It is just a movie,...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Rono

Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Joined
Dec 26, 2000
Messages
6,163
Location
the Netherlands
Calif. Rabbi Says 'Passion' Already Fueling Hatred
Tue August 12, 2003 03:46 PM ET




LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Mel Gibson's new film "The Passion" has already unleashed a wave of anti-Semitism in the United States despite the fact that it won't be released for months, a Jewish leader said on Tuesday.
Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder of the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, told Reuters the Jewish human rights organization had received dozens of hate calls and letters prompted by a handful of private screenings and advance publicity about the movie.

"The Passion," is Gibson's depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and events leading up to it. It has raised concern that it might portray Jews as collectively guilty for Christ's death. The film is not scheduled for general release until early next year.

Representatives of the Anti-Defamation League saw the movie in a private screening and the League said on Monday that if it was released in its present form it could "fuel the hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard to repudiate."

"The Passion" was shot in Italy and contains dialogue only in Latin and Aramaic. Gibson, a traditionalist Roman Catholic who directed and co-wrote the film, has denied intending to fuel anti-Semitism.

"Mel's interest is just the opposite, as he has stated previously, that this film is about love, hope, faith and forgiveness," Gibson's publicist, Alan Nierob, told the entertainment trade paper Hollywood Reporter this week.

But Hier said the bigotry had already started, and that the Simon Wiesenthal Center had received hate mail from people who had seen or heard about the movie, and who accused Jews of killing God's son, praised Adolf Hitler and made veiled threats against the center and Jews collectively.

"Are there any manifestations of hate so far? The answer is an unequivocal yes," Hier said. "We have had hate mail in the past ... But never in spurts like this."

Hier cited one writer who praised Hitler as "much kinder to the Jews than I would have been," and signed his letter "a very concerned American, name withheld for fear of retaliation by you Jewish scumbags."



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this worries me,....
 
Aint It Cool News had a trailer up for the film...looks very intense.

The film has only had a handful of screenings, to people Gibson (I believe) has specifically invited. It hasn't been shown to test audiences, he has kept it very limited. They should use those audiences as the starting point for an investigation--if these people have actually seen the entire film and not just the trailer. Even the trailer is only available on-line.

The trailer does show some very omnious looking rabbis, but mostly sadistic Romans, so if these people have only viewed the trailer...they ought to be sending their threats to Rome.

I confess I have been following the film with alot of interest, since I'm a fan of Gibson. Despite his more conservative leanings, he has always struck me as a very intelligent person, who has a real interest and respect for history. I don't believe he would deliberately be negative in his portrayal of Jews. I could be wrong, of course...

From what little I've seen of "The Passion", it's going to be very realistically portrayed. It looks like an incredible film, (and I'm not religious) and it's too bad that it's causing this kind of reaction.
 
Last edited:
Well, what is worrisome is his particular religious background, which is "traditionalist Catholic." He rejects any of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, and, subsequently, rejects the Vatican's authority over the Church, because of its "betrayal" of traditionalist Catholic values. Where a lot of the confusion comes is what Gibson actually believes then, as a result, because the Second Vatican Council really brought in a lot more tolerance into the Catholic Church. Not only could his views be interpreted as anti-Semitic, but they also could be very anti-Protestant, etc. He's already building a traditionalist Catholic church in Southern California, meaning it will be in Latin, have the communion rails, and probably have the priest with his back to the parishoners.

The overall answer is "I don't know." I don't know what Gibson really believes. He got into some real trouble for being homophobic in the early 1990s, but he did a good job of patching that over back then (meaning he probably started keeping his beliefs to himself). I don't doubt that he'll be able to patch things over this time, if any controversy arises. The real issue, though, is that this film may still never see the light of day, despite the hype. The film has still secured no distributor, and a film in Latin and Aramaic may never find one.

From what I've read, the film has no subtitles either. :der: Well, that pretty much means this film is a $30 million toy for him, because it will go nowhere, having a film in two dead languages with no subtitles.

Melon
 
melon said:

From what I've read, the film has no subtitles either. :der: Well, that pretty much means this film is a $30 million toy for him, because it will go nowhere, having a film in two dead languages with no subtitles.

Melon

I miss the communion rails....and the masses in latin!!!! That did not change over night in the area I grew up in. I am not sure how much Vatican II has to do with the last hours of Christ's life.

However, I am very, very curious as to the response it will get due to the language issue. I totally Loved Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and thought it was the BEST picture over Gladiator a fewe years back, but it had subtitles to read.

I have seen article where people have said what they saw on screen was very realistic. I am wondering if it will get the rating NC-17.
 
Frankly, "traditionalist" Catholics drive me nuts. I'm "novo ordo" Catholic and I've had some real battles with these people. At one point on a Catholic message board there was a truly ugly incident when one of the traditionalists posted a blatantly anti-Semitic note. The commotion spread to a Jewish message board when a bunch of us went over there and denounced anti-Semitism. As if that wasn't enough the poster of the offending note posted another note that took a swipe at Protestants. I'm not saying all traditionalists are full of prejudice. But I have problems with Catholics who reject the Vatican II reforms, although I do love the Latin mass. Some of these people are so full of hate it's sickening and disturbing. That letter from that :censored: :censored: :censored: bigot calling Jews "scumbags" is an example.:mad: :mad: :censored: :censored:
 
melon said:
From what I've read, the film has no subtitles either. :der: Well, that pretty much means this film is a $30 million toy for him, because it will go nowhere, having a film in two dead languages with no subtitles.

Hmmm. Dead languages, no subtitles, but the message of "hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism " comes across clearly?
 
nbcrusader said:


Hmmm. Dead languages, no subtitles, but the message of "hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism " comes across clearly?


The same thought occured to me...at least, if I'm taking this comment in the right way.

Does anyone remember the stink a few years ago about "Seven Years in Tibet"? Where Jewish leaders urged people not to see the film because it was about a former Nazi? I think anyone who has seen the film would agree that it did have very peaceful message. It never glorified Harrer's past. It was obvious to me that few of these critics had even seen the film.

Yet these same critics never blacklisted "The English Patient", a story that derives it's most romantic moment from the hero turning secrets over to the Nazi Party.

What's going on with "The Passion" reminds me of that. It was not even completed before it was labeled as anti-Semitic--this is where much of the "advance publicity" has come from, not from Gibson or the film industry. Of course, this does *not* justify hate mail or threats and I find the people responsible disgusting, cowardly and far from Christian.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is, that it's easy to label a film when a wider audience has not seen it and it's easy to find insult where none is intended. I wish Gibson would screen it for Jewish audiences, as he has for Christian audiences and see what the reaction is.
 
Last edited:
Just a brief note to say that although I look forward to this movie with some anticipation and interest, I do 'not' think Mr. Gibson's talent for historical fact is that impressive. Yes, his films are entertaining, in particular 'Braveheart', but the historical content of that movie was laughable.

I hope he does better this time, historically.

Ant.
 
Anthony said:
Yes, his films are entertaining, in particular 'Braveheart', but the historical content of that movie was laughable.

I hope he does better this time, historically.

Ant.

I agree....there was TREMENDOUS liberty take with Braveheart.
 
I dunno. Gibson has said that he has based the movie on what is in the Gospel. I just don't think this movie is going to spread anti-Semitism. The Gospels have been around for 2000 years. If you aren't an ignorant bigot now, I doubt this movie is going to make you one.
 
nbcrusader said:
I think Gibson has already faced one group of tough critics.

One of the most feared secret societies is The Librarian's Guild. Never, and I mean never, piss off a Librarian.:ohmy:
 
nbcrusader said:
Hmmm. Dead languages, no subtitles, but the message of "hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism " comes across clearly?

Take a good look at pre-Vatican II Catholicism sometime. It is precisely that.

Melon
 
sharky said:
I dunno. Gibson has said that he has based the movie on what is in the Gospel. I just don't think this movie is going to spread anti-Semitism. The Gospels have been around for 2000 years. If you aren't an ignorant bigot now, I doubt this movie is going to make you one.

The problem is less to do with the Gospel as much as interpretations of it. How traditionalist Catholicism interprets the Bible...well, I personally find it to be a bit scary.

Melon
 
Dreadsox said:
I miss the communion rails....and the masses in latin!!!!

There is a huge difference in being nostalgic about this and taking it to a cult level. Latin was originally introduced into Catholicism to be the "language of the people" of the Roman Empire. Previously, all masses were done in Greek, which confused all the non-Greek speakers amongst the Romans. But, needless to say, either they missed the point or was written out, because, obviously, Latin existed for nearly 1500 years after Latin was pronounced dead.

Melon
 
I'm looking forward to being able to judge it for myself. I recently saw an news snippet about this. It's already very controversial. Should be interesting. I'm just not sure how much should be read into what someone's perceived beliefs are. Not knowing Mel G. I couldn't really begin to know his deepest thought's. I guess we will find out to some extent. But the fact still remains, he's not exactly some profound religious leader. Just a movie star/producer. and controversity will sell tickets, even if you can't understand it. I'm looking forward to it. I think.
 
Anthony said:
Just a brief note to say that although I look forward to this movie with some anticipation and interest, I do 'not' think Mr. Gibson's talent for historical fact is that impressive. Yes, his films are entertaining, in particular 'Braveheart', but the historical content of that movie was laughable.

I hope he does better this time, historically.

Ant.

Well, some people already complained that the crucifixion wasn't portrayed accurately in the film.

Don't all "historical" movies play around with the facts, though? "Elizabeth" with Cate Blanchett took plenty of liberties, but I don't remember that film getting the sort of criticism "Braveheart" copped.
 
Anthony said:
Just a brief note to say that although I look forward to this movie with some anticipation and interest, I do 'not' think Mr. Gibson's talent for historical fact is that impressive. Yes, his films are entertaining, in particular 'Braveheart', but the historical content of that movie was laughable.

I hope he does better this time, historically.

Ant.

But did anyone try researching Wallace when Braveheart first came out? I did and there was literally nothing out there. It was amazing what amounts of information cropped up after the film's release and popularity.

I know Gibson talked about getting piles of history books--if they were anyhing like the ones I looked at, there was very little out there. Most of it was from English sources that still accused Wallace of hideous atrocities. It took me years to track down the Blind Harry poem, which is I think what Gibson ultimately based the film on. At least he made an effort, most directors don't. No, it's not accurate (no bridge at Sterling Bridge) and there were *many* liberties taken, but it's not the atrocity people make it out to be.

(If you think the film is bad, take a look at the original script and give Gibson credit for doing the research that he did. Randall Wallace obviously never even opened a book on the Middle Ages. He did the same thing with "Pearl Harbor" so the guy just does not believe in research.)

Saracene mentioned "Elizabeth"--the director prided himself on not opening a history book and instructed his cast to do the same. Or "The Patriot" where you had a WW2 expert write the script and include a church burning from Nazi Germany because he thought no one would notice. These are both areas with ample documentation, where the truth is just as exciting as anything some script writer can churn out. That is far more irritating to me as a history student than a film like "Braveheart", where the director at least tried and the evidence is scarce.

I will always defend that film, it made me interested in history. :)
 
filledeperle said:
Belief.net has several articles based on this. That website has been keeping an eye on the movie. I posted the link on the Goal is Soul, but I'll post it again.

http://www.belief.net/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/130/story_13051_1.html&storyID=13051&boardID=62129

It has articles from all different points of view

Perle

Thanks for sharing--I like the debate they've got going. I'm glad it features some Jewish commentary, which is what I have been looking for. :)
 
cover.jpg


to whet the appetite for all of you who can't wait
 
AvsGirl41 said:


But did anyone try researching Wallace when Braveheart first came out? I did and there was literally nothing out there. It was amazing what amounts of information cropped up after the film's release and popularity.
<snip>


Saracene mentioned "Elizabeth"--the director prided himself on not opening a history book and instructed his cast to do the same. Or "The Patriot" where you had a WW2 expert write the script and include a church burning from Nazi Germany because he thought no one would notice. These are both areas with ample documentation, where the truth is just as exciting as anything some script writer can churn out. That is far more irritating to me as a history student than a film like "Braveheart", where the director at least tried and the evidence is scarce.

I will always defend that film, it made me interested in history. :)


You're right. Virtually nothing is known of William Wallace's life; his date of birth isn't known, nor even the place. It's believed to be in the Glasgow area but I can't tell you why. Political and military history is not my forte anyway. You could use the same criticism of some of Shakespeare's plays; heck, he even gave Bohemia (now the Czech Republic) a coastline and it's landlocked. Medieval writers played loose with facts themselves. It's frustrating as hell to get information about these people. It's almost nonexistent. Historians get bored like everyone else.:reject: :help: :banghead: :confused: :censored:
 
AvsGirl41 said:
The trailer does show some very omnious looking rabbis, but mostly sadistic Romans, so if these people have only viewed the trailer...they ought to be sending their threats to Rome.

This could be the case of people blaming what they know, i.e. the Jews. It's like how people automatically associated Afghanis with Iraqis, when they had nothing to do with each other. So maybe people see these sadistic Romans on screen and automatically associate them with the rabbis/Jews of today. :confused: Either way, the reaction on the part of some people is quite sickening.

I just hope Gibson doesn't take too much liberty with this film, since if people see it they might come to associate things in that movie with real life. Sort of how people think that anyone Catholic supports the molestation that goes on in the church, since that's all they hear about the Church.

I'm curious to see this film- although I don't understand: they speak in Latin and have English subtitles? :huh:
 
oliveu2cm said:
So maybe people see these sadistic Romans on screen and automatically associate them with the rabbis/Jews of today. :confused: Either way, the reaction on the part of some people is quite sickening.

I do find this somewhat hard to understand. Pharasees trying to maintain their power while subject to Roman rule arrange for the death of one Jew. If anything, this highlights the danger of a religious establishment detached from God.

The film won't create anti-semetic people. Anti-semetic people are already here.
 
AvsGirl41;

Its funny that you mention 'The Patriot', since I have issues with that film as well. Yes, I do blame the screenwriter more than the director, I just found it funny that Mel Gibson starred in two very large films that outright demonised the British. Randal Wallace is truly horrendous; from Braveheart to the bastardization of the 'Man in the Iron Mask', to the laughable 'We Were Soldiers' and not to mention the calamity that 'Pearl Harbour' was. I am acquainted with his work all too well, unfortunately.

I myself enjoyed 'Braveheart' thoroughly, I just thought it had not only mild historical inaccuracies, but some pretty wild ones. Wallace dying on the same day as King Edward? Wallace impregnating the Queen of England? The constant demonising of King Edward (including my favourite, him throwing his son's gay lover out the window) where the only real historical evidence about the man shows him as a reasonable, logical and even 'just' man. I just thought the constant and hugely irreverent demonising of the British was not only uneccessary, but detrimental to the historical integrity of the film. I enjoyed the film, I would have 'loved' the film had it been braver when it came to showing what we have record of. Yes, the poem is the only 'real' evidence of Wallace ever existing, and it was ultimately based on that, but if a film is meant to be 'historical', I think it should atleast try not to take too many liberties.

My fear is that Mel Gibson seems to enjoy demonising certain parties, and, while I'll admit that 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' are movies more prone to Hollywood sensationalism, I fear that his directing will demonise certain parties in 'The Passion'. It would be a shame if this were to happen.

I didn't think 'Elizabeth' was all that bad, to be honest. Being a fan of Roman history though, I thought 'Gladiator' was a gem. Yes, there were plenty of inaccuracies, but none of them were that far from the recorded truth.

Ant.
 
Last edited:
I shy away from alot of movies because alot of violence and bloodshed freaks me out. Yeah, that just about means screw the movies.........:lol: Funny, I went to "Gladiator" with two Italians, from the old country, and they were telling me it was a historical monstrosity. From studying Roman history I know that it's true, practically everything in the movie was historically screwy. I found classical history much easier than medieval then ended up majoring in the medieval stuff. Go figure.
 
Back
Top Bottom