| Submit your comments on this article | |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- | |
| Passion of the Christ Stirs a storm | |
| 2004-01-25 | |
| The film has earned the approval of conservative Christian groups The film The Passion of the Christ is a month away from release but the controversy surrounding it is already producer Mel Gibson’s cross to bear. "I anticipate the worst is yet to come," Gibson said at the Global Pastors Network conference in Orlando, Florida. The film, which depicts Jesus Christ’s last 12 earthly hours, has been lauded for its historical accuracy - and accused of being anti-Jewish. Gibson urged the pastors to take youth groups to see the film, despite the R rating it earned for the graphic depiction of the crucifixion, Gibson’s publicist, Paul Lauer told the BBC. "I hope I’m wrong, I hope I’m wrong," Gibson, a conservative Catholic, told the 3500 evangelical pastors. Gibson will find out on 25 February, when the film is released on Ash Wednesday, the holiday that marks two days before Christians believe Christ was crucified. The film "represents a disturbing setback to the remarkable achievements in Christian-Jewish relations over the past 40 years," the American Jewish Committee said on Thursday in a statement. "Foremost among problems with the Gibson film is the inclusion of verse 27:25 from Matthew, the verse that blames Jews for Jesus’ death and was repudiated by Vatican II in 1965," said the committee, some of whose members have seen the film. Gibson belongs to an ultra-conservative Catholic group that does not recognise the reforms of Vatican II and celebrates mass in Latin. The star of Lethal Weapon and Oscar winner for his role in Braveheart took more than $25 million out of his own pocket for the filming in Rome. He wrote the script, produced and directed the film and hired Jim Caveziel to play Christ and Italian actress Monica Belluci as Mary Magdalene. Even Pope John Paul II weighed into the debate. While some US media reported that the pope praised the film, Vatican sources denied those reports on Thursday and confirmed only that the pontiff had attended a private screening of the film in December. "We are deeply concerned that the film, if released in its present form, could fuel the hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard to repudiate," Anti-Defamation League Director Abraham Foxman said. "The film unambiguously portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob as the ones responsible for the decision to crucify Jesus." The film attempts to portray life 2000 years ago, with characters who speak Latin and Aramaic, with English subtitles, earning the approval of conservative Christian groups. "The film is going to be a classic," said Dean Hudson, editor of the Catholic magazine Crisis. "It is going to be the ’go-to’ film for Christians of all denominations who want to see the best movie made about the passion of Christ." More liberal institutions disagree. "We are really concerned that this could be one of the great crises in Christian-Jewish relations," Mary Boys, of the non-denominational New York Theological Seminary, told the Guardian. The last film to kick up such a controversy was Martin Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988.
| |
| Posted by:LongLiveIsrael |
| #18 The Jews are crying foul for the release of the Passion of the Christ because it is a reminder of the collective guilt and shortcomings of their faith. Jesus was a Jew who was uncovering the blindfold of ignorance the jewish faith contains - mainly the elitist oligarchy who were misinterpreting scripture for their own selfish agenda. This close minded attitude still exists amongst many Jewish leaders and groundwork is laid in the subconsciencious American mindset via the Anti-Defamation League and other left wing groups to maintain and foster their elitist agenda. There is no denying that the Jews have suffered throughout the ages. Maybe if they accepted Christ as their Savior and dropped the condescending attitude then their luck might change for the better. |
| Posted by: Footstone 2004-2-21 11:54:07 PM |
| #17 1. Jews and Jewish leaders have plenty of reason to be concerned about this film and comment on it 2. Christians who like the film, have every right to defend it, and the theology on which it is based 3. Questions about whats actually in the film will be answered when its released 4. A certain number of people on the "left" on foreign policy are VERY UNHAPPY with the alliance of neocons and other Jews with fundie and other christians on Iraq, GWOT, Israel, etc. This is a golden opportunity to try to fracture that alliance. i have a nagging suspicion that many who are posting issues related to this film on blogs that focus on the GWOT (like this one) are doing so with the deliberate intention of trying to fracture such alliance. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2004-1-26 10:55:32 AM |
| #16 I need to clarify: The only "goof" present day Jews should admit to is that Jesus was railroaded by the Jewish leaders of that day. Heck, they don't even have to apologize for anything, because they didn't do it. Take one look at the Israeli court system, and I'll say that what happened to Jesus then wouldn't happen today. You saw what your ancestors did, admit it wasn't the right thing to do, you learn from it, and implemented the reforms. You can't ask for more than that, and if you do, you're just being a jackass. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-1-26 7:53:00 AM |
| #15 Way to go Ptah, All that and more. I must now let the Romans off the hook. "All Rome, I pay tribute" |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-1-26 12:52:33 AM |
| #14 I'm writing something up right now, but my opinion is that the POLITICIANS killed Jesus: The fact that they were Jews and Romans is irrelevant. With his miracles, he was becoming popular with the People, while his teachings (The sermon on the Mount) clearly pacified the population (Opiate of the people, and all that). The Jewish leaders feared that the Romans would eventually notice and put Jesus in to replace them. When Pilate tried to go over their heads and appeal to the populace (a popular method used by the Romans to bypass the heads of pressure groups), the leaders worked the crowd and convinced them to ask for Barabbas: It's all there in Matthew if you know what to look for. In Acts, the people who were accused of handing Jesus over to the Romans confessed their guilt at Peter's preaching: The Fisherman noted that, and declared that they obviously had acted out of ignorance, and urged them to publicly oppose the action of their leaders. The apostle's preaching caused the Priests to complain "You intend to bring this man's blood upon our heads!" They knew they were personally guilty, and only wanted company to lessen the guilt, the way that Aaron, Moses' brother, blamed the people when he made the Golden Calf. Politicians: Despite differences in cultures and nations, they're slime all over. The descendants of those who cried out "His blood be upon us and upon our children" should say to their ancestors "Speak for your friggin' selves!", admit their ancestors goofed, and appeal to the principle that one doesn't punish the children for the crimes of the father. And the rest of us should grab the collars of the "Christian" anti-semites and shake them hard while yelling "The people who killed Jesus are DEAD, YOU MORONS!" Pistol whipping and a rope necktie optional, depending on results... Mel Gibson makes pretty powerful movies: I hated the british for all of five minutes after finishing watching The Patriot. I then remembered World War II and that they were on our side in Iraq and in the UN, so that passed pretty quickly. I probably WILL hate the jews for all of five minutes: Then I'll remember that the guys who did all this are dead, that to blame the kids for the sins of the Dads is idiotic, and that the Israelis are now killing terrorists. I expect those feelings to pass quickly too. My Pastor will then pointedly remind me that Jesus was God, couldn't be a victim unless He allowed it, and only the necessity of dying for my sins and his sins made Jesus go through all this. And, of course, he'll be right. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-1-25 10:27:09 PM |
| #13 Hey guys... Jesus was a Jew... the ADL needs to get over themselves. |
| Posted by: DANEgerus 2004-1-25 9:20:23 PM |
| #12 Don't forget that St. Paul was Saul, a Rabbi and Pharisee, before he had his conversion and started preaching to the And the Bible is firmly based in Judiasm from the Pentatuch (the books of Moses), other Jewish prophets and scribes, all the way to Isaiah, and even the Jewish revolutionaries like the Maccabees. Seems Christianity's beginnings are very much intertwined with Judiasm. Those tricky Catholics, planning a head thousands of years... ... grin ... |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-1-25 6:44:02 PM |
| #11 Keith Fournier attended a private viewing of The Passion last November along with some other Washington DC denizens. Here's his column. Of his many interesting observations and comments on the event, this stood out for me: "We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to which "The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who followed a Jewish rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the history of the world." |
| Posted by: Gasse Katze 2004-1-25 3:12:14 PM |
| #10 If this movie does what it's detracters are saying then I'm for seriously kicking some Jewish butt. As I'm easily lead. Nice point Les, I always thought the Romans were the bad guys in the story of the crusifiction. And the Jews were shown as very human in their behavior. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-1-25 2:58:28 PM |
| #9 Does this film explicitly say "The Jews are responsible for Christ's death."? Does it even imply it? (Didn't the Romans have a little part in this?) If, through the best historical investigation possible, we were all to come to the conclusion that some Jews were responsible for this, should we not make a film about it, for fear of protests from "Jewish activists"? If, as an analogy, a white man kills a black man, should the NYT not report it, for fear of protests from "White activists"? Perhaps the complainers should lighten up, or at least see the movie before protesting what's supposedly in it. If I hadn't heard all the argle-bargle about this film, I probably wouldn't have seen it. Now I think I will. Mel Gibson has done a masterful job of promoting this movie. |
| Posted by: Les Nessman 2004-1-25 1:34:14 PM |
| #8 Regarding #1, the Jewish public isn't crying foul. The leadership of a few Jewish Organizations that depend on funding are. Makes for good pledge drives. The film is getting great press because of the supposed controversy. How many will see it because of the controversy? In the last two thousand years, passions raised against Jews because of the story of Easter was something that Jews had to worry about. But the threat axis has changed. Anyone with a brain knows that. It's much ado about nothing. Which is usually the case for hyping Hollywood movies. |
| Posted by: Penguin 2004-1-25 1:28:46 PM |
| #7 ... the film is released on Ash Wednesday, the holiday that marks two days before Christians believe Christ was crucified. You'd think CNN could get the basics about Easter right. After all, it's only the most important holiday for one of the world's largest faiths. But I guess I ought to revise my expectations downward. CNN thinks Ash Wednesday is two days before we mark the crucifixion (Good Friday), which means Easter must be on February 29th. *sigh* Ash Wednesday is the first day of Lent, 40 days before Good Friday. That means that Easter falls on April 11th. Unless you work for CNN. |
| Posted by: Puddle Pirate 2004-1-25 1:17:57 PM |
| #6 The last film to kick up such a controversy was Martin Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988. Oddly, I don't remember Jewish groups getting that worked up over that film -- it was mainly Christian groups. For what it's worth, I saw Last Temptation of Christ at a showing sponsored by two campus religious groups -- the Newman (Catholic) and one of the non-Catholic groups. The priest praised both the movie and the book it was based on. Something to keep in mind is that the groups damning the film have NOT seen it; at most they read an early version of the script. This isn't surprising; when Catholic groups were protesting Kevin Smith's film "Dogma", he went out and joined the protest. No one recognized him, despite his being in every film he's ever made and his playing a major role in that film. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-1-25 12:42:22 PM |
| #5 Passion o da Christ Stirs a Storm. Excellent headline, somethings never change. Hey Zeus Bites Mann* would be better tho. *it's about Thomas in hell. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-1-25 12:38:52 PM |
| #4 gee, thanks for the "news" LLI and Catholic |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-1-25 12:33:38 PM |
| #3 Original texts have recounted this event, it was in 1965 when the Vatican changed the texts to improve relationships with the Jews. Why should the history be written to please a group. Some people can't handle the truth. |
| Posted by: Catholic 2004-1-25 12:08:29 PM |
| #2 LMAO... Catholic, how do you know? Have you seen it? And more importantly... were you there 2000 years ago to see what happened? |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2004-1-25 12:04:23 PM |
| #1 I don't understand why the Jewish public is crying foul. This is a film which has historical accuracy, so calling it anti-semitic is wrong. The truth/history shouldn't be rewritten. |
| Posted by: Catholic 2004-1-25 11:54:24 AM |