How far did the Gibson apple fall from the tree? - Page 2

Edan · February 20, 2004, 18:49

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Personally, I'd like to know why people keep assuming the movie is anti-Jewish.

I'm only going off of what I've read, but honestly, I don't know whether the movie or Gibson is anti-Semitic. Like I've said, the jury's still out. OTOH, regardless of whether Gibson is anti-Semitic, if the movie ends up ressurecting a long dead canard, shame on the movie and on him.

Ben Kenobi · February 20, 2004, 18:58

Quote:

if the movie ends up ressurecting a long dead canard, shame on the movie and on him.

The movie reinforces the Jewishness of some of those who supported Christ, as well as the concept that you cannot judge a whole nation, by the actions of a few.

Dauphin · February 20, 2004, 19:23

The Passion will incite as much hatred against Jews as The Patriot did against Brits.

Imran Siddiqui · February 20, 2004, 19:26

Quote:

The fact that such a scene was there in the first place and that Gibson had to remove it under such pressure doesn't bode well in his defense that he isn't on some level promoting an anti-Jewish message.

Well the Jews were involved in killing Jesus. That really can't be denied. So if that is what is mainly being objected to, then the arguments have little merit.

Quote:

which not only tries to cast the holocaust as just any other "war is hell" evil of war, and doesn't specifically state that there was a planned operation to commit genocide and no mention of death camps

How is any of that anti-semetic? Why does he have to say it was a planned operation or death camps? He said it was an atrocity; does he have to spell out everything?

And I believe there was a discussion here on how much more horrible the Holocaust was compared to other war atrocities. The numbers were higher because of the systematic execution, but there have been plenty of atrocities centered on genocide or killing on the basis of religion, which I'd contend are just as bad as the Holocaust.

Dr Strangelove · February 20, 2004, 21:56

The idea of a postscript is a good one. I can think of a number of ways that they could de-fuse the controversy.

Boris Godunov · February 20, 2004, 22:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

The fact that such a scene was there in the first place and that Gibson had to remove it under such pressure doesn't bode well in his defense that he isn't on some level promoting an anti-Jewish message.

Well the Jews were involved in killing Jesus. That really can't be denied. So if that is what is mainly being objected to, then the arguments have little merit.
.

Read the ADL web site, that's not what the crux of the complaints are about. It's about a stereotypical depiction of Jews in the film, among other things.

Ben Kenobi · February 20, 2004, 22:18

Quote:

It's about a stereotypical depiction of Jews in the film,

Boris Godunov · February 20, 2004, 22:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

And have you seen it yet?

Whine to the ADL, I was simply stating to Imran what their complaints are, based on people who have seen the film.

Ben Kenobi · February 20, 2004, 22:23

Quote:

Whine to the ADL

They get two:

Boris Godunov · February 20, 2004, 22:25

You just get a

Edan · February 20, 2004, 22:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The movie reinforces the Jewishness of some of those who supported Christ, as well as the concept that you cannot judge a whole nation, by the actions of a few.

So why's it ok to assume that the movie sends such a message? (or that bigots will get such a message from the movie)

DinoDoc · February 20, 2004, 22:37

Why is it OK to assume that the movie is anti-Jew?

MrBaggins · February 20, 2004, 22:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
*SNIP* Moreover, the most offensive scene in the move that Jewish groups complained about was removed.

Nope... that scene is still in... but they're talking in Aramaic, and there's no subtitle. However, everyone will know its that scene by the absence of a subtitle.

MrBaggins · February 20, 2004, 22:41

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why is it OK to assume that the movie is anti-Jew?

because its based on the pro-roman, anti-jewish gospels, written to promote the Roman Catholic church?

Ben Kenobi · February 20, 2004, 22:50

Quote:

that the movie sends such a message?

That's what some Jews have also said about the movie.

Quote:

pro-roman, anti-jewish gospels, written to promote the Roman Catholic church?

How are the Gospels 'pro-roman' and 'anti-Jewish'?

MrBaggins · February 20, 2004, 22:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How are the Gospels 'pro-roman' and 'anti-Jewish'?

They were written to promote the new religion, looking for converts from the old religion (or stealing fence sitters.)

They were naturally going to paint the Romans as less evil bastards than they were, and the Jews as culpable.

Its just propaganda... advertising... whatever you want to call it.

Edan · February 20, 2004, 22:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Well the Jews were involved in killing Jesus. That really can't be denied. So if that is what is mainly being objected to, then the arguments have little merit.

The Jews or some Jews? Involved or directly responsible?

Quote:

How is any of that anti-semetic? Why does he have to say it was a planned operation or death camps? He said it was an atrocity; does he have to spell out everything?

Well, it sounds to me like he's stating that the planned genocide was just another of the many downsides of war, like collateral damage, famines, shortages, evacuations, and so on. War is hell, **** happens, that sort of thing. The holocaust was a deliberate, large scale industrial mass production of death in a 20th century scientifically advanced country that had been a decade before a democracy, the foundations of which were being set up before the war (making blaming the war a cop out).

I find an answer that treats the holocaust as just another "well, war is hell, **** happens" sort of incident as an attempt to minimize the holocaust. His answer is vague enough that I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, but it's a damned stupid way to clearly answering the question on the record as stating that yes, the holocaust happened.

Pax · February 20, 2004, 22:57

The truth is that the jews in charge at the time did have the Romans kill jesus. That does not mean that all Jews stabbed Jesus in the Back and then he said Et tu Benjamin. The same way German government is responsible for the Holocaust. But Germans were'nt grabbing Jews off the street and throwing them into there ovens at home and all Jews were not a party to the death of Christ.
If mel gibson pretty much sticks to the bible the evidence is damning against the jewish temple. If you believe in the bible then you believe that jesus challenged their power as any revolutionary seeing and unjust practice would and he was killed for it. You can hardly blame the jews of today for that. You really can't even blame the temple for wanting to hold on to their power.

Boris Godunov · February 20, 2004, 23:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
The truth is that the jews in charge at the time did have the Romans kill jesus.

I doubt that could be substantianted in any manner to satisfy most critical thinkers.

Seeker · February 20, 2004, 23:02

Mel is just being faithful to the gospels as they have been written. He said he wanted to make a Gospel-based passion movie, and that's what he did. And the gospels as written DO have a lot of 'stuff' that could offend Jews. That's because there is errm sorry if everyone missed it but a major, violent theological disagreement between christians and jews at the heart of the religions. Why hide it and pretend it doesn't exist?

I suppose another liberal director could make a non-gospel based version of the passion to promote ecumenism and 'interfaith harmony' but doesn't Mel have a right to put the traditional story into the public square with his own money?

Ben Kenobi · February 20, 2004, 23:04

Quote:

Its just propaganda... advertising

That's a presupposition that allows you to prove, what you have already assumed.

You assume that the Bible seeks to convert Jews. How would they do so by demonising them?

MrBaggins · February 20, 2004, 23:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I doubt that could be substantianted in any manner to satisfy most critical thinkers.

Particularly since Pilate was a bit of a sociopathic lunatic, not given to indecision about putting people to death in the most gruesome manner possible. In fact he got the notice of Rome, due to his particularly cruel repression of the Samaritan uprising, whereafter he was called back to Rome, and didn't get further assignment.

MrBaggins · February 20, 2004, 23:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You assume that the Bible seeks to convert Jews. How would they do so by demonising them?

By painting the hierachy of their faith as ungodly.

Pax · February 20, 2004, 23:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

I doubt that could be substantianted in any manner to satisfy most critical thinkers.

Let me rephrase that. I don't believe the bible to be 100 percent accurate. According to the bible. Jesus was killed because he threatened the power of the temple priests.

Ben Kenobi · February 20, 2004, 23:41

Quote:

By painting the hierachy of their faith as ungodly.

So then you admit, that not all Jews are blamed, but rather, individuals.

Imran Siddiqui · February 20, 2004, 23:42

Quote:

The Jews or some Jews? Involved or directly responsible?

Jewish leaders... therefore 'the' Jews is good enough. It'd be like saying 'America' or some Americans were involved in Vietnam. It's a silly distinction. And also involved and probably responsible to a large extent.

Quote:

I find an answer that treats the holocaust as just another "well, war is hell, **** happens" sort of incident as an attempt to minimize the holocaust.

Guess I'm a Holocaust minimizer. So are you saying that Gibson sees the 20 million killed by Stalin to be insignificant because it was part of war? That's a really baaad argument. The Holocaust was simply a part of the sad, sordid history of human beings doing nasty things to each other. It probably does get disproportionate press because of the numbers and efficiency. That doesn't mean that the underlying atrocity is something totally new.

Pax · February 21, 2004, 00:43

I agree it is good enough to say the jews did it. Just like the Germans and etc. Realizing that it was the governing authority that made the decision.

Jews, Muslims, and Christians should get over who did what 2,000 years ago so we can eventually work whose to blame for the crusades.

Bereta_Eder · February 21, 2004, 00:55

A film couldn't have hoped for better publicity.

Bereta_Eder · February 21, 2004, 01:10

It is very amuzing that some on this thread plead to judge not a whole nation by the actions of the few. Does that mean they think "the people who crusified little jessuuuus" were baaaad?

Caligastia · February 21, 2004, 01:20

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
It is very amuzing that some on this thread plead to judge not a whole nation by the actions of the few. Does that mean they think "the people who crusified little jessuuuus" were baaaad?

I would consider anyone who participated in a crucifixion "baaaad"