IT was originally about politics

D

Don Hakman

Registered Senior Member
All the talk shows are on the trail of what may prove to be the biggest cult movie money maker in history.
Merchandisers are getting $26 for the T shirt and are even selling official nails . The action fugre can't be far behind.
Before this movie becomes a sanctimonious phenomena I thought I would editorialize its poster...

passion.jpg
 
For us outside the US could someone please explain what the problem is, And how nazies and Mel gibsons father is tied into it.
 
For us outside the US could someone please explain what the problem is, And how nazies and Mel gibsons father is tied into it.
Click to expand...
Some Americans are very sensitive about the role of Jews in Jesus' death. In history, the notion that Jews murdered Jesus has motivated two millennia of reprisals. Yet the role of the Jews in Jesus' death is unclear; Elaine Pagles discusses this matter in The Origin of Satan. The gist of the argument centers on whether or not the Bible accurately represents certain aspects related to the events described. Jesus' nighttime trial by the Sanhedrin is a massive procedural--and therefore holy--blunder by the Jews; Pontius Pilate is described differently in the Bible than in history, and the difference between a hand-wringing politician caught sincerely between "what is right" and "what the Jews want" and the idea of a cold bureaucrat participating in oppressive politics is a huge difference when considering the role of the Jews.

Thus there are some who would charge Gibson with anti-Semitism because his film reflects the Biblical telling. Absent thus far from the discussion is the question of whether or not the Bible is intentionally anti-Semitic.

Gibson's father enters into it because he's anti-Semitic, and Americans have this weird obsession suggesting that despite the tendency of the child to rebel against the father (an American tradition, no less), having an anti-Semitic father must necessarily mean that Gibson made this film for anti-Semitic reasons. We might look at Schwarzeneggar's family ties to Naziism. Does that fact alone matter, or is there something more compelling afoot that makes it important? In either case, it's a difficult sell.

But this is America; some Catholics complained about Dogma, though when you get right down to it, the substance of the complaint was essentially that Kevin Smith used existing philosophies in history for purposes other than singing the praises of God and Jesus. Some Americans complain that Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic, and the essence of this argument is that he did not choose to edit or restructure the Bible in his cinematic adaptation. At such a level, if Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic, there will be millions of self-righteous Americans who shouldn't, by any logic associated with honor, virtue, or integrity, be able to look themselves in the mirror.

Personally, I'll invoke the old pinko phrasing and say that it's at least in part about American decadence. We have the luxury of having such arguments, and have not yet learned that just because such a meaningless dialogue as the anti-Semitic flap over Passions can be had does not mean that it should or must. In the end, it's easier to worry about this than foreign terrorists, encroaching government, spiraling deficit, and so forth. Any reason to get mad at the rich and famous makes Americans feel better. Which is strange since there are plenty of more legitimate reasons, so there seems to be a couch-potato or armchair aspect to it, as well.

American Jewish organizations having trouble with this film may be overreacting; I have not yet seen the film, so I can't say with any certainty. However, should this prove to be the case, I cannot say I blame their oversensitivity without accounting for the reasons for it, and would hope that maybe something so public and superficial as this brouhaha might expose the paucity of these worries.
 
There are Jews who support this movie too. The only American Jewish organizations concerned about this movie are the schizophrenic paranoid freaks with a severe persecution complex.

As for Gibson’s father, he is a senile old man and thus should be ignored.
 
If one were to view the story in general terms it would be clear that a reformer/whistleblower is often set upon by the "true patriots" and condemned for merely doing the right thing.

The story can be contemporary and the characters can be interchanged.

This is known as an allagory but fundamentalists rarely accept such global interpretations.
 
Seems to me Gibson's just competing with the churches for the revenue. Better him than them. Apparently the churches think they can increase their profits by riding on the movie's coattails. Let's remember that Jesus did not know what a Christian is.
 
Thanks for the reply tiassa, it put words to what I all ready suspected. I wonder when people are going to wakeup and see that religion is just a nice story to lull them in to submission and control them.

As zanket above, I too belive this is just an attempt to make a buck or 2 by Mel Gibson by using the most succesfull story of them all.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think Gibson is that crass. Sure he is probably going to enjoy the money, but he HAS money, the only reason to take a movie this controversial rather than "What Women Want II" is if he really cares about it. Having not seen it, I believe that "The Passion of the Christ" is probably only anti-Semitic in that Christianity is anti-Semitic in nature. That said, I also don’t think that the reactions to its anti-Semitic themes are overblown. Christianity at its base cannot tolerate the existence of other religions, and every now and then Christians are going to vomit forth something that is a little edgy and reminds people of that.
 
There is little profit motive for Gibson in this movie. He spent 40 million dollars of his own money after every single major movie industry turned him down. A large portion of the script was lifted directly from the Bible and the whole movie is on Latin and Aramaic (with subtitles).

So no, he is not doing this for the "money".
 
When someone spends $40 million you can bet there's a profit motive. He is hoping for a return significantly greater than his outlay. Religions hope for the same when they build a cathedral.
 
apparently from whati understand, the US media has already blowne it up huge for Mel he will proberly make a nice amount of cash on it, as many will see it just the find out what the fuss is about.
It seem pretty obivius to me to use the bible as a source when you make a bible movie, just like every other movie based on a book.

Whats the problem with with subtitles, dont the amerikans know how to read?
 
"The Passion of the Christ" is probably only anti-Semitic in that Christianity is anti-Semitic in nature
Click to expand...
Jesus was jewish, and the early Christians considered themselves Jewish, even requiring circumcision, and the following of Jewish dietary laws. It was only later that Christianity dropped the major Jewish requirements and aquired a separate identity. Christianity branched off from Judaism. The kind of people that opposed Jesus still exist in Judaism and Christianity, people that follow laws and scripture instead of love and compassion, people whose literal interpretation of scriptures cloud their judgement.

It is ironic that the same people that bring their 3 year olds to see this graphic depiction of one of the most barbaric and brutal forms of torture and execution that ever existed are the same ones complaining about Janet Jackson's boob.
 
With all of this free publicity I would think Mel would love every minute of it! He is seeing the $$$$$$ roll in for his work. That's not a cut but a compliment on his work well done!
 
What a bunch of bullshit. If he believes the bible to be the truth as he does, I quite frankly cannot see how he shouldn't portray Jesus as having been indirectly murdered by the jews-- who believed him a blasphemer. Fuck all this nonsense. Where are all the bashers of political correctness in this mess? Theological interpretation my ass. The jews wanted him killed, he was killed-- so says the bible, and he believes it.
 
Last edited:
Well... you obviously don't understand Christianity too well.

Since you use the Bible as a source, I will too.

Jesus chose to die for the sins of the world. It was His, God's will.
He died by his own choice, his own merciful acceptance of the deserved burden of man.
The sins of men brought Him to destruction, not the Pharisees and Saducees. They were merely the instrument of that destruction.

No rational Christian could possibly blame the Jews for His death.

If this is what Mel Gibson is, a rational Christian, he is NOT anti-semitic.
 
Rappaccini said:
No rational Christian could possibly blame the Jews for His death.
Click to expand...

haha, did you just make a pun?

Jesus was a liberal and a Jew, his followers are conservatives and think poorly of Judaism. Even with that alone, and disregarding their other supernatural beliefs this makes Christians irrational. I still don’t think Mel did it for the money, he has lots already, and it would have been far easier to do something that would be less controversial, he really thought this was an important movie that had to be made.

He really thought it was important to make a movie that shows how Christ suffered was tortured and then executed. Surely this is the important part of Christ’s life, yes? When he was being tortured and executed, not when he was talking all that radical philosophy that changed the world?

In case you cant catch the sarcasm, I do think this movie was the misguided passion of a fanatic who follows a faith that is inherently hateful towards Jews. It was not a crass capitalistic decision.
 
How do you know he thought it was an important movie to make? Of course he's going to say that, it increases revenue. It's not like the story line wasn't already done to death (literally!). People who have a lot of money generally want even more of it. That attitude is how they got the money in the first place. Nothing wrong with that. I think he thought it was important to remake the movie because there's been sufficient time since the last remake, so it can be newly controversial. Wait another 10 years and there will be yet another remake. The idea is a proven money-maker; churches have been making money off it for ages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top