Question about the Mel Gibson movie The Passion

[nathan1977]

Personally, I think the ultimate Christian movie is Left Behind.


...for me to poop on.

 

[bonsai]

Wasn't this the first mvie actually to be condonned by the head of the Evengenical church in America? According to the Vatican, the Pope watched and approved.

Many ordinary Christians hated it, but when me and a few friends watched it, it made us realise the reality of what Jesus had done for us.

Those who thought that it give rise to anti-semetic feelings were proved wrong because the flim showed that it was mostly the Roman's who were to blame for his crucifixtion.

 

[maycocksean]

i liked how pissed Jesus looked at the end of the movie like after he rose from the dead an all.

i bet he's on a Mel Gibson-style revenge quest.

i'll bet this is one pissed-off mofo who's going to do unto others what has totally been done unto his ass.

or so the film seems to say.

funny, I don't even remember the resurrection in this movie. In fact I don't remember much about the movie at all. Even the violence. . .I don't know. . .it's just not "burned on my brain." And I'm a Christian! Strictly from a film perspective, I don't think the movie was that memorable. But different people have different responses. My sister was moved to tears (I think I was too, but as I've said, I've kinda forgotten about it since). My mom won't see it--she think it's too violent. So there you go.

I found the "visual Bible" DVDs "The Gospel of John" and "Matthew" much better. I've used them many times in Bible classes I've taught. I've never used "The Passion of The Christ." And as far as being moved by what Christ has done for humanity, there's pantomime set to music that my drama ministry created that gets to me more than any movie.

I did laugh out loud at your take on Gibson's resurrection, Irvine.
"who's going to do unto others what has totally been done unto his ass." Funny! I'll have to see that part, at least, again.

 

[Irvine511]

Those who thought that it give rise to anti-semetic feelings were proved wrong because the flim showed that it was mostly the Roman's who were to blame for his crucifixtion.

really? i thought the depiction of Pilot was very sympathetic, that he was conflicted about the whole thing but had to give the Jewish priest class the blood they wanted. i thought it was particularly notable that his wife (Mrs. Pilot?) gives Mary a cloth to wipe up Jesus' blood.

i also thought some of the Jewish priests were almost Nazi fantasies, hook-nosed and sneering, they hiss and smack Jesus around.

there's no question that the real "bad guys" in the movie are the roman torturers -- especially when we notice the graphic, deliberate extent to which Gibson depicts the scourging of Jesus, like when they slam the whip with the glass into the table, and then pull it off removing chunks of wood, in another classic horror movie move -- but i think there's ample evidence of anti-semitism, or at least Jewish stereotypes (there's that whole thing about money, too), if one wants there to be. you've got to look for it, but i think it's there.

 

[nathan1977]

I'm curious if you think His mother and followers (all of whom, incidentally, were Jewish) come off as hook-nosed and sneering?

 

[Irvine511]

I'm curious if you think His mother and followers (all of whom, incidentally, were Jewish) come off as hook-nosed and sneering?

no, it was mostly the priests. they hissed, too, and i forget exactly, but there was some issue regarding money. anyway, Christians throughout the centuries have always fogotten that Jesus and his mother were Jewish when it came to crack some Jewish skulls.

and Jesus was freaking hot. those cheekbones! that perfect, smooth torso! watching him be relentlessly beaten by big, burly men in black reminded me of some S&M websites i've come across in my various journeys across the www.

 

[nathan1977]

no, it was mostly the priests. they hissed, too

Then perhaps the film is less anti-semitic than it is concerned with the dramatic methods necessary for good storytelling -- and, as you point out, forces of antagonism are clearly divided between sadistic guards and scheming religious officials.

When you're a Jewish man with Jewish followers living in a Jewish culture preaching a message that runs contrary to the ruling Jewish religious elite, your enemies aren't exactly going to be Aryan Neo-Nazis.

 

[Irvine511]

Then perhaps the film is less anti-semitic than it is concerned with the dramatic methods necessary for good storytelling -- and, as you point out, forces of antagonism are clearly divided between sadistic guards and scheming religious officials.

When you're a Jewish man with Jewish followers living in a Jewish culture preaching a message that runs contrary to the ruling Jewish religious elite, your enemies aren't exactly going to be Aryan Neo-Nazis.

but this is the very genesis of anti-semitism, and you're right, it starts in the employment of dramatic conventions -- make the bad guys ugly and the good guys gorgeous.

he also uses iconography to arouse these passions in his (presumably) devoutly Christian audience. not only are the ruling Jewish elite ugly, but they are stereotypically Jewish in their actions. they are classically anti-Semetic, and the fact that they are just so Jewish in visual language, and that Jesus and Mary are not Jewish in any sort of visual sense, underscores the distinction drawn between potential Christian and unrepentant Jew.

Leon Wieseltier of the New Republic wrote this, and does a far better job expressing it than i could (and i'm slammed at work today, so i've no time to really write my own critique):

[q]The figure of Caiaphas, played with disgusting relish by an actor named Mattia Sbragia, is straight out of Oberammergau. Like his fellow priests, he has a graying rabbinical beard and speaks with a gravelly sneer and moves cunningly beneath a tallit-like shawl streaked with threads the color of money. He is gold and cold. All he does is demand an execution. He and his sinister colleagues manipulate the ethically delicate Pilate into acquiescing to the crucifixion. (You would think that Rome was a colony of Judea.) Meanwhile the Jewish mob is regularly braying for blood. It is the Romans who torture Jesus, but it is the Jews who conspire to make them do so. The Romans are brutish, but the Jews are evil.

[...]

Historiographically speaking, after all, there is no such thing as gospel truth; and so his portrayal of the Jews is based on nothing more than his own imagination of what they looked like and sounded like. And Gibson's imagination has offered no resistance to the iconographical inheritance of Western anti-Semitism. Again, these things are not passively received. They are willingly accepted. Gibson created this movie; it was not revealed to him. Like his picture of Jesus, his picture of the Jews is the consequence of certain religious and cinematic decisions for which he must be held accountable. He has chosen to give millions of people the impression that Jews are culpable for the death of Jesus.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040308&s=wieseltier030804&c=2

[/q]

 

[U2girl]

I felt the film was too violent, and I agree in that it was anti-Semitic.

 

[nbcrusader]

no, it was mostly the priests. they hissed, too, and i forget exactly, but there was some issue regarding money. anyway, Christians throughout the centuries have always fogotten that Jesus and his mother were Jewish when it came to crack some Jewish skulls.

No, we Christians didn't "forget".

The charge of anti-Semitism on a movie (or play or story, for that matter) that has a cast of primarily Jewish characters (some protagonist, some antagonist) is without merit.

 

[deep]

were not the people that followed Christ really the "first Christians"?

and all the "others" the Jews.

 

[nbcrusader]

were not the people that followed Christ really the "first Christians"?

and all the "others" the Jews.

No, they were all Jews.

Theologically speaking, some were "completed Jews".

 

[deep]

And George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock were Englishmen.


However most consider them Americans

 

[deep]

Theologically speaking, some were "completed Jews".

seems like there are always people around have a solution for what is best for the Children of David

The "completed Jews" phrase is sometimes used by fundamentalist Christians to refer to Jewish people who convert to Christianity. The phrase is considered offensive to many Jewish groups because it suggests Jews are "incomplete" unless they believe in the divinity of Jesus.

 

[melon]

really? i thought the depiction of Pilot was very sympathetic, that he was conflicted about the whole thing but had to give the Jewish priest class the blood they wanted. i thought it was particularly notable that his wife (Mrs. Pilot?) gives Mary a cloth to wipe up Jesus' blood.

Pilate is portrayed in Catholic tradition as a sympathetic character, mainly due to the pro-Roman bias of the early Church. While, indeed, the Church was persecuted by the Romans prior to the 4th century A.D., once it became the state religion of the Roman Empire, the Church became the Roman Empire's greatest cheerleader in history.

Pilate, himself, is given a purposely ambiguous fate, as their sympathies for the man could never be outweighed by the fact that if he was non-baptized, Catholic tradition states that he would automatically be in hell. However, Pilate's wife is stated to have been a Christian, according to Eastern Christian traditions, and, as such, she is a saint (Saint Procula) in the Eastern Orthodox and Coptic churches.

But, undoubtedly, such an obsession with the Pilate and his wife was driven primarily by anti-Semitism. They are put up as an example in contrast to the Jewish crowds calling for his death, and was used as a basis for anti-Semitism for nearly 2,000 years.

Regardless, it should be noted that Procula (a.k.a., "Claudia") is only given a brief mention in the Bible and doesn't have a name. All of her details have been generated out of post-Biblical tradition.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

No, we Christians didn't "forget".

The charge of anti-Semitism on a movie (or play or story, for that matter) that has a cast of primarily Jewish characters (some protagonist, some antagonist) is without merit.

well, there was no anti-Semitism without Christians, and i did say "throughout the centuries."

the charge of anti-Semitism on Mel Gibson's "The Passion" has much merit, particularly when one gets into the history of Passion Plays in Europe. it's not about having Jews as good guys or bad guys, it's about the anti-Semetic iconography that Gibson draws upon in order to emotionally bludgeon the audience and create even more sympathy for his protagonist (as if being flayed alive wasn't enough). the way the Jews are portrayed in the film -- conspirators, they get the strongmen to do their dirty work -- is analagous to traditional anti-Semetic fears that have a long history in Europe, that Jews are secretly powerful, clannish, and capable of manipulating world events in clandestine ways. we can see this in nativist American charges of Jews controlling Hollywood or the "liberal media" all the way to the view of Israel controlling American foreign policy.

 

[nbcrusader]

the charge of anti-Semitism on Mel Gibson's "The Passion" has much merit, particularly when one gets into the history of Passion Plays in Europe. it's not about having Jews as good guys or bad guys, it's about the anti-Semetic iconography that Gibson draws upon in order to emotionally bludgeon the audience and create even more sympathy for his protagonist (as if being flayed alive wasn't enough). the way the Jews are portrayed in the film -- conspirators, they get the strongmen to do their dirty work -- is analagous to traditional anti-Semetic fears that have a long history in Europe, that Jews are secretly powerful, clannish, and capable of manipulating world events in clandestine ways. we can see this in nativist American charges of Jews controlling Hollywood or the "liberal media" all the way to the view of Israel controlling American foreign policy.

Now you've imputed the claim of anti-Semitism for the Passion Plays on the movie.

To validate such a charge, you've got to deal with two issues. First, is the source material - the Gospels - anti-Semitic on its face?

Second, with the charge supported with a claim based on the negative characterization of the story's antagonists, can such a claim be supported when a number of primary characters are Jewish and are portrayed in a positive light?

I don't think you can lay such a significant charge based on generalizations of Passion Plays, media control and foreign policy influence.

 

[Irvine511]

Now you've imputed the claim of anti-Semitism for the Passion Plays on the movie.

To validate such a charge, you've got to deal with two issues. First, is the source material - the Gospels - anti-Semitic on its face?

Second, with the charge supported with a claim based on the negative characterization of the story's antagonists, can such a claim be supported when a number of primary characters are Jewish and are portrayed in a positive light?

I don't think you can lay such a significant charge based on generalizations of Passion Plays, media control and foreign policy influence.

the movie is a Passion Play. hence, "the Passion." it is meant to be a cinematic version of the passion plays held throughout European history. often following Passion plays, anti-Semetic violence broke out.

1. the Gospels in and of themselves are not inherently anti-Semetic, but those who use the Gospels as source material to justify convenient hatreds and then feel virtous about them (which sounds very familiar) are indeed anti-Semetic. the Gospels, independent of subjective interpretation, aren't anti-Semetic, but they certainly become sources of inspiration for anti-Semitism.

2. the sympathetic Jewish characters are "Jewish" in name only, and they are not visually drawn as stereotypical, fantasy Jews in the way that the antagonistic characters clearly are. in fact, Jesus, despite the dark hair, has readily distinguishable Aryan features (and a hot bod). it really seems quite obvious to me (and to many viewers) that the Jewish high priests are depicted hissing, worrying about money, calling for blood -- the anti-Semetic charge lies in the fact that Gibson calls upon centuries old anti-Semetic iconography to delinate between the Good Jews and the Bad Jews.

you've missed the point of my bringing in media influence and foreign policy. anti-Semetic interpretations of Jews as in control of things like foriegn policy and the media draw upon the same cesspool as Gibson draws upon.

 

[nbcrusader]

the movie is a Passion Play. hence, "the Passion." it is meant to be a cinematic version of the passion plays held throughout European history. often following Passion plays, anti-Semetic violence broke out.

1. the Gospels in and of themselves are not inherently anti-Semetic, but those who use the Gospels as source material to justify convenient hatreds and then feel virtous about them (which sounds very familiar) are indeed anti-Semetic. the Gospels, independent of subjective interpretation, aren't anti-Semetic, but they certainly become sources of inspiration for anti-Semitism.

2. the sympathetic Jewish characters are "Jewish" in name only, and they are not visually drawn as stereotypical, fantasy Jews in the way that the antagonistic characters clearly are. in fact, Jesus, despite the dark hair, has readily distinguishable Aryan features (and a hot bod). it really seems quite obvious to me (and to many viewers) that the Jewish high priests are depicted hissing, worrying about money, calling for blood -- the anti-Semetic charge lies in the fact that Gibson calls upon centuries old anti-Semetic iconography to delinate between the Good Jews and the Bad Jews.

you've missed the point of my bringing in media influence and foreign policy. anti-Semetic interpretations of Jews as in control of things like foriegn policy and the media draw upon the same cesspool as Gibson draws upon.

I agree on point 1 that Scripture can and has been used for less than God honoring purposes.

On point 2, if you see "Good Jews" and "Bad Jews" when does this translate into general anti-semitism (as is against all Jews)?

Take away the given story line, take away other presentations of the story, take away what other stereotypes we bring in, does the film come across as a vehicle of anti-semitism?

 

[maycocksean]

On point 2, if you see "Good Jews" and "Bad Jews" when does this translate into general anti-semitism (as is against all Jews)?

Take away the given story line, take away other presentations of the story, take away what other stereotypes we bring in, does the film come across as a vehicle of anti-semitism?

I think irvine has a pretty compelling case here. I think Mel Gibson could have made some different choices. Why didn't he have the priests looking like Jesus did in the film, and the Jesus looking more stereotypically Jewish? When I saw the film I didn't automatically think "ooh, anti-semitic" but then that is more from blissful ignorance, I think, because in my Christian community growing up there was nothing remotely anti-Jewish (that fact that my denomination keeps Saturday Sabbath and eats a somewhat kosher diet might have had something to do with it). Those who ARE aware of antisemitism have made some very strong points.

The portrayal of the "good Jews" as not looking stereotypically Jewish and the "bad Jews" as looking like Shylock clones, reminds me of friends I had in the South when I was a kid who said, "Oh, you're not REALLY black. You're just tan."

It's like Gibson saying "Oh Jesus, Mary Magdalene etc aren't REALLY Jewish. They're just Christians in disguise!"

 

[melon]

And, of course, Satan is androgynous, so anyone who doesn't prescribe to strict gender roles must be evil. In that regard, Jews get off easy.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

And, of course, Satan is androgynous, so anyone who doesn't prescribe to strict gender roles must be evil. In that regard, Jews get off easy.

Gibson's homophobia is legendary -- see "braveheart."

i'll respond later, quite busy this morning.

 

[Justin24]

But the baby could symbolize the anti-christ?

 

[BVS]

Welcome back.

 

[Justin24]

Thanks Missed you guys and gals I will try to behave this time.

 

[nbcrusader]

The portrayal of the "good Jews" as not looking stereotypically Jewish and the "bad Jews" as looking like Shylock clones, reminds me of friends I had in the South when I was a kid who said, "Oh, you're not REALLY black. You're just tan."

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.

 

[Irvine511]

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.

what? i'm not sure i understand you.

calling out stereotypes and understanding their historical lineage (i.e., Shylock) is hardly the promotion of stereotypes. it's understanding how they operate and more importantly how the operate upon us and are used for emotional manipulation by a director.

it isn't about the vilification of any given racial or ethnic group as antagonists. the issue, here, is about the utilization of the Shylock stereotype in order to visually code *certain* Jews as bad, and then to use Aryan features, gorgeous eyes, and beautiful bodies to visually code *other* Jews as good.

i think maycocksean has a great point -- that he's not *really* black, where i'm often told i'm not *really* gay in that neither of us (i assume) are the Shylock equivalent of whatever given ethnic group we belong to and therefore we are better/more acceptable/one of the good ones because of that.

what qualifies as "true" bigotry?

what is this recent trend of which you speak? can you cite other examples?

 

[BonosSaint]

Thanks Missed you guys and gals I will try to behave this time.

 

[nathan1977]

calling out stereotypes and understanding their historical lineage (i.e., Shylock) is hardly the promotion of stereotypes. it's understanding how they operate and more importantly how the operate upon us and are used for emotional manipulation by a director.

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.

the issue, here, is about the utilization of the Shylock stereotype in order to visually code *certain* Jews as bad, and then to use Aryan features, gorgeous eyes, and beautiful bodies to visually code *other* Jews as good.

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?

 

[melon]

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.

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.

Melon