Mel Gibson To Produce Holocaust Miniseries

[nathan1977]

If you only want to see what you want to see, you'll never see beyond that.

You realize, of course, that this cuts both ways.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I never saw The Passion, I don't need Mel Gibson or anyone else to show me Jesus beaten to a bloody pulp for two plus hours in order to know what Jesus and his sacrifice means to me. I know of his suffering, I don't need it depicted on screen in order to know that. But far more offensive to me is the thought that he used that movie as a vehicle in which to display his anti-Semitic thoughts and ideas. That goes against everything that I believe Jesus stands for and everything I believe in and stand for. I am certainly even more glad now that I never saw it.

How could you know it was a vehcile for anti-semitism if you never saw it?

 

[Irvine511]

How could you know it was a vehcile for anti-semitism if you never saw it?

there has been lots and lots and lots written about it.

there's also this:

 

[Justin24]

there has been lots and lots and lots written about it.

there's also this:

That dosent mean anything. He portrayed non-jews as bad guys who helped Jesus get crucified also.

 

[Irvine511]

That dosent mean anything. He portrayed non-jews as bad guys who helped Jesus get crucified also.

who? the Romans? did the Romans actually do the executing? wasn't crucifixion a specifically Roman way to execute someone?

i would think the bigger question is why Pilate was portrayed so, so sympathetically.

 

[nathan1977]

"Lots and lots." You realize that the head of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League refused to label the film anti-Semitic, don't you? (The closest he would come is to say that it might incur some anti-Semitic ideas...a statement so broad and vague as to be ultimately meaningless.)

There's already a perfectly open thread on this topic, so I don't mean to hijack this one.

My post above in response to anitram stands. Saying "If you only want to see what you want to see, you'll never see beyond that," cuts both ways.

 

[Justin24]

The crowd that wanted the crucifixion of Christ had a mixture of people and not just the jews

 

[Irvine511]

The crowd that wanted the crucifixion of Christ had a mixture of people and not just the jews

though you'll note that the androgynous Satan character slithered through and around the Jews.

 

[Justin24]

And what that is supposed to symbolize that the Jews are Evil and the ones responsable for his death?? HogWash

 

[Irvine511]

"Lots and lots." You realize that the head of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League refused to label the film anti-Semitic, don't you? (The closest he would come is to say that it might incur some anti-Semitic ideas...a statement so broad and vague as to be ultimately meaningless.)

andrew sullivan, christopher hitchens, charles krauthammer, frank rich ... all very influential columnists from all sides of the political spectrum all wrote long pieces about how anti-Semetic the film was. and that's just for starters.

the head of the Jewish ADL has lots to lose by potentially alienating the millions of devout Christians who spent $300m on an ultra-vilolent snuff film.

My post above in response to anitram stands. Saying "If you only want to see what you want to see, you'll never see beyond that," cuts both ways.

yes, it does, so what happens is that people with different viewpoints must present their case and defend what it is they have seen, which i did quite fully in the thread i cited above, so i feel no need to dig up old posts. i don't think there's any blatant anti-Semitism in the film, but that doesn't mean the film isn't anti-Semetic. Gibson is a better filmmaker than that.

 

[Justin24]

What that is supposed to symbolize that the Jews are Evil and the ones responsable for his death?? HogWash

So if he had it running by the "Chrisitans" or some other group would you still call it anti-semetic??

 

[Irvine511]

And what that is supposed to symbolize that the Jews are Evil and the ones responsable for his death?? HogWash

yep, pretty much. he merges through and defines the murderous crowd. Satan's own people, no?

the villiany and culpability of the Jews is depicted with numerous cinematic conventions. it needed be so obvious as a simple line in a script, especially in a film where the script is rather unimportant.

 

[Justin24]

the head of the Jewish ADL has lots to lose by potentially alienating the millions of devout Christians who spent $300m on an ultra-vilolent snuff film.

Would you call Quiten Taranteno's films snuff films, such as Kill Bill?? Or only movies made by Mel Gibson. Would you walk out of Apocolypto if it was ultra violent???? Because you do know the Mayan Civilization although advanced, practicied human sacrafice and slaughtered there enemies.

 

[nathan1977]

yes, it does, so what happens is that people with different viewpoints must present their case and defend what it is they have seen, which i did quite fully in the thread i cited above, so i feel no need to dig up old posts.

Read the thread you directed us all to again. That's exactly what happened.

If you only see what you want to see, then that's all you'll see. But that's hardly all there is.

 

[Justin24]

What about Martin Scorcesses film on "The Last Temptation of Christ??

 

[nathan1977]

What about Martin Scorcesses film on "The Last Temptation of Christ??

The most offensive part of that film was Harvey Keitel playing Judas with an orange wig so hideous it would make Bozo the Clown blush and an accent that made Judas sound like he'd just rolled in from the south side of the Bronx.

 

[Irvine511]

Would you call Quiten Taranteno's films snuff films, such as Kill Bill?? Or only movies made by Mel Gibson. Would you walk out of Apocolypto if it was ultra violent???? Because you do know the Mayan Civilization although advanced, practicied human sacrafice and slaughtered there enemies.

i like Tarantino because he's a dazzlingly talent filmmaker, and the violence in his movies is heavily, heavily ironized so the response is to laugh, if anything.

i probably won't see Apocalypto because i don't like ultra-realistic violence. "saving private ryan" was about as much as i could take.

 

[Irvine511]

Read the thread you directed us all to again. That's exactly what happened.

If you only see what you want to see, then that's all you'll see. But that's hardly all there is.

yes, of course there's more to the movie than anti-Semitism, but that doesn't mean that the anti-Semitism isn't there, right in front of us, plain as day, and i feel as if that aspect of the film was fully explored, and i personally didn't find arguments to the contrary persuasive.

of course, you can repeat that i'm only seeing what i want to see, but that's about as far as i think we could go.

are you only seeing that wich you want me to see?

(it can go on and on and on and on)

 

[Justin24]

i like Tarantino because he's a dazzlingly talent filmmaker, and the violence in his movies is heavily, heavily ironized so the response is to laugh, if anything.

i probably won't see Apocalypto because i don't like ultra-realistic violence. "saving private ryan" was about as much as i could take.

I find that strange?? You watch a movie by Tarentino(who is a good directore and love his films) but won't watch a Apocolypto because of Ultra-Realistic violence???

 

[80sU2isBest]

who? the Romans? did the Romans actually do the executing? wasn't crucifixion a specifically Roman way to execute someone?

i would think the bigger question is why Pilate was portrayed so, so sympathetically.

He wasn't portrayed in the film in any method in which he was not portrayed in the Bible. The Bible specifically says that Pilate sought a way to free Christ.

 

[80sU2isBest]

who? the Romans? did the Romans actually do the executing? wasn't crucifixion a specifically Roman way to execute someone?

Yes, the Romans did the actual execution in the Bible and also in the film The Passion.

 

[80sU2isBest]

The crowd that wanted the crucifixion of Christ had a mixture of people and not just the jews

It was mainly Jews gathered outside Pilate's palace. That's because it was mainly Jews who lived in Jerusalem at the time.

 

[80sU2isBest]

though you'll note that the androgynous Satan character slithered through and around the Jews.

It was mainly Jews gathered outside Pilate's palace. That's because it was mainly Jews who lived in Jerusalem at the time.

Did you want Gibson to throw in a few Norweigans so that it would be a more diverse crowd, even though it wouldn't be accurate at all?

 

[80sU2isBest]

there has been lots and lots and lots written about it.

there's also this:

How does that picture suggest anti-semitism? Because the Pharisees had mean scowls on their faces?

This is exactly how the Pharisees were portrayed in the Bible. It only mentioned two Pharisees who did not wnat Jesus dead: Nicodemus and Joseph Of Arimithea. The others were out to get Christ. If Gibson had shown them with happy faces, that would hardly be true to the source text.

 

[Irvine511]

I find that strange?? You watch a movie by Tarentino(who is a good directore and love his films) but won't watch a Apocolypto because of Ultra-Realistic violence???

yes.

it's how irony works. notice that none of the characters in Tarantino's films are particularly bothered by the blood and violence. there's no emphasis on human suffering or the need to be "realistic" -- it's all movie eye candy, and the characters in the film seem aware of that, and the result is violence that isn't really violence.

this is dramatically opposed to a film like "private ryan" or the horrible "last samuri" where the violence is extremely graphic in the name of "historical accuracy," but it's really a cynical ploy to get more blood and guts in a film that gives some viewers a sense of feeling virtuous, because "that's how it was," while actually giving them whatever adrenaline rush gore gives some viewers.

 

[Irvine511]

It was mainly Jews gathered outside Pilate's palace. That's because it was mainly Jews who lived in Jerusalem at the time.

Did you want Gibson to throw in a few Norweigans so that it would be a more diverse crowd, even though it wouldn't be accurate at all?

i don't know why Satan had to slither amongst the jews.

i must have missed that part of the NT.

 

[Justin24]

I see your point, but what is wrong with showing violence and blood in historical films, Humans do bleed.

 

[80sU2isBest]

As far as the way the film dealt with the Jews, Gibson stayed very true to the source text, the Bible.

In the Bible, most of the Pharisees/Jewish religious leaders wanted Christ dread, and a large number of Jewish people, if not most, wanted Christ dead. However, many Jews also wept for Christ.

All of that was portayed accurately in the film.

 

[Irvine511]

How does that picture suggest anti-semitism? Because the Pharisees had mean scowls on their faces?

This is exactly how the Pharisees were portrayed in the Bible. It only mentioned two Pharisees who did not wnat Jesus dead: Nicodemus and Joseph Of Arimithea. The others were out to get Christ. If Gibson had shown them with happy faces, that would hardly be true to the source text.

but this is the genesis of anti-Semitism, it's Christianity's greatest sin. notice the scowls, the golden robes, the obsession with money, the hissing, the slithering, the scheming -- these are all cliched anti-Semetic fantasies that seem straight out of a Nazi pamphlet.

and we haven't even gotten into the horror film aspects of the movie. just when you think it can't get any worse, it does! the music swells! blood spurts orgasmically!

i'm not going to go any further. i explained myself at length in the other thread, so i think i'm done with "passion" discussion for right now.

so i'll leave it up to Christopher Hitchens:

[q]So let us not be euphemistic about what is staring us in the face. Last Wednesday, the Lovingway United Pentecostal Church in Denver posted a sign on its roadside marquee. It read "Jews Killed the Lord Jesus." This pigsty of a church has, I think you will agree, an unimprovable name. But its elders, or whatever they call themselves, can't have had time to see the movie, which only opened that same Ash Wednesday. Nor, I think it safe to say, had they chosen the slogan only on the spur of the moment. No: They had been thinking this for quite a long time and were emboldened to "come out" and say so under the cover of a piece of devotional cinematic pornography. Some of us saw this coming. In America, I hope and believe, the sinister effect will be blunted by generations of civilized co-existence. But think for a moment what will happen when Gibson reaps the residual and overseas profits from screenings of the film in Egypt and Syria, or in Eastern Europe, where things are a bit more raw. Who can believe that he did not anticipate, and intend, this result?

Apparently seeking to curry favor, Gibson announced a few weeks ago that he had cut the scene where a Jewish mob yells for the blood of Jesus to descend on the heads of its children (a scene that occurs in only one of the four contradictory Gospels). Gibson lied. The scene is still there, spoken in Aramaic. Only the English subtitle has been removed. Propagandists in other countries will be able to subtitle it any way they like. This is all of a piece with the general moral squalor of his project. Gibson's producer lied when he said that a pope Gibson despises had endorsed the film. He would not show the movie to anyone who might object in advance. He will not debate any of his critics, and he relies on star-stricken pulp interviewers to feed him soft questions. Now, as the dollars begin to flow from this front-loaded fruit-machine of cynical publicity, he is sobbing about the risks and sacrifices he has made for the Lord. A coward, a bully, a bigmouth, and a queer-basher. Yes, we have been here before. The word is fascism, in case you are wondering, and we don't have to sit through that movie again.

http://www.slate.com/id/2096323/

[/q]



we can also talk about the homoerotic undertones, if you want.

 

[80sU2isBest]

i don't know why Satan had to slither amongst the jews.

i must have missed that part of the NT.

We know from the Bible that Satan was with Jesus during the 40 days temptation in the wilderness. Why would we doubt that Satan was there taunting Christ at the point at whcih Christ was being tortured? He was certainly there in spirit, stirring up the people's hearts and souls to behave so wickedly.

Beyond that, it was symbolism to show that Satan was the mastermind urging the people on to cry out for Christ's death.