Will you see "The Passion of the Christ"

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

When I think of the era of slavery in this country, for instance, I do not view the white Anglo-Saxon race as inheritently evil. Jews need to get over it and accept historical reality and respect the legitimacy of this movie as an historical account. It's beyond silly to think that Gibson's inspiration for this movie is rooted in some hatred for the Jews.

BTW - the brainless idiots shouting "anti-semite", "anti-semetic" between breaths need to pick up a damn dictionary. A "semite", afterall, can be a non-Jew.

[Funkyalligator]

Accept the historical legitimacy of this movie.....are you on crack? Everyone knows that this movie is based on the scriptures......I don't want to ban the movie, I am all for people going to see it....but I don't want people to think it is anything more than Mel Gibson's interpretation of scripture and some non-Vatican approved writings.....

[Funkyalligator]

My apoligizes troyster and to anyone else offended by my comments concerning the new testament...

[RedskinsFanInTX]

I wanna see it.

[Ancalagon the Black]

OSF, I thought that the New York Times was a raghead-loving, Jew-hating piece of crap...?

Also, remember that etymologies don't always jibe precisely with modern usage. I followed your advice and picked up a damn dictionary (Merriam-Webster's, collegiate edition). Here's the definition:

One entry found for anti-Semitism.

Main Entry: an·ti-Sem·i·tism

Pronunciation: "an-ti-'se-m&-"ti-z&m, "an-"tI-

Function: noun

: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

- an·ti-Se·mit·ic /-s&-'mi-tik/ adjective

- an·ti-Sem·ite /-'se-"mIt/ noun

[WM_Marylander]

No.

I know what's going on. I understand. I don't need to pay 8 bucks to read and understand what I can read in a book that I've already got and know what to expect from.

[Johnny Punani2]

I am for sure. Looking forward to it...

[WM_Marylander]

And... to second the this isn't based on fact response....

Gibson got a Jesuit to compile a version of the scriptures... but it still uses some of his own adaptations. It isn't word for word what's in there, but is trying to at least give a good representation.

[Ghost of]

Ancal

Perhaps you've never heard of self-hating Jews. Problem is, when it comes to Christianity, they still have a spur in their boot.

Just check out Larry David's show. BTW, anyone else find it funny that he tells the doctor to have a golf magazine or NATION in his waiting room? Or how he had to go to the "republican club" the other week?

You can be self-hating and Marxist like my mom's professor/advisor is on one issue and then turn right around and be anti-Christian in others(like most leftists, thought not all)

Sorry, Ancal, personal experience reveals much to me on this, so Oakton can be right on BOTH counts, paradoxical as it sounds.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Ghost, you know damn well that if the NYT had come out in favor of the movie, there would be people on this board clamoring about its anti-Semitism (or "anti-Jew flavor," to appease the etymological purists). So while I agree with you that there are a lot of self-hating Jews (or self-hating X, where X is almost anything), I don't think that the review provides a good example.

And what's the other count he was right on? The implied claim that if one looked up "anti-Semitic" in the dictionary, one would be edified on the meaning of "Semitic" and realize that this is not the same as being anti-Jew? That was dead wrong.

[Guest 979guy]

Critic Calls Gibson Movie Anti-Semitic [and not in the OSF kind of way]

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - While preview audiences are leaving theaters deeply moved by Mel Gibson's controversial new film "The Passion of the Christ," critics are slamming it for excessive violence, questioning its spiritual message and wondering aloud if it is anti-Semitic.

With the film opening in 2,800 theaters on Wednesday, the Los Angeles Times ran a rare front-page review warning that the movie was certain to divide people and the New York Daily News called it an anti-Semitic work with violence that was "grotesque, savage and often fetishized" in slow motion.

New York Post critic Lou Lumenick calls the film "an impressive, ultra-violent -- and deeply troubling -- take on Jesus' final hours" even as his paper ran a front-page story saying that audience reaction was extremely positive with viewers weeping and declaring they would never be the same.

Daily News critic Jami Bernard said: "No child should see this movie. Even adults are at risk. Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ' is the most virulently anti-Semitic movie since the German propaganda films of World War II. It is sickening, much more brutal than any 'Lethal Weapon."'

While calling the film undeniably powerful, she adds that it "feels like a propaganda tool rather than entertainment for a general audience." Bernard also said that "Jews are vilified, in ways both little and big, pretty much nonstop for two hours, seven minutes. Gibson cuts from the hook nose of one bad Jewish character to the hook nose of another in the ensuing scene."

The Los Angeles Times' Kenneth Turan said, "The film left me in the grip of a profound despair, and not for reasons I would have thought. It wasn't simply because of 'The Passion's' overwhelming level of on-screen violence, a litany of tortures ending in a beyond-graphic crucifixion.

"And it wasn't because of the treatment of the high priest Caiphas and the Hebrew power elite of Jesus' time, a disturbing portrait likely to give, I feel sure unintentionally, comfort to anti-Semites. Instead, what is profoundly disheartening is that people of goodwill will see this film in completely different ways.

"Where I see almost sadistic violence, they will see transcendence; where I see blame, they will see truth."

Turan added that Gibson's "career-long interest in martyrdom" and his belief in the Gospels' literal truth "have sideswiped this film. What is left is a film so narrowly focused as to be inaccessible for all but the devout. Those factors have made "The Passion" a film that will separate people rather than bring them together."

Turan notes that Gibson and others involved in the film have denied that the film blames the Jews for Jesus' death but adds, "It would be impossible for any disinterested viewer (if one could be found) to escape the fact that 'The Passion' does not just mention in passing but is centered dramatically on the culpability of the Jews.

"This notion, sometimes called blood libel or blood guilt, has led to untold suffering and death over hundreds and hundreds of years, and should have given someone, even a believer, pause."

But while the critics zero in on the film's faults, many preview audiences are leaving theaters say they felt inspired by the film.

In Overland Park, Kansas, leaders of the First Family Church sold 3,500 seats to nine showings of the movie, offering Gospel sermons after the closing credits.

Leaders of the southern Baptist-based church were polling every attendee and asking those seeing the film to "commit themselves to Christ" and so far scores of movie-goers have, said First Family associate pastor Jeremy Johnston.

"It is overwhelming," he said. "We're going to see hundreds of (faith commitment) decisions by the end of the week. They're inviting Christ into their lives." (Additional reporting by Carey Gillam)

[Ghost of]

Ancal

huh? If it had gotten good reviews people would have been calling it anti-semitic?

I think you underestimate the desire and positive sentiment from a lot of Christians(and even non-Christians like me) for this film and this effort. I can't believe you think Oakton or others would be calling conservative Gibson's Christian film anti-Semitic just to spite the NYT.

WHen Tom Friedman is right, most conservatives will grudgingly admit he is correct. They don't let his naivete(he's one I don't think is a self-hater) regarding the Middle East affect them believing a particular point is correct.

[Ghost of]

Ancal, 979's post just seals it for me.

There is far more anti-Christian sentiment among the elites in this country than there is anti-Semitism. This isn't Europe where there seems to be a healthy dose of both involved, especially a hatred for Jews disguised as "Criticism" of Israel.

In THIS country, it was automatic that this film was going to be controversial because many do not want this very strong work of faith to be successful without the taint of criticism. It's why the brutality of Schindler's List is accepted as accurate, but the brutality of crucixion and scourging are regarded as somehow part of some larger anti-Semitic strain.

As for the "hook-nosed" comment by the one reviewer, these are supposed to be Semites. Imagine if they had been portrayed as blond and blue-eyed. Then we'd hear all about the inaccuracy.

Like Yoda said to Luke when he asked "what's in there(in the dark cave?"

---"Only what you take with you."

[Guest 979guy]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

As for the "hook-nosed" comment by the one reviewer, these are supposed to be Semites. Imagine if they had been portrayed as blond and blue-eyed. Then we'd hear all about the inaccuracy.

Is it accurate that Caviezel is not "hooked-nosed"?

But I thought Jesus was a Semite too...

[Ancalagon the Black]

Ghost, I really think you've lost track of your own argument here. I don't see how 979guy's posts support your conclusions at all.

The NYT is often accused of being a "radical" lefty rag by members on this board. Many of those accusations center on opinion pieces about Israel and the Palestinians.

Now, it's clear that many people across the country are finding this movie offensive to Jews. Some Jewish folks on this very board have posted opinions to that effect.

Suppose the NYT had praised the movie's depiction of the story, claiming that it was wonderful and accurate. Do you not think that there would be NYT haters climbing out of the woodwork here pointing the fingers at that "anti-Israel, anti-Jew" publication?

Furthermore, have you READ the NYT's review? It focuses on the (in the critic's opinion) excessive violence of the film--NOT on the religious story. This was the SAME opinion evinced in the articles 979guy posted, which quoted from, among others, the New York Daily News and the New York Post. Hardly liberal rags.

I believe that there IS a strong undercurrent of anti-Semitism in the USA, but it's much more insidious than in Europe and comes out in the form of envy and resentment.

[Ghost of]

979

Bit parts do not compare to the lead in this kind of movie, and you know that.

As for Caviezel, the guy is a terrific actor and anyone who saw the otherwise dreadful Thin Red Line would know that(or Frequency, for that matter.) He played the "Buddha" role in TRL and thus makes perfect sense for this role. He also is dark enough and not blonde or anything.

BTW, his nose isn't exactly small and delicate--check out his pictures--very broad features. He has a magnificent presence and that's why he got the job.

Plus, how do I know the "villains" are all hook-nosed? because some biased reviewer has decided to dislike the movie already?

[Guest 979guy]

Ghost,

I personally don't care how good an actor he is or how big a nose the Jews have in the movie ---- as long as there is no double standard.

If you're so big on accuracy you'd be more convincing if you actually stuck to accuracy and the notion that Jesus be just as prettyo/ugly, long-nosed or jagged-teethed as any other contemporary, regardless of the fact that he acted in "Angel Eyes" :doh: and they didn't.

[Ghost of]

I'm sure that accuracy in Jesus physical depiction is foremost on your mind. Nothing to do with the bold/italicized reviews you posted. Nothing at all to do with that.

BTW, any actor has questionable films on their resume, but anyone who'd deny Caviezel's ability doesn't know what they're talking about.

Or has an agenda--which is it?

I converted to Judaism when I was 14. My grandfather was adopted, but was half-Jewish himself. My mom still believes as part of her conversion that she is taking the place of someone who died in the Holocaust.

Perhaps Jews should toughen up and not expect film to revolve around them and their sensitivities. Why do you think there are countless films about the Holocaust or survivors but none about the Harvest of Sorrow in the Ukraine and Stalin's crimes?

[Guest 979guy]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

I'm sure that accuracy in Jesus physical depiction is foremost on your mind. Nothing to do with the bold/italicized reviews you posted. Nothing at all to do with that.

Don't care, as I said. It was you who suggested that the "hook-noses" were along the lines of historical (ethnic? anthropologic? Gibson-only-knows?) accuracy.

[Ghost of]

It's funny--Satan is depicted as an attractive but weird androgene.

When I say hook-nosed I'm merely employing the same ridiculous language that the reviewer did. And I have my doubts as to whether all the characters possess such features and whether they are divided into "hero" and "villain" based on the noses.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Ghost, you may have missed my last post on this because you immediately posted afterwards starting a new page. Look at the sources of the reviews.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

OSF, I thought that the New York Times was a raghead-loving, Jew-hating piece of crap...?

Also, remember that etymologies don't always jibe precisely with modern usage. I followed your advice and picked up a damn dictionary (Merriam-Webster's, collegiate edition). Here's the definition:

I know. And they are totally wrong when you consider the definition provided for "semite".

This has nothing to do with liking or hating Jews. The NYT despises the practice and influence of religion, particularly Christianity, in the United States. In fact, I think the NYT is just simply anti-Western Civilization.

[Ghost of]

979

I don't think you'll find that there IS a double standard. Maia Morgenstern who plays Mary is Jewish and her father is a Holocaust survivor. The fact is, just like many other things, you will see what you want to see.

I've also heard that the Romans come off terribly(as brutal savage killers.) But yet none mourn for the reputation of the Romans.

The fact is there's no problem with this movie other than those who want to read into it anti-Semitism or "religious zealousness." They are actually right if they mean it's a work of art that has a religious bent, but so is much of art throughout history.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

979

I don't think you'll find that there IS a double standard. Maia Morgenstern who plays Mary is Jewish and her father is a Holocaust survivor. The fact is, just like many other things, you will see what you want to see.

I've also heard that the Romans come off terribly(as brutal savage killers.) But yet none mourn for the reputation of the Romans.

The fact is there's no problem with this movie other than those who want to read into it anti-Semitism or "religious zealousness." They are actually right if they mean it's a work of art that has a religious bent, but so is much of art throughout history.

So very well said, Ghost. None of the left-wing critics around here or elsewhere seem to find fault with the realistic portrayal of historical events or stories in other movies. It's just yet another example of their bias born from fear and hatred of Western Civilization in general and Judeo/Christian values in particular.

[Ghost of]

What's hilarious about this is I used to be the biggest anti-Christian(and anti-religious) zealot, well not so much that people hated me, but i got over it.

I'm still agnostic and very much NOT Christian, yet I'm appalled at the insincerity in the criticism of this movie. It's not about anti-Semitism at all but about a threat to the dominance of secular humanism and nihilism as the philosophies that obtain in the popular culture.