Question about the Mel Gibson movie The Passion

[Irvine511]

You qualified the villain's treatment in the film by saying they were "so Jewish." But when presented with Jesus, Peter, John, Mary, the other widows, etc., all of whom were Jewish and who avoid the Shylockian treatment, you suddenly say they're "non-Jewish" precisely because they don't fit the Shylockian treatment. You can't have your cake and eat it too on this one -- your own racism comes into play based on who you think is "truly" Jewish.

woah. hold it right there. my own racism? and you're attributing quotations to words i haven't written.

i am pointing out precisely what Gibson has done -- give the "bad" Jews the Shylock-treatment. this is a well-understood, well-defined historical stereotype, and the priests in the film certainly live up to it, they're almost Nazi fantasies. the "good" jews have none of these Shylock-characteristics. i never said they weren't Jewish, though within the context of the film, they aren't "Jewish." the quotes matter.

it's Gibson, and you, who are trying to have their cake and eat it too. he's using the Shylock stereotype to emotionally batter the audience and give them easy-to-identify bad guys, yet presenting us with non-Shylock Jews as protaganists that gives you a very easy out when it comes to the rather obvious anti-Semitism embedded in the visual presentation of the Jewish priests in the film.

see! they're not all bad! some of my best friends are black!

simply because i am well-versed in the semiotics of anti-Semetic stereotypes does not in any way belie some kind of racism on my part. not in any way.


[q]Which Aryan features are you talking about? Blonde hair? Blue eyes? Which of those do we see in the film? Whose beautiful bodies do we see? A broken, battered one? [/q]

Jesus looked pretty good in the various flashback scenes, especially the one with Mary when he splashes her face with water -- some nice biceps and pectorals there. i suppose his Aryan features are most apparent when you see the lack of any sort of Semetic features, especially if we were to do a side-by-side comparison with Jesus and with the priests.

 

[Irvine511]

Well, but that's it. The Jewish figures that are idolized in Christianity are the ones who avoid the "Shylockian treatment." And that's because of the implication that they are, in fact, "not really Jewish," but instead "Christians."

If the non-Christianized Jews had been given a less stereotypical portrayal, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion.

yup. well said.

 

[verte76]

I didn't see the movie. I don't like blood and guts movies. Christ's suffering is important, but this movie just either preached to the choir or revolted them.

 

[scarlet october]

One thing that seems to bother me about alot the remarks people are saying is that this movie was anti-Semitic. I don't believe that in the least bit. The jews did not kill Jesus, it was everyone that killed him. He had to be the ultimate sacrifice so that man could go directly to God and our sins would be covered.

But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. ~ Isaiah 53:5

Jesus came to fufill the law not to destroy it. It seems like alot of conceptions are that Christians blame Jews for Jesus' death. When the very fact is Israel is God's chosen people he loved them as a Husband loves his Wife ... in the truest sense. But Israel was unfaithful so God had to come and breakdown the barrier of sin and unfaithfulness so he could be reconciled to his people. Even Moses had foretold the coming of a Messiah. But this forgiveness was not just for the Jews but also for Gentiles ...

he says:
"It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth." ~Isaiah 49:6

Peter confirmed this later in Acts 11:1-18 ... check it out good stuff.

Anyways, I guess I went off topic. But the point is Yahweh is the God of all people. People should realize this. I believe you can read too much into things sometimes. I believe The Passion is a great movie. The movie is just meant to remind us that the cross was not some easy thing where he just died and rose and that was it. It was done for a reason and we were bought with a price and Christ had to suffer to take us back from the world ruled by Satan. You may disagree with me but this movie was not anti-semitic ... we all nailed him to the tree.

Sorry for the off topic post but for what it's worth it's my opinion. Thanks for listening.

CoeXisT

 

[BVS]

If Jesus came today, so called "christians" would be the first to kill him...

not Jews, Muslims, or anyone else...

 

[maycocksean]

It is hard to press this line of thinking when it requires you to promote stereotypes to make your point.

This begins to fall in line with the recent trend of challenging portrayals of villains in film.

If the principle is we shouldn't vilify any given racial, ethnic or religious group as antagonists (even if the same racial, ethnic or religious group is also shown in a protagonist role), you need to go back and review a much larger body of film and come to similar conclusions - otherwise, selective application of the principle reveals that is done for purposes other than highlighting true bigotry.

Melon and Irvine have done a good job of clarifying my point, but just to make sure. . .

The issue here is NOT that Jews were cast as antagonists. It's what the Jewish antagonists LOOK like, physically. The choices Gibson made play into racist stereotypes.

Here's another example that's been kind of bugging me. On Desperate Housewives (I don't know if anyone watches this show or not, but nonetheless) they've had this storyline with this scary, mentally challenged black guy who has a thing for the pretty white girl next door. This guy has already murdered one pretty white girl. This storyline drives me just a little nuts. . .that in this day and age a TV show would play so blithely and gracelessly into one of the most disgusting racist tropes out there is appalling to me. It's the same thing as in the Passion. When there are harmful racial stereotypes out there I think it's just irresponsible to play to them. Why not make it a big scary, mentally challenged white guy? Why not make the evil Jewish leaders with Aryan noses and golden beards?

 

[scarlet october]

I may be wrong on this but sometimes people read things into things that aren't there such as racial stereotypes ... I'm not saying they don't exsist. But sometimes things that aren't there people will read too much into something.

In The Passion for example, yes Jim Caviezel is white but they changed his complection and eye color to fit with the movie. I think in the movie they did a good job making him look like he is indeed from the middle-east.

On 'Desperate House Wives' I don't watch the show so I can't say with that situation.

The way I look at it is people are people. I don't see a tv show and when they cast a certain person, look at the color of his skin. God created us all in his image. Color shouldn't be as big of an issue as it is these days. Yes, where we come from and our heritage is important. But when it comes down to it we are all the same underneath our skin. We are all humans. We are all God's creation.

I guess maybe I view things weirdly.

 

[maycocksean]

I may be wrong on this but sometimes people read things into things that aren't there such as racial stereotypes ... I'm not saying they don't exsist. But sometimes things that aren't there people will read too much into something.

In The Passion for example, yes Jim Caviezel is white but they changed his complection and eye color to fit with the movie. I think in the movie they did a good job making him look like he is indeed from the middle-east.

On 'Desperate House Wives' I don't watch the show so I can't say with that situation.

The way I look at it is people are people. I don't see a tv show and when they cast a certain person, look at the color of his skin. God created us all in his image. Color shouldn't be as big of an issue as it is these days. Yes, where we come from and our heritage is important. But when it comes down to it we are all the same underneath our skin. We are all humans. We are all God's creation.

I guess maybe I view things weirdly.

I agree that sometimes people read too much into things that "aren't there" but I'm not sure that The Passion is one of those films. Understand, I'm not against the movie. I'm a Christian and I believe it is important to contemplate Christ's suffering. The movie does a creditable job of encouraging the faithful to do that. However, it does have flaws and one of them, was in the casting choices.

I don't think you view things weirdly at all--I admire and share your views about what we share in common in the human family, but perhaps there is some naivete in your thinking. I find this often with well-intentioned friends who just assume that everyone is as color-blind as they are. It's kind of like a "Well, I don't see color when I look at someone else, so no one else does either." Your right, color shouldn't be that big of an issue as it is these days, but sadly it is. And we can't make it not an issue by all just trying to pretend that it's not.

Understand when I saw the Passion I didn't see any anti-Semitism either. That doesn't mean it wasn't there. It just means that I didn't see it because I don't have anti-Jewish prejudice and I haven't witnessed much anti-Semitism in the communties I've lived in. Our failure to see anit-Semitism is evidence of our innocence about such things. It is not evidence of a lack anti-Semitism in the film.

 

[nbcrusader]

The issue here is NOT that Jews were cast as antagonists. It's what the Jewish antagonists LOOK like, physically. The choices Gibson made play into racist stereotypes.

Here's another example that's been kind of bugging me. On Desperate Housewives (I don't know if anyone watches this show or not, but nonetheless) they've had this storyline with this scary, mentally challenged black guy who has a thing for the pretty white girl next door. This guy has already murdered one pretty white girl. This storyline drives me just a little nuts. . .that in this day and age a TV show would play so blithely and gracelessly into one of the most disgusting racist tropes out there is appalling to me. It's the same thing as in the Passion. When there are harmful racial stereotypes out there I think it's just irresponsible to play to them. Why not make it a big scary, mentally challenged white guy? Why not make the evil Jewish leaders with Aryan noses and golden beards?

Another great example. While I've not watched Desperate Housewives, I get the impression that there are many villians through the storylines - yet only certain ones are deemed unacceptable. The goes to the essence of political correctness. A white female villian - no one blinks an eye. A black male villian - its racist.

The focus on the Jewish antagonists in the Passion is to the exclusion of any attention on the Jewish protagonists. It does not create a valid analysis of the film, but rather tries to tie the film to anti-semetic messages existing elsewhere.

 

[4U2Play]

The focus on the Jewish antagonists in the Passion is to the exclusion of any attention on the Jewish protagonists. It does not create a valid analysis of the film, but rather tries to tie the film to anti-semetic messages existing elsewhere.

I agree with your point here, nbcrusader, but it is not the viewer's fault that the focus of the controversy centered on the Jewish antagonists, rather than the Jewish protagonists.

That is Gibson's fault.

He knew going in what kind of film he wanted to make, and he made it. Good for him. I believe in free speech, etc, but I also believe that one shouldn't whine and cry about criticism of your art when you go out of your way to provoke that very criticism.

If Gibson would have cast Brad Pitt and Colin Farrell as the evil rabbis, then maybe everyone would have been able to concentrate on the Christ story, instead of getting their knickers in a twist over a couple of guys with big noses.

Then again, Gibson would still be excoriated because no one would believe that Brad Pitt could possibly be so evil, except for when he dumped Jennifer, what an asshole.

 

[Irvine511]

Another great example. While I've not watched Desperate Housewives, I get the impression that there are many villians through the storylines - yet only certain ones are deemed unacceptable. The goes to the essence of political correctness. A white female villian - no one blinks an eye. A black male villian - its racist.

The focus on the Jewish antagonists in the Passion is to the exclusion of any attention on the Jewish protagonists. It does not create a valid analysis of the film, but rather tries to tie the film to anti-semetic messages existing elsewhere.

tell me, how do you feel about representations of fundamentalist Christians in the media?

 

[nbcrusader]

tell me, how do you feel about representations of fundamentalist Christians in the media?

Between the misuse of terms like "fundamentalist," evangelical," etc. and the general distaste for the core message, I don't find any pleasure in the media's representation of Christians (and some can get downright mean and offensive). But then again, I am not surprised and it does not affect who I am.

 

[Irvine511]

Between the misuse of terms like "fundamentalist," evangelical," etc. and the general distaste for the core message, I don't find any pleasure in the media's representation of Christians (and some can get downright mean and offensive). But then again, I am not surprised and it does not affect who I am.

so you undestand, then, when traditionaly marganalized, stereotyped groups get irritated when they see traditional stereotypes that have been used to deny them rights (i.e., black men want to rape white women; gay men are pedophiles; Jews conspire and control money) and further their social stigmitizaion?

and especially when these stereotypes are called upon by a director in order to increase the "bad-ness" level of the antagonists? that the more stereotypically they are drawn in the traditional caricature, the more the director is wielding racism/homophobia/anti-Semitism as a dramatic device in order to emotionally blackmail an audience?

do you understand the nervousness such groups might feel when they see these stereotypes -- which they tend to be very adept at sniffing out because they have to constantly battle these stereotypes and are continually put in the position of having to "educate" the majority -- manipulated for easy drama?

 

[deep]

Here's another example that's been kind of bugging me. On Desperate Housewives (I don't know if anyone watches this show or not, but nonetheless) they've had this storyline with this scary, mentally challenged black guy who has a thing for the pretty white girl next door. This guy has already murdered one pretty white girl. This storyline drives me just a little nuts. . .that in this day and age a TV show would play so blithely and gracelessly into one of the most disgusting racist tropes out there is appalling to me. It's the same thing as in the Passion. When there are harmful racial stereotypes out there I think it's just irresponsible to play to them. Why not make it a big scary, mentally challenged white guy? Why not make the evil Jewish leaders with Aryan noses and golden beards?

I have seen most of the Housewives episodes and I ask myself questions like yours from time to time.


I think you are off the mark here.


There have been black characters, that were either policemen or detectives? Law enforcement = good.

Also, Bree's (white) son killed Gabbie's mother-in-law and Bree covered it up. Is Bree a killer? And what about Paul, a kid-napper and killer. And Paul's son a stalker- psycho.

Sorry, I think this is more about your perceptions
than about the show.

not to say there are not bad stereotypes on TV.

 

[maycocksean]

I have seen most of the Housewives episodes and I ask myself questions like yours from time to time.


I think you are off the mark here.


There have been black characters, that were either policemen or detectives? Law enforcement = good.

Also, Bree's (white) son killed Gabbie's mother-in-law and Bree covered it up. Is Bree a killer? And what about Paul, a kid-napper and killer. And Paul's son a stalker- psycho.

Sorry, I think this is more about your perceptions
than about the show.

not to say there are not bad stereotypes on TV.

I'm not sure why it's so difficult to get acrosswhat seems to me to be a very simple point here. . .

I'm not complaining that "black people are portrayed negatively on Desperate Housewives" or that "white people are always the good guys." My gosh, we're talking about DH here--this is a soap opera--everybody's got dirty laundry. The issue is NOT that blacks are portrayed negatively--it's the one specific portrayal that bothers me. I know free expression and all that so I'm not arguing it shouldn't be allowed. . .I'm just saying when less than fifty years ago a black man could be lynched for being accused of looking at a white woman, when even today when I drive south from Ohio to Florida with my wife (who is white) we encounter occasional dirty looks and middle fingers, when the fear of the dark, dangerous black man preying on the pure white woman is part of our national subconscious, it is irresponsible on the part of the artist to play into those fears.

It's not to say that blacks or Jews or gays (or anyone else for that matter) shouldn't ever be portrayed negatively. It IS to say that stereotypical negative portrayals that encourage/confirm people's worst prejudices and fears are unfortunate and destructive. And while I'll never say such portrayals should be banned we can certainly call them out for what they are.

I wouldn't have a problem with a black character doing what Bree has done, or Paul or Gabbie or any thing else. The ONLY thing I object to is the decision to have dumb, scary, big black man killing pretty young white girls. I think such a portrayal is hurtful to black and white--to all of us.

And back to topic, same with the portrayal of the Jewish leaders in the Passion.

 

[maycocksean]

Another great example. While I've not watched Desperate Housewives, I get the impression that there are many villians through the storylines - yet only certain ones are deemed unacceptable. The goes to the essence of political correctness. A white female villian - no one blinks an eye. A black male villian - its racist.

I'm no fan of political correctness, and as I said in my reply to Deep, I have no issue with blacks being "bad guys."

It's just you'd have to be blind not to recognize the power of certain negative stereotypes. Think of how Goebbel's propaganda machine in Nazi Germany portrayed Jews. Jews were always pictured in certain, stereotypical "Shylockian" ways because such depictions resonated with a generally anti-semitic population at a very visceral level.

The same is true of the volatile mix of race and sex in the United States.

 

[Irvine511]

The issue is NOT that blacks are portrayed negatively--it's the one specific portrayal that bothers me. I know free expression and all that so I'm not arguing it shouldn't be allowed. . .I'm just saying when less than fifty years ago a black man could be lynched for being accused of looking at a white woman, when even today when I drive south from Ohio to Florida with my wife (who is white) we encounter occasional dirty looks and middle fingers, when the fear of the dark, dangerous black man preying on the pure white woman is part of our national subconscious, it is irresponsible on the part of the artist to play into those fears.

absolutely.

i'd also like to add that i'd like to see one movie featuring a gay protaganist who hasn't achieved his sympathetic status by either being an AIDS victim or having been gay bashed.

it is very clear that Gibson has used the Shylock stereotype to make his "bad Jews" really bad, and this is further highlighted by the fact that his "good Jews" are very nearly Aryan/European. it's the use of racism/anti-Semitism to draw lines between good and bad that i object to, and i'm pretty sure Gibson knows this which is why he gives a willing audience a means to have their cake an eat it to by pointing out that Jesus was Jewish ... even though he's not "Jewish" at all in the visual language of the film.

it reminds me, a bit, of my problems with "Dances With Wolves" and even "Schindler's List." what both these films do is they give a majority white Christian audience a character to identify with who goes against the genocides of the time. it gives the white audience the luxury of saying, "see, not all cowboys/war profiteers were bad," as well as enabling you to think, "if i were a cowboy/war profiteer, that's what i would have done, lived with the Sioux/sheltered Jews from the Nazis." what this does, in effect, is absolve the audience of any notion of collective guilt or historical responsibility so that the film becomes more pallatable (and makes more $$$).

 

[nbcrusader]

so you undestand, then, when traditionaly marganalized, stereotyped groups get irritated when they see traditional stereotypes that have been used to deny them rights (i.e., black men want to rape white women; gay men are pedophiles; Jews conspire and control money) and further their social stigmitizaion?

and especially when these stereotypes are called upon by a director in order to increase the "bad-ness" level of the antagonists? that the more stereotypically they are drawn in the traditional caricature, the more the director is wielding racism/homophobia/anti-Semitism as a dramatic device in order to emotionally blackmail an audience?

do you understand the nervousness such groups might feel when they see these stereotypes -- which they tend to be very adept at sniffing out because they have to constantly battle these stereotypes and are continually put in the position of having to "educate" the majority -- manipulated for easy drama?

That is a long jump from "traditionally marginalized groups" to a director who's beliefs are at odds with your own to the physical portrayal of the antagonists in a movie.

How should the antagonists appear? Is it even remotely possible for this film to be made without similar charges being made? Why is no reference made to the protagonists of the same group? Could there be another reason for the criticism?

 

[Irvine511]

That is a long jump from "traditionally marginalized groups" to a director who's beliefs are at odds with your own to the physical portrayal of the antagonists in a movie.

How should the antagonists appear? Is it even remotely possible for this film to be made without similar charges being made? Why is no reference made to the protagonists of the same group? Could there be another reason for the criticism?

what beliefs are at odds? i am talking about the visual language of the film -- why did Gibson choose to give the evil Jewish priests Shylock features and the Jewish protaganists European features? this is what is at issue here, and it has nothing to do with worldviews or theology.

if Gibson believes that it is acceptable to use anti-Semitic stereotypes in order to draw lines between "good" Jews and "bad" Jews, then yes, i suppose my "beliefs" are at odds, in that i don't "believe" it's at all acceptable for someone to utilize anti-Semitism for cheap drama and it lowers my estimation of the film even farther.

correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't Jews a "traditionally marginalized group"? aren't Jews the world's most scapegoated group of people? weren't, you know, 6 million of them exterminated in Europe only 60 some odd years ago?

you do bring up a good point about whether or not it would be possible for a Passion Play (especially one that focuses solely on violence and torture and sadism at the expense of any sort of context or meditation on the actual life and teachings of Jesus) that isn't inherently anti-Semetic. the history of Passion Plays in Europe shows such stagings to be directly correlated with an upswing in anti-Semetic violence

let's let another director try.

and i'm confused as to what you mean by "why is there no reference to the protaganists." to continually reference the protaganists as some sort of antidote to the charges of anti-Semitism in the film makes my point that much more strongly. it's because the protaganists (the good guys) aren't at all "Jewish" in the visual langauge of the film that underscores and highlights the "bad" Shylocks.

film is a visual medium, and we are talking about visual language and visual grammar.

 

[nbcrusader]

We are dancing around the critical point of the analysis. In the visual language of film making, how do you visually portray protagonists and antagonists? Is there an "acceptable" way to do this without

The criticism of the film started well before its release. Was this part of a visual analysis of the film, or were perceptions carried into the viewing to make such neat catagorical divisions between the "Shylock" antagonists Jews and the "Aryan/European" protagonists Jews?

I think you argument suffers when you refer to Jewish characters as "not Jewish" in appearence. Tell me, how should Jews appear? Again, I think self-perceptions should be analyized. It may be a useful tool when we ask ourselve "what Jews should look like?"

If this is a visual language issue - perhaps it would be helpful to point out a more accurate portrayal (and there may very well be better visuals - none have been offered throughout the criticism of the film).

 

[Irvine511]

We are dancing around the critical point of the analysis. In the visual language of film making, how do you visually portray protagonists and antagonists? Is there an "acceptable" way to do this without

are you asking me how i portray antagonists? or how they should be portrayed? i'm a little confused on this point, so i'll reiterate what i've been saying all along -- Gibson uses anti-Semetic images, the traditional Shylock-stereotype, in his depiction of the "bad" Jews (those that hand him over to the Romans). the fact that his "good" Jewish protaganists have none of these features (and we're talking about more than just facial features ... we're talking about the hissing, the plotting, the arguing over money) further illustrates this point. as such, we are presented with characters that are all historically Jewish; however, in the visual language of the film, some are more "Jewish" (and by this we mean easily identifiable via caricature) than others, and the more "Jewish" a Jewish character is, the more evil he is.


[q]The criticism of the film started well before its release. Was this part of a visual analysis of the film, or were perceptions carried into the viewing to make such neat catagorical divisions between the "Shylock" antagonists Jews and the "Aryan/European" protagonists Jews?[/q]


anyone doing a Passion Play is going to put themselves under a sort of anti-Semetic microscope due to the history of Passion Plays in Europe. however, as to your question, my understanding fo the film prior to my watching it was that it wasn't anti-Semetic, that it was really just obscenely violent, and that's what made it so repellant. i was personally shocked to see all the Shylock-imagery that i thought Gibson would have been so careful to avoid. i expected a gore-fest; i did not expect to see such obvious Jewish caricatures. i thought Gibson, who's not a dumb guy, and is a fairly talented director, would have been too smart to give anyone any ammunition. i was wrong.


[q]I think you argument suffers when you refer to Jewish characters as "not Jewish" in appearence. Tell me, how should Jews appear? Again, I think self-perceptions should be analyized. It may be a useful tool when we ask ourselve "what Jews should look like?"[/q]


and this is the big assumption you're making that's leading to your misunderstanding of how visual language works in film. it doesn't matter what i think Jews "look like." (as an aside, i am from the northeast and attended nearly half a dozen bar mitzvahs in 7th grade). what matters is what the film thinks Jews look like and how the film thinks Jews should appear.

i've said this over and over, but it bears repeating: when i say that some Jews in the film look more "Jewish" than others, i am not saying that there is a way that Jews should look. what i am saying is that there is a historical basis for the visual creation of Jewish caricatures that the film uses to make some Jews more "Jewish" than other Jews. the quotes matter. it's not as if i think that there's some kind of authentic Jewish physical archetype. but there absolutely is, in the mind of the anti-Semite, and we can see this replecated from Shakespeare to Goebbels to Gibson, a stereotypical "Jewish" physical archetype. and it is this archetype that Gibson employes in his visual depiction of the Jewish elite in the film.


[q]If this is a visual language issue - perhaps it would be helpful to point out a more accurate portrayal (and there may very well be better visuals - none have been offered throughout the criticism of the film). [/q]


if we're talking about the language of a Passion Play, i don't think we have a comparison because, to my knowledge, no one has done a film like this before

as for other sources ... i dunno, check out "Europa, Europa" or pretty much any other film that might focus upon Jewishness but that doesn't resort to Shylockian stereotypes to make its point.

 

[nbcrusader]

Perhaps we are looking at two sides of the same coin. You've stated the film is responsible for the connections draw, while I've suggested that the individual viewer brings in those perceptions and draws the connections as the view the film.

Also, some of the points drawn regarding the characterization (the hissing, the plotting, the arguing over money) are story points from the Gospel.

As visual medium, protagonists and antagonists appear differently. If a film has only one Jewish character, and it is done in a "Shylock" style with the intent to convey jewishness, I'd agree with the analysis. To contrast two groups, and to maintain story points from the Gospel, the argument that the film is anti-semetic fades.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]Originally posted by nbcrusader
Perhaps we are looking at two sides of the same coin. You've stated the film is responsible for the connections draw, while I've suggested that the individual viewer brings in those perceptions and draws the connections as the view the film.[/q]

i really can't agree with you here. the visual language of the film is so clear, in my eyes, that it leaves little doubt in my mind that it's little more than an adroit evocation of centuries old anti-Semetic caricatures.



[q]Also, some of the points drawn regarding the characterization (the hissing, the plotting, the arguing over money) are story points from the Gospel.[/q]

interesting. it seems, then, that if these caricatures have their basis in the Gospel, then that simply furthers it's reputation as an inherently anti-Semetic text, or at least it is the founding text of anti-Semitism.


[q]As visual medium, protagonists and antagonists appear differently. If a film has only one Jewish character, and it is done in a "Shylock" style with the intent to convey jewishness, I'd agree with the analysis. To contrast two groups, and to maintain story points from the Gospel, the argument that the film is anti-semetic fades. [/q]


and here is where i don't think you have an argument at all, for it is the contrasting of the "good" Jews with the "bad" Jews that reinforces both the caricatures as well as the fundamental tenant of anti-Semitism: the Jews are bad because they killed Jesus, and the "good" Jews became Christians.

 

[Irvine511]

double post.

 

[nbcrusader]

i really can't agree with you here. the visual language of the film is so clear, in my eyes, that it leaves little doubt in my mind that it's little more than an adroit evocation of centuries old anti-Semetic caricatures.

Well, your position begins to make sense based on your following statements.

interesting. it seems, then, that if these caricatures have their basis in the Gospel, then that simply furthers it's reputation as an inherently anti-Semetic text, or at least it is the founding text of anti-Semitism.

Are you kidding me? Text that is two thousand years old is inherently anti-semetic due to certain non-Scriptural representations of Jews occurring centuries later. At a minimum, you have the tail wagging the dog here. In the large context of the claims of anti-semetism, we've got another case of "make the charge, prove me wrong". Perhaps the history of these claims is also driven by a desire to dilute or distract from the core message of the Gospels.

and here is where i don't think you have an argument at all, for it is the contrasting of the "good" Jews with the "bad" Jews that reinforces both the caricatures as well as the fundamental tenant of anti-Semitism: the Jews are bad because they killed Jesus, and the "good" Jews became Christians.

You've gone from the visual medium back to the story again - you've got to understand the story and then examine the visuals separately for your "Shylock" claims to hold true.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]Originally posted by nbcrusader


Well, your position begins to make sense based on your following statements.



Are you kidding me? Text that is two thousand years old is inherently anti-semetic due to certain non-Scriptural representations of Jews occurring centuries later. At a minimum, you have the tail wagging the dog here. In the large context of the claims of anti-semetism, we've got another case of "make the charge, prove me wrong". Perhaps the history of these claims is also driven by a desire to dilute or distract from the core message of the Gospels.[/q]


oh well. i had hoped this wasn't where you wanted to go, but it does seem as if you're conflating defending the film with defending the Gospels. i think you do a disservice to the Gospels by intertwining them with a lurid snuff film, but i can understand the impulse to do so.

i also object to your insinuation that i have some sort of problem with the "core message" of the Gospels -- the "core message" is as unimportant here as it is to Gibson's film.

you'll also note that i posited "inherently" as more of a conjecture than a statement, though i do think that we're kidding ourselves if we're going to sit here and pretend that anti-Semities don't consult the gospels to justify their anti-Semitism in the way that racists have consulted the bible and homophobes have consulted the Bible. this, of course, speaks more about the readers than what the text actually says, but it does not deny the fact that the Gospels are manipulated for the cause of anti-Semitism, fairly or not.

i've made the charge and defended it, repeatedly. you've yet to prove me wrong. it's a pretty airtight charge -- Gibson utilizes anti-Semetic imagery to make the Jewish elite that much more evil in the eyes of his audience in order to create that much more sympathy for his protaganist. i've pointed to specific visuals that underscore this point, and i've pointed to the deliberate contrasts-via-casting of those Jews intended to be "good" (the Euros) and those Jews intended to be "bad" (the Shylocks). i can't make it any more clear than that.


[q]You've gone from the visual medium back to the story again - you've got to understand the story and then examine the visuals separately for your "Shylock" claims to hold true. [/q]


i'm sorry, but you've really confused yourself at this point. the visual medium is the mechanism through which a story is told, so it's rather impossible, when we take the film "the passion of the christ," to examine the "story" -- and what do you mean by this? the plot? the script? -- separately from the visuals.

i've had a hefty amount of film criticism classes and written endless papers on visual storytelling, and i feel quite qualified to comment and quite confident in my assertions.

 

[nbcrusader]

I am not "defending" the film - just questioning the basis for the anti-semetic claims. You've repreated your argument about a dozen times here. Realize that you have pulled in everything from a history of marginalized peoples to a whole assortment of misuses of the Bible to justify the claim to the suggestion that the Gospels are inherently anti-semetic to criticize the film.

It seems clear that in a visual medium, depictions of protagonists and antagonists will differ. To claim such a difference clearly is anti-semetic in this film based on a use in another case strikes me as the creation of a no-win senario for the director.

 

[Irvine511]

I am not "defending" the film - just questioning the basis for the anti-semetic claims. You've repreated your argument about a dozen times here. Realize that you have pulled in everything from a history of marginalized peoples to a whole assortment of misuses of the Bible to justify the claim to the suggestion that the Gospels are inherently anti-semetic to criticize the film.

It seems clear that in a visual medium, depictions of protagonists and antagonists will differ. To claim such a difference clearly is anti-semetic in this film based on a use in another case strikes me as the creation of a no-win senario for the director.

yes, depictions of protagonists and antagonists will differ.

when you choose to use historically based, widely understood anti-Semetic iconography to distinguish between who is good and who is not, then charges of anti-Semitism are well founded.

pulling from a "history of marginalized people" was to give you some background as to how iconography -- be it racist, sexist, homophobic, or anti-Semetic -- functions in a film and how it functions on the audience in order to amp up the level of drama and sympathy for the protagonist.

let's take a look:

vs.

and

you've got to get past the Gospels -- again, i suggested that it might be inherently anti-Semetic, but the only thing i have said is that it is one of the foundations of anti-Semitism. your defense of the Gospels does nothing to alleviate the charges against Gibson.

 

[nbcrusader]

If you look at a depiction of old Pharisees (after researching who they were and what they stood for) and the first thought is "anti-Semetic," I guess we'll remain at this impasse.

 

[Irvine511]

If you look at a depiction of old Pharisees (after researching who they were and what they stood for) and the first thought is "anti-Semetic," I guess we'll remain at this impasse.

what does this have to do with Gibson's artistic choices?