me, or nothin under the sun is gonna change it!

This is the fodder for most wars..........so sad.....but true!

[jseal]

Sharni,

Well, perhaps. Perhaps. I shall withhold judgment until after I’ve seen the subject of the debate.

I’ll give Mr. Gibson the benefit of the doubt in abstract – a movie which delves into religion and politics - “people’s deeply held beliefs” will indeed “stir things up”. However to be taken by surprise, or caught off guard by having “various loud voices in the press – people who hadn’t seen it – slinging mud”? That type of nastiness has been around since there has been a press. Those protestations do seem a bit strained.

The subject material for his movie, Christ’s Passion, served as the basis for centuries of Jewish harassment and discrimination, culminating in what many consider to be one of, if not the most, dark and despicable episodes in history, during which several million Jews were slaughtered – because they were Jews. Perhaps if there were no survivors from that event, perhaps if there were no records of the pogroms, then perhaps I would share Mr. Gibson’s surprise.

[jseal]

LixyChick,

Yes mam, some do think the Apollo landings were faked! Can’t say as I agree with them.

I do agree with you and Sharni that the Bible is open to interpretation. I daresay that if you looked hard enough, you’d find justification in it for just about anything you could want to do. I suspect that that is one of the reasons it has lasted as long as it has. It is an extremely convenient reference work for human behavior.

[Catch22]

Like I said. A good way to get people to spend money to see a Easter flick!

[Lilith]

Just read in the paper where churches are renting whole theaters for their congregations to view the movie together and then discuss it after.

[Catch22]

Been watching a show on TV about the Bible. Seems from old texts that have been found, that a large part of the Bible was left out around the 5th century. Other parts were reworked around that time.

[Wicked Wanda]

I am a Catholic. I am a graduate of a Catholic High School. I still go to Mass and confesion, just not as often as I used to. ( My confession was.. difficult, and sometimes the results were hysterically funny)
Those of you who read what I write might be shocked to learn that I am Catholic.
So...
I am scared of what is happening in the world around me. (read my rant in Janet Jackson-exhibitionist?)
Right now religious hatred against EVERYONE is climbing. "God hates sodomites" is a sign seen at a courthouse that was issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
"The Word of God" is often used as a reason to assault Lesbians, gays and Bisexuals.
By the way, am I a sodomite because I have physical relationships with other women? Hmmmmmmm.
Overseas, there is little or no distinction made in many societies between Jews and the government of Israel.
If you hate Israel, you burn down the local synogogue.
I remember vividly in High School learning that Passion Plays often incited violence against Jews.
I love Mel Gobson's movies, and frankly have lusted after him since I was a teen.
But he is naive if he thinks this movie will not be used as another excuse to harm people somewhere.

Sadly

Wanda

[jseal]

Wicked Wanda,

Did I ever mention that it is difficult to distinguish between Mel Gibson and I?

[jseal]

Catch22,

In re “controversy moves the product”.

The distributor of ‘The Passion of the Christ’ has increased the number of prints from 2,500 to 4,000 and will show at 2,800 cinemas here in the States.

This is up from 2,500 cinemas a month ago.

The on-line ticket service Fandango reports that sales for the movie made up nearly 70% of it recent sales. Fandango reported that it has become the second biggest film by advance sales, behind LOTR: Return of the King.

Granted, just about all the Christian mythos had been drained out of LOTR by the time Mr. Tolkein’s work made it onto the big screen, but all in all, this winter has been, if you’ll pardon the expression, a helluva good one for celluloid Christianity, no?

[lakritze]

Just about every ten years the people of Oberramengau,a city in the Bayern of Germany put on Der Passionspiel often admist accusations of anti semitism.The play is performed there as a result of the people's promise to God to have the Plague bypass their city and it did. No Lixy,the Moon landing was filmed on the moon of course.But they had to film on the bright side because the lighting was better.heh heh W.W. have you heard of People United for the Separation of Church and State? I have been contributing $$ to it for years to fight the bluring of the two.This is the same group who tipped off the IRS when Pat Robertson tried to tell church goers how to vote in elections,by threatening their tax exempt status.As for the movie,I'll with hold comments until after I see it.Which may be when it hits the cable channels a year later.After all thats how I saw: The Last Temptation of Christ.

[Tess]

Here's and excerpt from Newsweek:

By David Ansen
NewsweekMarch 1 issue - I have no doubt that Mel Gibson loves Jesus. From the evidence of "The Passion of the Christ," however, what he seems to love as much is the cinematic depiction of flayed, severed, swollen, scarred flesh and rivulets of spilled blood, the crack of bashed bones and the groans of someone enduring the ultimate physical agony. This peculiar, deeply personal expression of the filmmaker's faith is a far cry from the sentimental, pious depictions of Christ that popular culture has often served up. Relentlessly savage, "The Passion" plays like the Gospel according to the Marquis de Sade. The film that has been getting rapturous advance raves from evangelical Christians turns out to be an R-rated inspirational movie no child can, or should, see. To these secular eyes at least, Gibson's movie is more likely to inspire nightmares than devotion.

It's the sadism, not the alleged anti-Semitism, that is most striking. (For the record, I don't think Gibson is anti-Semitic; but those inclined toward bigotry could easily find fuel for their fire here.) There's always been a pronounced streak of sadomasochism and martyrdom running through Gibson's movies, both as an actor and as a filmmaker. The Oscar-winning "Braveheart" reveled in decapitations and disembowelments, not to mention the spectacle of Gibson himself, as the Scottish warrior hero, impaled on a cross. In "Mad Max," the "Lethal Weapon" movies, "Ransom" and "Signs" (where he's a cleric who's lost his faith), the Gibson hero is pummeled and persecuted, driven to suicidal extremes. From these pop passion plays to the Passion itself is a logical progression; it gives rise to the suspicion that on some unconscious level "The Passion of the Christ" is, for Gibson, autobiography.

With the exception of a few brief flashbacks, "The Passion" focuses on the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. We first glimpse Jesus (James Caviezel) racked with fear, praying in a mist-shrouded Gethsemane, where he is tempted by Satan, depicted here as a pale, hooded, androgynous woman who might have stepped out of an Ingmar Bergman movie. (In the subtitled film, the actors speak Aramaic and Latin.) Gibson's iconography is wildly eclectic: at various moments his images call to mind the paintings of Caravaggio (the grotesque cherubs who hound Judas to suicide), grisly 15th- and 16th-century paintings of the Crucifixion and Pieta, and such horror movies as "The Exorcist" and "Jacob's Ladder." When Jesus is arrested by the Jewish high priest Caiaphas's men, a fight breaks out: Peter slices off the ear of a soldier and, for the first of many times, Gibson switches to slow motion, inviting us to linger on the physical abuse and humiliation.

There is real power in Gibson's filmmaking: he knows how to work an audience over. The dark, queasy strength of the images—artfully shot by Caleb Deschanel—and their duration (the scene in which the Roman soldiers tie Jesus down and torture him goes on endlessly) tends to overwhelm the ostensible message. "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword," Jesus says, putting a halt to the fighting in Gethsemene; much later we're given a snippet from the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus exhorts his followers to love their enemies as themselves. But these moments have little weight in the body of the film; they're the cinematic equivalent of footnotes and they're not what seizes Gibson's imagination. What you remember is the image of a crow plucking out the eyes of the thief on the cross next to Jesus, punished by God for mocking his son. Caviezel gives an eloquent physical performance, but he has little opportunity to show the Messiah's spiritual charisma; this Jesus' most noteworthy trait is his ability to absorb pain. It's fascinating that the most understated sequence is the Resurrection itself. Rendered in obliquely crisp cinematic shorthand, it brings the movie to an anomalously muted conclusion.

From a purely dramatic point of view, the relentless gore is self-defeating. I found myself recoiling from the movie, wanting to keep it at arm's length—much the same feeling I had watching Gaspar Noe's notorious "Irreversible," with its nearly pornographic real-time depiction of a rape. 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. Others may well find a strong spirituality in "The Passion"—I can't pretend to know what this movie looks like to a believer—but it was Gibson's fury, not his faith, that left a deep, abiding aftertaste.

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

[jseal]

Tess,

It would seem that Mr. Ansen didn’t really like this movie, yes?

[Irish]

curvyredhead---You brought back memories!My 91yr old,mother used that term-Going to hades(Hell)in a handbasket,all of the time,when I was growing up.Thank You for that!I haven't heard that term,in years. Irish
P.S.She will be 92,saturday!

[curvyredhead]

Irish, Glad to bring a smile to ya. I grew up with that saying as well.. must be my Irish roots! Happy Birthday to your mother!!

[Irish]

curvyredhead---Thank You!I never forget her birthday,because it's
the day after mine.I tell her that I didn't get her a present but,
What the Hell,she had me.That's enough. Irish

[jseal]

Originally posted by Catch22
...part of the Bible was left out around the 5th century.

Catch22,

Later on, following the Reformation, the Protestant sects would exclude portions of the sacred texts from their versions of the Bible that would remain in the Catholic version. These texts are called the "Apocrypha".

[Catch22]

The marketing machine is already going. They are selling 'fan stuff'. I wonder where the cash from that goes?

[jseal]

Catch22,

To worthy causes, of course!

[Vigil]

There are many great

Historians
Story Tellers
Actors and
Movie Makers

Unfortunately Mr. Gibson doesn't merit a place in any of the categories.

Just my personal view.

[Sharni]

I believe Mel rates highly in all categories myself :)

[Irish]

Sharni---I agree!Just my $.02.They are now selling costume jewelery,from the movie.Necklace,hung spikes,etc.I don't think,
that they are from the movie makers.It's probably a private corporation,and they get the profits.Actually,I have no idea. Irish

[Sharni]

The "trinkets" being sold with this movie are no different to the ones that come out with most movies released

And the money made from them would be the same

[jseal]

Gentlefolk,

Now, if I could just find a URL where I could download Heavenly Graces…

[Aqua]

First off I wanna say what has been said by others in this thread... IT'S A MOVIE. It happens to be a movie about a historical figure that means a lot to me, but it's a movie just the same.

Secondly, To the people in this country that just have to stir up controversy and bring up anti-semitism (maybe we can deter things by claiming that WMD's can be found in this film :rolleyes: ) I have a shocking revelation. Jews are not responsible for the death of Jesus Christ AND, at the risk of being struck by lightning, I can tell you who is...
.
.
.
God is responsible. Jesus was sent to live (and die) among us because we are sinful beings incapable of living righteously enough to gain entrance into God's Kingdom by our own works. Through his death our sins are forgiven and that was the reason He came to Earth.

I'm going to back away from my desk now so that when the lightning hits my computer might be spared.

[dicksbro]

Aqua ...

Well thought out ... and well put. Thanks.

[Catch22]

Selling roofing nail necklaces. Does not add an air of honour and respect, imho.

[Sharni]

Nor does a lot of other things being sold....but if people buy it..then others will sell it

Thats life!

[Catch22]

Some things are without taste Sharni. It would be like the lotr people selling life size dolls of Orlando, with a penis that glows in the dark.

[Sharni]

Tasteless?....i'd buy one *LMAO*

[jseal]

Gentlefolk,

Mr. Gibson's film made the front page of the local newspaper. It was much up in arms against it.

[jseal]

Catch22,

The life size Orlando doll might fall into the category of "one (wo)man's meat is another's poison".

[Catch22]

Jseal,

I think she is ready for shock therapy for sure!

[Lilith]

My husband gets a little note from Jeb everyday in the form of a "Family Minute"(a syndicated column I think)~:spin: Ususally they are things like you really should eat dinner with your family, or women like to talk and men like to act so men act like you are listening etc... This was todays:

Governor's Strengthening Families Initiative
presents...
Family Minute with Mark Merrill

Would you risk your career to stand up for what you believe?

Actor Mel Gibson is doing just that. Gibson, a devout Catholic, has produced a
movie about the last twelve hours of Jesus' life. It's called The Passion of the
Christ, and it opens today. Ever since Gibson announced his plans, he has faced
some pretty strong opposition from Hollywood insiders. But he's not backing
down. He says his faith won't let him. No matter how you feel about Mel Gibson's
movie, you have to respect his conviction and determination.

Remember your family first.

© 2004 Mark W. Merrill. All rights reserved.

[Irish]

Lilith---As you know,I practically grew up in the "old"motorcycle
lifestyle.One of the things,most respected(right or wrong)was,if a
person stood up for their convictions & beliefs.Also for their friends
& family! Irish

[Lilith]

I agree....this will most likely be the only time I agree with my Governor. I am very curious to see if he still thinks standing up for your convictions and families is important when state workers who have same sex spouses/partners fight for family/spouse insurance coverage.

[Irish]

Lilith---That subject,is just another thing,with religion & politics,
that I'm not even going to touch.On one side,you're right,on the
other you're wrong.You just have to hope & pray,that the "right"
decision is made! Irish

[Lilith]

Yep! Right and wrong are sooooo subjective. Not for me to decide who is and isn't right. Unless I'm grading the paper;) Respect and understanding are my goal usually.

Tonight is my date night and I wonder if I can even get in to see the movie. Bet it will be packed!!!!

[jseal]

Lilith,

You are planning to see the film tonight?

Woosh! You are one tough motor scooter! Let us know how it goes.

Good luck!

I will wait a bit.

[Sharni]

Originally posted by Catch22
Jseal,

I think she is ready for shock therapy for sure!
Who's she??

[Catch22]

Originally posted by Sharni
Who's she??

She is the Queen of Sheba.

[Catch22]

Originally posted by Lilith
Yep! Right and wrong are sooooo subjective. Not for me to decide who is and isn't right. Unless I'm grading the paper;) Respect and understanding are my goal usually.

Tonight is my date night and I wonder if I can even get in to see the movie. Bet it will be packed!!!!


Your going to see a religious flick on a date?

[Sharni]

Originally posted by Catch22
She is the Queen of Sheba.
Hmmmmmmmm

[Lilith]

No I just spent 4 hours in a mediation over whether some crack head parents with lists of battery convictions are willing to go to Domestic Violence therapy....I don't think I can bare to think anymore today:D

[jseal]

Lilith,

Madam, you ARE one tough motor scooter!

[jseal]

Catch22,

For my wife and I, it is not what you do on your date, it is who you do it with.




Good recovery.

[Lilith]

I skipped the flick. I heard that people were coming out of the theaters sobbing and visibly disturbed. Not the best night for that, could have led to a complete meltdown:D We ate at a cozy Italian joint and spent the evening prowling B&N instead. You would not believe the healing properties of garlic bread, hand holding, and good reads.

[Lilith]

I heard on the news this morning that a lady in Wichita, KS had a heart attack during the climax of the movie.

It made 15-20 million yesterday.

[skipthisone]

Probably the single most intense film I have ever seen.

[Lilith]

Did it leave you thinking or just feeling?

[skipthisone]

It is a story I already know well, most already know well. But it puts it into your face like never before.

[Belial]

I can't help but think that a film about John the Baptist might see the marketing of commemorative severed heads.

[jseal]

Gentlefolk,

The upped it again. The film was released in more than 3,000 cinemas.

[Irish]

ONE of the best thing about having my granson,here this week &
watching the "Judge" shows is that I didn't have to watch,over &
over,the constant TV ads,for the movie,yesterday.As Aqua said-
It's a movie!Everyone complained about the violence.Violence,is a
part of life & closing your eyes & ignoring it,won't make it go away!If there is to much violence for anybody,use your feet & walk out!No one forced anyone to go to the theater,anyway.I
think,that I have seen,just about everything violent.I have actually,gotten physically ill,seeing someone get "curbed"years
ago,while in Texas.I was in my late teens then,and didn't have
the power,to stop it.If anyone wants to know,what "curbed" is,
contact me at [email protected] is a violent act & I refuse
to write about it here! Irish

[Catch22]

I can see a whole lot of Roman films hitting the drawing boards.

[Sharni]

But aren't there already Roman films out?

[Lilith]

Gladiator???? Caligula?

[skipthisone]

SPARTACUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lilith]

TY I could not think of that name to save my fucking life!!!!

[Catch22]

They have been talking about a Gladiator II. I think after this that is on for sure. Yes, yes. I know about Ben Hur and Quo Vadis and the rest!

[jseal]

Lilith,

Spartacus. Now THERE'S a film which took liberty with the historical record.

[Aqua]

I'M SPARTACUS!!!!!!!!

[Lilith]

<~~~~~ pulls a chair from the corner, gets out her book and waits:p

[Sharni]

If they are talking about a Gladiator 2....then it may possibly be made, I would imagine a big factor in that would be because the first one was so popular

Do not lay the production of a second Gladiator purely at the feet of Mel's film

[Irish]

Sharni---I don't see how they could possibly,have a Gladiator 11.
The whole story was told in the first one,plus it wouldn't be worth
watching,to me,unless Russel Crowe,was in it.In my opinion,he is
a fantastic actor.Many don't like him but I think that he is great!!
Irish

[Sharni]

Russel Crowe is brilliant!

And believe me Irish....it won't matter if there is no more story to be told....they will just make one *LOL*

[Lilith]

$$$ 117 million in 5 day. I have yet to hear anyone who did not think the movie was fabulous.

[jseal]

Lilith,

Is it just me, or did anyone else note that the accusations of anti-Semitism seemed to drop off abruptly after the film was released for general viewing?

The remaining criticisms I’m aware of focus on the violence of the crucifixion, questions about the length of Christ’s hair, and the ratio of spoken Aramaic, Latin and Greek. What are the other ones?

[Lilith]

It was definitely something I was worried about and am thrilled that the film apparently does not give off the "the evil Jews killed Jesus" feel. I still have not seen it.

[jseal]

Gentlefolk,

With $125.2 million in its first five days, “The Passion of the Christ” has broken the previous American five-day box office record held by “The Return of the King” of $124.1 million.

And this from a religious flick. Whoda thunk it?

I really must see this film.

[Lilith]

I was at the theater to see a 50 Firts Dates last night and I entered just as Passion was emptying out. Interesting to feel the energy coming off the people as they left the theater. None making eye contact. The ladies in the bathroom were not talking or discussing the movie at all. They looked like they had just been crime victims, like in shock. I was very perplexed by this reaction.

Unfortunately Mr. Lil was in the men's restroom and did indeed here some young men discussing their hatred of Jews and that they "feel like beating the shit out of the next Jew" they see. I grew concerned about that. I suppose that if you are already predisposed to hate, you see every thing as another reason to build on that hate. Hoping it was the people not the film in this instance.

[Catch22]

Well from what one sees on tv it looks like Jews fight back these days.

[jseal]

Gentlefolk,

Bootleg copies of the film were seized by police in Philadelphia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3535609.stm

[Catch22]

Originally posted by jseal
Gentlefolk,

Bootleg copies of the film were seized by police in Philadelphia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3535609.stm


Your joking!?

[jseal]

Catch22,

Don't those pirates know that stealing is a sin?

[Sharni]

They know its a sin....they just dont care!!

[jseal]

Sharni

Their wickedness consigns them to Gehenna!

[jseal]

Mr. Gibson plans to make a film about the story behind the festival of Hanukkah, the Jewish festival which celebrates the Maccabees' victory against Greek king Antiochus IV, in the 2nd century BC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3555161.stm

That may start another animated conversation.