The Passion of the Christ--controversy and all

[Guest Kirsteen]

Hi there,

 

Taking a rest from medical issues for a bit, although conceivably this could appear in an interview in terms of "What was the last movie you saw?"...

 

Yesterday afternoon I took a wee break from the computer and headed out to enjoy a small bag o' popcorn and Mel Gibson's latest film, "The Passion of the Christ". On this end, I knew in advance that it was supposed to be violent and I've seen violent films, but I found this to be quite a different sort of violence.

 

Arnie and Tarantino movies typically contain violence of the sort that is non-specific and common in film entertainment and video games: heads being blown off various and often, non-specific groups of people, multiple bodies flying during bomb blasts, and the like. Quite often, the primary protagonist remains fairly untouched. However here, the majority of the film portrays unilateral and unidirectional violence--almost all directed at one physically unreactive person. I found it a little tough to sit through and in retrospect, probably due to a certain power that is similar to the reason why I gained so much respect for Gandhi's approach to the British. However, when Gandhi chronically passively resisted, he himself wasn't chronically physically brutalized. I wondered afterwards: was that Mel's objective?

 

Has anyone hereabouts ventured out to see it? If so, what did you think? Why do you think Mel made this movie and how do you think he chose his focus?

 

On a related note: although I have a bit of knowledge of the goings-on in the Bible, I don't know this: why is this part of Christ's life known as "the passion"?

 

Cheers,

Kirsteen

[Guest aneliz]

Hey Kirsteen...

 

I went to see the movie last weekend with my sister and a bunch of her friends (Religious studies majors from St Jerome's College at UW)...it was interesting...but definitely slanted.

 

Mel doesn't 'create' much of the story, but he definitely spins it. He adds parts in from the different gospels and mashes it all together....he also tends to use a lot of the story from the gospel of St Luke...where many scholars rely more heavily on the gospel of St John as a more 'accurate' account. Some of the events in the story are known by Biblical scholars to have been added into the text of St Luke hundreds of years after the death of Jesus. However, parts of it were brilliant...like the portrayal of Satan...very scary...

 

I, like you, was not really prepared for the scope of the violence...probably, as you suggest, because it goes on for so long and is directed at only one person. I believe that Mel's violence was a bit excessive...the Bible says only that Jesus was beaten with a 'reed' (ie caning)...so where did the metal tippped whips come from? (yes, I know that the Romans had such weapons...but, really...) They also beat him to the point where he would not be getting up and carrying a cross a whole long way...they would probably have been lucky if he was still alive in the morning.

 

Then there were the things that you wonder: where did that come from? Like the 'thing' that jumped out at Judas in the garden...or the giant baby that was carried through the crowd...or the crow that goes after the other guy at the end...Now, according to the religious studies crowd, the giant baby is some kind of old testament symbolism...but they don't know what the other stuff was supposed to represent either.

 

I was also a bit dissapointed in how hard the story was to follow if you didn't already *know* the story...I was kind of hoping that the movie would be a 'quick way to get the story' if you didn't want to read the book...which it wasn't. If you didn't know the story to start with, it was 2 hours of watching some guy being tortured, laughed at and eventually killed by a mob of Jews...(hence the anti-Semitism accusation)...Mary Magdalene was never referred to by name...the flashbacks to Palm Sunday, the Last Supper and the Sermon from the Mount would be hard to piece together if you didn't already know what they were. Kind of disappointing...and I thought that the ending could have been so much better....nobody ever saw Christ in the tomb...why didn't they end it with the empty tomb?

 

Anyway, I also had the opportunity to talk to some of my Jewish classmates who had seen it...and some of them were enraged by what they saw....the thing that offended them most was the constant image of Satan in the crowd of Jews...as if implying that Satan was a member of the crowd or that the Jews were with Satan. I didn't interpret it this way until I heard their opinion...but I can see how they would think that.

 

Some parts were very Braveheart too...the hooded figures in the crowd during the torture....but it was missing was a FREEEEEEDOMMMMM from the cross... (not that I expected there to be one...)

 

Good movie...probably not one that I would see again...makes a lot of people think...but no more is it 'truth' of the Passion than Braveheart is true Scots history or Schindler's List is exactly true Holocaust history...it is a movie, and should always be considered to be that first.

[Guest Kirsteen]

Hi there,

 

Cheers for your response. Given that I just saw it last night, I hadn't had much chance to chat about it with other folks, especially with people who have different sorts of religious beliefs, so I appreciate hearing your input. However, you raise a tenuous point:

 

but no more is it 'truth' of the Passion than Braveheart is true Scots history

 

Every wee bit of Braveheart was true.

 

Yep, the film is definitely thought provoking, and certainly provides an opportunity to learn a little more about the history of that time and the resulting fallout. For example, I wasn't previously aware of the Romans' exact approach to punishment, nor that the cat o' nine tails wasn't used. Also, not being Catholic, I wasn't versed on the Stations of the Cross.

 

After submitting the original post, above, I took a wee look for Roger Ebert's review. It's quite interesting too, for those who may not have yet had a read of it:

 

www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-passion24.html

 

A couple of People magazine-type tidbits that I learned prior to seeing the film was that James Caviezel (the actor who played Jesus) was actually struck by lightning while filming the crucifiction scene. Also, Pontius Pilate's companion, Claudia, was actually played by a woman with the first name of Claudia. Incidentally, on Mr. Caviezel, I thought it was a cruel casting choice, similar to Spielberg's choice of Ralph Fiennes for Schindler's List. Are they intentionally trying to create tension by casting such a physically attractive human being in such an unapproachable role?

 

Cheers,

Kirsteen

[Guest tea]

one tiny fact for the "anti-semantism" claim... Jesus was a Jew, his family was Jewish and observed all the religous regulations and rules etc of the Jewish traditions... his disciples were Jews and he hangs out with people like tax collectors, prostitutes, non-Jews (the pharisee??) etc.. To me, he seems pretty non discriminating and openminded. In this modern world of so much hatred already... war all over the Middle East, the Jews and Palestine, the Shiites and other Muslim.,catholics and protestants in ireland... I do not think it is a good idea to start chanting "anti-this and anti-that." It's a movie, one producer's perspective on things; not a call to arms

 

Iirsteen: I read both the Old and New testament. Haven't gotten around to book or revelations yet... too creepy. i believe the Passion refers to what Christians claim: Jesus died for people because of his LOVE for mankind.

tea

[Guest marbledust]

I went to see it opening day and have to admit I was more intrigued by the goings-on around me than the actual movie itself. If anybody hasn't seen it, regardless of all the hype and almost hysteria regarding this movie, it is worth the time and money to go and see it.

 

I went to the very first public showing in Calgary (skipping school ), and it was the first time I have ever seen the manager and assistant manager come and talk to the audience first. I guess they were unsure what the reaction who be and wanted to identify themselves to people who might have concerns during the movie. Did this happen at the showings anybody else went to?

 

I have never been to a movie where the audience was so uniformly silent. If somebody literally put a piece of popcorn in their mouths, you could hear it regardless of how far away they were sitting. As the movie progressed, some people did get up and leave and others were weeping. Most people just sat there kind of awed (maybe stunned is a better word). But what really stuck me was that after the movie, nobody was talking on their way out. Nobody at all. I have never been to a movie and seen that before.

 

As for my reaction I thought it was well done, but admit to feeling somewhat manipulated by it. I read a review where the author wrote "Gibson punishes his audience" - I sort of agree. It was an amazing movie techincally, the acting is superb, and doing it in Aramaic and Latin gives it quite a stunning effect. But, I really wasn't sure what I felt, or was suppossed to feel, once it was over. Certainly not entertained as I would with other movies. I was quite disturbed by it.

 

As for the anti-semantism, I think it went a tad bit overboard. I understand that it is "just" Gibson's interpretation, but in my opinion it went over the top. I am not religious, and the person I went to see it with is a non-practicing Jew, but I felt very uncomfortable sitting there watching it with him. Afterwards he was able to joke that it was a good thing he didn't wear anything identifying himself as Jewish during the movie or he would have been lynched. I realize that "toning it down" would have taken away from the movie Gibson wanted to make. I personally don't think Gibson is overtly anti-semitic, but in my opinion he was irresponsible with the portrayal of Jews in the movie. But then again, when I read the comments his father was making and Mel's refusal to distance himself from them - did anybody see his interview with Diane Sawyer? Or her subsequent appearance on David Letterman? - it makes me wonder about his own personal agenda and religious views...

 

As an aside - tea: how does the fact Jesus was a Jew and he "hung out" with Jews have anything to do with anti-semitism in the movie? I'm sorry I just don't follow what you are trying to say in your post.

[Guest babydoctor]

I disagree with you Kirsteen - Caviezel was a great choice for the part, in my opinion and also many of the people I have discussed the movie with. I am not big into religion but I was tempted by all the controversy. One thing I will say is that the violence was a tad unnecesssary at times, the Satan character was unneccessary, but overall I did enjoy the movie.

[Guest Kirsteen]

Hi there babydoctor,

 

Caviezel was a great choice for the part, in my opinion and also many of the people I have discussed the movie with.

 

I agree with you--I think he was a good choice too and did a great job playing the role. However, I consider it a bit of a cruel choice, and solely from a personal point of view. Like a few other actors, e.g., Colin Firth, etc., I find Jim Caviezel somewhat hunky. However, associating hunkiness with Jesus or a Nazi Commandant doesn't leave me with the utmost feeling of comfort. :|

 

Cheers,

Kirsteen

[Guest aneliz]

The Pharisees are Jewish too...they are one of the three major 'socieities' or sects in the time of the New Testament (Judaism divided into three sects ~145 BC)...

 

The Pharisees are just as much Jewish as Catholics and Baptists are both Christian but have somewhat different outlooks on interpretation of scripture and rituals...

 

The Pharisees were very (almost fanatically) devoted to the laws of Moses and worked to uphold every possible rule in existence (probably to excess)....hence the reason for their persecution of Jesus...they saw him as 'unholy' and committing sins against religious rules (Judaism is a 'rule' based religion...) that they worked to preserve... They viewed him as a danger to Judaism...he was a 'blasphemer' at best... or a crazy man with dangerous and possibly 'evil' powers (at worst)...in their view...and he seemed to be doing things that were 'against' the established religious rules and getting away with it...corrupting those that followed him and undermining the established authority of the laws of Moses...

 

Yes, Jesus was born to a Jewish family....but some of the things that he said, did and taught (and the timing of when he did them) put him in direct conflict with religious authorities..most notably the fanatically pious Pharisees...

[Guest seonagh]

They viewed him as a danger to Judaism...he was a 'blasphemer' at best... or a crazy man with dangerous and possibly 'evil' powers (at worst)...in their view...and he seemed to be doing things that were 'against' the established religious rules and getting away with it...

 

Also to add to this, a great deal of the concern came from the fact that there was widespread fear that the Romans would interpret the fervour surrounding Jesus as the start of an uprising and punish all Jews for it. There was fear that the temple would again be destroyed (which it ironically was later anyway)or of exile etc. Public condemnation of Jesus by the Jews was seen by some Jewish groups as a good way to stay disconnected from the possible problems he was potentially inviting.

It is my understanding that a good deal of the controversy on breaking the rules of Judaism came later as the then Jewish "Christians" started to spread the word to non Jews and make exceptions to Jewish law that would allow them to take part fully in the religion.

Seonagh

[Guest Dunes]

I went to see the movie last week after months of looking forward to seeing it and here is what I thought

 

First of all, about all the "anti-semitism" . If you know the story of Jesus and what is Christianity you would know that it's all about "LOVE". The whole "Passion" of Jesus was to ask people to love one another, if Friend or Foe, and that's one of the things I took from the movie, being a non-practicing Christian. Those people who would go out of the movie having bad thoughts about the Jews are not really understanding what Jesus is all about. Just like Tea said, Jesus was a Jew himself, he was raised and lived in a Jewish community and he was helped by a Jewish man when he was carrying the cross, so it would be hypocritical to hate the Jews if you believe in Jesus. I don't think that Mel wanted to say "The Jews Killed Jesus". He wanted to say " We all killed Jesus with our hatred". And besides, this movie won't change somebody's mind. If somebody is anti-semitic, they're anti-semitic, and the movie won't change that!

 

Another thing I took from the movie is the lack of leadership. There were a lot of scenes where people shouted "kill Jesus". I bet that the majority of them didn't know who Jesus was and they just were following the majority. It made me think of how ignorance leads to people becoming more of followers, not making rational decisions, decisions made by careful thought "they didn't think". It reminded me of the conflict in Iraq and how you used to see people on TV shouting "long live Saddam", and when he was captured you see people screaming the opposite!! I think that Mel wanted to show the results of ignorance, how misleading some leaders can be and that even though after 2000 years, people have never changed!!!

 

I didn't like the presence of Satan in the movie and Jesus killing the snake. I mean, why a "Snake"!! Why have snakes been always a symbol of Satan? It seemed hypocritical to me that Jesus talks about love, then kills a snake! Maybe it is written in the bible, but I still think it's a bit disturbing and contradictory to the message of Jesus.

 

About Violence, I think that everyone going to this movie expected what they're getting, because of the huge media coverage. I actually thought after I got out of the movie" ohh, that's all??, The Media made it sound really worse that it really is!". I don't mean that I'm used to seeing this kind of Violence, all I'm saying that I expected it being violent due to media coverage. You wouldn't go to this movie not knowing who Jesus is, but it would have been useful to have more background in the movie for those if us who don't know a lot about Jesu. I don't think it's a movie for everyone to see , but I can believe in that this kind of torture really might have happened to Jesus because I have heard of worse torture styles than that (in Iraq especially).

 

Finally, I went out of the movie thinking the most about the message of Love. Jesus died for me, so I have to try to love more. That's how I felt. I even started saying "oh, does that mean I have to love George W. Bush even if he has done so much damage to many lives???"

hmmm..hard to do, but I'm trying..haha

 

thanks for reading and hope it all made sense to you,

 

Dunes

[Guest Oregano112]

I haven't seen the movie but I have been to Catholic school my entire life and I've also taken music history. I think part of the reason for the term Passion is that the first plays and operas were called "Passion Plays". They were of religious content, usually stories from the bible in play/musical form because the only venue they had for them was churches and christianity was a huge part of life. That could be part of the basis for the name.

 

R

[Guest moo]

"oh, does that mean I have to love George W. Bush even if he has done so much damage to many lives???"

 

Bush is an evangelical Christian. What I don't understand is how someone can claim to be so Christian yet be so pro-war, and so pro-death penalty.

 

As for the movie I haven't seen it yet, but I will in a couple weeks when I'm back home for spring break. Speaking as a Catholic, from what I've seen so far, I don't think Mel Gibson is anti-semitic at all. He is, however, an over-zealous traditionalist Catholic who shuns the reforms of the Vatican II council (which was basically a liberalization of the Catholic Church, absolving the Jewish people for the death of Christ, allowing modern languages to be used for mass, etc.) and that is actually quite scary. I think his mission was to try and reach out and maybe convert a few souls out there. (Catholics nowadays tend to not evangelize. We leave that up to the evangelicals.)

 

Wrt the anti-semitism thoughts, I think Jewish leaders across North America are too sensitive to many of these issues. I don't mean to start a flame war here and I hope not to offend anyone who's Jewish here (one of my best friends in med school is Jewish) but a lot of Jewish leaders should just stop and realize that they were not the only people who were persecuted throughout history. Hollywood has made so many movies on the Holocaust, yet no movies have been made for example about the Japanese massacre of the Chinese in WWII. And then a movie about Christ comes out and all of a sudden, these people in the ADL are up in arms over it. I was surprisesd that the Germans didn't protest the release of Schindler's List (which obviously portrayed the Germans as evil).

[Guest tea]

hi Marbledust

my comment earlier about Jesus was a Jew etc... what i mean is: how can you hate Jews when your leader/God was a Jew? The comment about who he hangs out with... my thinking is that he seems pretty openminded.. so how can his followers be so narrow minded? Christian also preached love so i just can't see how a Christian would hate Jews. That's all.

tea

[Guest peachy]

Wrt the anti-semitism thoughts, I think Jewish leaders across North America are too sensitive to many of these issues.

Passion Plays have, it seems, historically incited anti-semitism, and, as the ADL exists to combat anti-semitism, it seems to me that they would be remiss if they didn't bother to respond to it. Especially given some apparently legitimate fears that it could incite anti-semitism even today. The media has certainly inflated this way out of proportion to the actual fears, but I don't know of any way that the ADL could have issued a small, cautious warning without the media grabbing hold of it and turning it into a bigger issue than it should be. In any case, if you take a look at the ADL's page about anti-semitism in the world today it may make it clearer why Jewish leaders today are, as you put it, "too sensitive to many of these issues."

 

a lot of Jewish leaders should just stop and realize that they were not the only people who were persecuted throughout history. Hollywood has made so many movies on the Holocaust, yet no movies have been made for example about the Japanese massacre of the Chinese in WWII. And then a movie about Christ comes out and all of a sudden, these people in the ADL are up in arms over it.

All historical examples of massacres and of suffering are obviously very terrible events! But I am not sure what you are implying. If there was anti-Chinese sentiment in North America today than we would all certainly support initiatives to eliminate it, wouldn't we?

 

I was surprisesd that the Germans didn't protest the release of Schindler's List (which obviously portrayed the Germans as evil).

I find your statement comparing the Germans in Schindler's List to the the Jews in the Passion of Christ to be extremely odd. It is generally accepted that the Nazis and their activities were, indeed, evil. This has not, to my awareness, ever incited post-WWII violence against Germans. On the other hand, it is not generally accepted that the Jews of Christ's time were evil, and this fact has historically incited a great deal of post-crucifiction violence against Jews. It seems to me that there are very significant differences between the two situations.

[Guest UWOMED2005]

Yeah, the issue with The Passion of the Christ and anti-semitism is not about the movie itself but rather the ludicrously moronic and flawed argument that has been used by anti-semites since the middle ages: it was the Jews who asked Pilate to condemn Jesus, therefore the Jews are bad because they killed god. Nevermind the fact Jesus was a Jew, and if it weren't for the Jews and their monotheism all Europeans would still be worshipping Jupiter, Zeus, Odin, or one of the Germanic incarnations of Odin.

 

But some of the anti-semitic arguments against this movie are completely bunk. I read the Maclean's article last week before seeing the movie, and couldn't find any basis for the anti-semitism arguments noted. The issue of the Pharisees and the mob asking for Jesus's death? That is not a Mel Gibson interpretation. . . it's straight from the Gospels. To not allow that on film would be to not allow some to cover the passion story told in the gospels. One of the other arguments concerned the children who mentally torture Judas after the betrayal. . . one rabbi was quoted as arguing this was an abomination as portraying

 

I think the major problem is one of interpretation. I was always taught that tf you read the Gospels as a whole, it becomes readily apparent the Pharisees do NOT represent judaism, but rather represents arrogant self-aggrandising figures who use religion for their own aims (ie Jerry Falwell or the renaissance popes who used their position for political power) and are associated with almost all religions. The mob, once again, does not represent Jews but all of humanity in its original sin. . . and reaffirms the theme of "turning the other cheek."

 

On the whole, I found the controversy surrounding the film unwarranted. Yes, it was gory at times. . . but if you knew the passion story and had heard the film was trying to be authentic what came on the screen should have been expected. The subject did involve a Roman flogging and crucifiction. . . you can't exactly expect scenes depicting these events to be pleasant to watch!

 

Yeah, and Jim Caviezel rocks. No suprise - he was pretty outstanding in The Thin Red Line as well.

 

P.S. Gospel of John the most accurate? I thought that was the late comer as far as gospels were concerned. . . and I'd heard arguments some scholars thought a lot of its content was more politically motivated (written during a period of controversy within the Christian church to support one side of an argument) than historically based.

[Guest DonaldKaufman]

With regard to the word 'passion' in the title, it's derived from the Latin word 'passio', which means suffering. Its English version evolved to refer to any strong emotion, and later to mean 'love' or 'sexual attraction'. There are written accounts of Jesus' suffering being refered to as 'passion' that date back to the 2nd or 3rd Century.

I guess this makes sense, considering that the movie focuses on the last 12 hours of Jesus' life. The Suffering of the Christ doesn't sound as epic, nor would it have had as broad of an appeal to the masses.

-DK

[Guest moo]

All historical examples of massacres and of suffering are obviously very terrible events! But I am not sure what you are implying. If there was anti-Chinese sentiment in North America today than we would all certainly support initiatives to eliminate it, wouldn't we?

 

I'm just saying that the Jewish people don't have a monopoly on being persecuted. Many other groups have been persecuted in the past, some more so than others. I just wish Hollywood would make more movies concerning the suffering of other cultures instead of always focusing on the Holocaust. No one's trying to deny the Holocaust, but there were other groups that were massacred in WWII as well (for example, the Chinese).

 

This has nothing to do with anti-Chinese sentiment, although I would suspect that racism against Asians (as well as against blacks, hispanics, etc) still exist today (maybe not so much in North America, but definitely over in Europe, and particularly London). The Jews are not the only ones against whom people still discriminate.

[Guest peachy]

I'm just saying that the Jewish people don't have a monopoly on being persecuted. Many other groups have been persecuted in the past, some more so than others. I just wish Hollywood would make more movies concerning the suffering of other cultures instead of always focusing on the Holocaust. No one's trying to deny the Holocaust, but there were other groups that were massacred in WWII as well (for example, the Chinese).

So you think there are too many Holocaust movies. Fine. I don't particularly care to agree or disagree with you about this any more than I care to argue about whether there have been too many Adam Sandler movies produced lately. Hollywood makes movies that it thinks will sell lots of tickets, that happen to fit the agenda of a rich filmmaker, or for other petty reasons. Whatever.

 

But nobody is claiming (or has ever claimed) that Jews have a monopoly on suffering, nor is this relevant to the point that I thought you were trying to make: that the complaints by the ADL with respect to The Passion of Christ were unreasonable. They certainly are not saying "Don't make the Passion of Christ because we need more Holocaust movies! Every movie should be about Jewish suffering!"

 

A group whose mandate is to monitor and prevent anti-semitism has expressed a concern that this particular movie could incite anti-semitism. Maybe you and I personally think that the concern itself wasn't particularly valid. That seems to me to be a reasonable point for debate, and I do not have a personal opinion about it. I haven't seen the movie and my opinion on this issue would thus be uninformed.

 

However, it offends me deeply when you say that the issue here is of Jews claiming that the only suffering that should be recognized is their own. That is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

Does this movie portray Jews in a way that really will encourage anti-semitism? I don't know.

 

Has the media given the issue much more attention than it deserves? Yes.

 

But is it reasonable for the ADL to issue a statement about the movie given the historical context? Given the comments about the movie by the white supremicist groups that I linked to previously? Yes, absolutely.

[Guest moo]

A group whose mandate is to monitor and prevent anti-semitism has expressed a concern that this particular movie could incite anti-semitism. Maybe you and I personally think that the concern itself wasn't particularly valid. That seems to me to be a reasonable point for debate, and I do not have a personal opinion about it. I haven't seen the movie and my opinion on this issue would thus be uninformed.

 

This WAS the point I was trying to make. I just don't agree with what the ADL has to say. This was a movie about Christ, pure and simple. We can debate this over and over, but I haven't seen the movie yet (I will eventually) so I won't say anything more about it.

 

OK, I apologize for the statement about Jewish people not acknowledging other groups' suffering. I didn't mean to imply that all Jewish people think this. My point is that I feel the Holocaust, while a horrible thing, seems to outshadow all other terrible atrocities in this world in terms of media exposure and coverage. Admittedly this may have been irrelevant to the discussion at hand and was a poor choice of an example on my part.

[Guest physiology]

I think the Holocaust having such monumental significance, is due mainly to the gravity of what happened, but also, because Jewish lobby groups in the USA are very powerful.

 

They have been able to keep the memory of the Holocaust alive and well. Humans, to me, seem to have very short memories when it comes to these events. I mean if you type in Holocaust on google, one of the sites that will pop up will be this Aryan nations or KKK site proclaiming that it was huge hoax....that's downright sickening.

 

Furthermore, that is why the USA has maintained its commitment to Israel in the Middle East and routinely refuses to intervene, except for the occasional peace pact, which never seems to work anyway.

 

Are Jews considered to be a separate ethnicity? Many Jews who I know are indistinguishable, physically, from white people, but yet their origins are in the Middle East, so I would tend to associate them (intuitively) from that ethnic background.

[Guest canstowski]

First off, correct me if i'm wrong, the main difference b/w the Jews and Christians is the believe of Christ as our Saviour. The jews does not, in the past or present, believe Christ was the Messiah. They have always expected their Messiah to come and rescue them. Jesus doesn't fit the bill in the minds due to his appearance, upbrining and what not. So the argument "how can you hate jews when Jesus is jewish himself" doesn't quite pan out for the jewish community. Do they care if Jesus was Jewish? They don't believe in him anyways. I was told that the Jews today are STILL expecting their Messiah to come any day to rescue them.

[Guest UWOMED2005]

I think what is impressive (in a good way of course!!) is the fact that 95%+ of us in the West are still sickened by the KKK and/or Aryan Nation. These are still fringe groups abusing free speech and are usually viewed for the whackjobs they are.

 

But I think I know where Moo is coming from as well. The problem is that it IS a touchy subject because of how awful the Holocaust was, and the fact there are holocaust deniers. But the suffering of the Jews during the Holocaust hasn't been the only atrocity experienced by mankind: why don't we hear more about the atrocities against the Tutsis? The Sudanese Christians? Falung Gong? The genocide of the Caananites by the Israelites? The millions murdered by Genghis Khan? The tens of millions of Soviets murdered by Stalin during WWII? The civilians who lived in Hiroshima or Nagasaki? The genocide of Native North Americans, in particular the Beothuk of Newfoundland? The gays, gypsys, disabled, and African-europeans who were also murdered in the holocaust? (though outnumbered 6 to 1 by the Jews murdered) The Tibetan Budhists? (Ok, maybe we do hear a lot about that last one thanks to hollywood) All of this does not take away from the horror of what happened to the Jews during the holocaust. . . but when it is held to be the only event of its kind in the history of humanity, I think that creates more problems than it solves.

 

And as this is often a sensitive subject, I think I need to repeat NONE OF THIS TAKES AWAY FROM THE HORROR OF WHAT HAPPENED TO THE JEWS IN THE HOLOCAUST or the suffering of those who went through it, or the historical fact it happened. My point is by no means at all to minimize the holocaust: Holocaust deniers are as ludicrous as the flat earth society, which continues to argue into the 21st century that the world is flat. But when we treat the holocaust as an isolated event of the 20th century and ignore the fact that events with similar intents (but of less magnitude) have occured in the last decade or ignore the fact humans have committed acts of similar scale at other times, we run the risk of missing future acts and acting to prevent them.

 

As well, while this is a sensitive subject, I don't think someone should be railroaded just because their opinion isn't 100% in keeping with conventional thought. Of course, I would like to include two caveats with that: 1) Such opinons shouldn't be based entirely in falsehood (ie holocaust denial) and 2) Such opinions should not be expressed with the explicit intent of harming a particular group. I don't think any of the opinons expressed so far violate point 1 or point 2.

 

BTW - I've always felt and still do feel that if you're Christian you're automatically embracing judaism (I'm sure St. Paul would disagree with me: see Galatians.) Like I said in my previous post. . . without Judaism, all Europeans would be worshiping Odin, Jupiter, Zeus or one of the other pagan gods. Christians owe as much to Abraham, Moses, David and their followers as the Jews (or Muslims) do.

[Guest peachy]

What bothers me about this discussion, Uwomed and Moo, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Holocaust actually is overblown in Hollywood. The Holocaust is most emphatically not the touchy issue here. I really don't think that either of you meant to minimize the significance of the Holocaust, and I didn't mean to imply this at all in my responses.

 

This thread began with a discussion of a particular movie that had complaints lodged against it by a group that works to prevent anti-semitism. Then, suddenly, there were comments that basically said "Jewish leaders way overreact about anti-semitism, and way too many movies are about the Holocaust." I think that is an honest way of paraphrasing the following quote.

 

Wrt the anti-semitism thoughts, I think Jewish leaders across North America are too sensitive to many of these issues. I don't mean to start a flame war here and I hope not to offend anyone who's Jewish here (one of my best friends in med school is Jewish) but a lot of Jewish leaders should just stop and realize that they were not the only people who were persecuted throughout history

WHAT does the relative portrayal of the Holocaust to other human tragedies have to do with whether this particular movie is likely to incite anti-semitism and encourage people to partake in hate crimes? It simply is irrelevant.

 

To put it another way, if there was a movie that portrayed black people in a negative way, and we were discussing it, and somebody countered with an argument that said "Yeah, well, we learn far too much in school about apartheid and about the underground railroad, and there are way too many affirmative action programs, and we should just move on to other things" I would equally be outraged - it would have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, and would feel to me as if a series of random and hurtful comments had been introduced for no relevant reason. As if any comment about current potential for harm is an excuse to introduce random beefs about an ethnic group.

 

And THAT is why I was upset by what you posted. I don't (necessarily) disagree with the individual points that were made. But I guess I would find it really scary if any discussion about current-day anti-semitism was justified in moving into "the Holocaust is way too represented in popular culture."

 

If that doesn't explain clearly why I (still) think that your post is hurtful, then I don't think that I'm capable of explaining any more clearly.

 

Added: Hmn, perhaps another way of explaining, is that as I read it the discussion moved rapidly from "Whether or not this particular concern of the ADL is valid" to "Whether or not the ADL has the right to make such comments at all" and I guess I find discussion of the second statement deeply offensive, whereas I find a discussion of the first statement to be completely reasonable.

[Guest UWOMED2005]

Thing is, there are many movies that put other groups in as poor a light as the Jews in "Passion of the Christ" - but without quite the fanfare. Did the Irish complain to the same extent when they were portrayed as fighting drunks in "Gangs of New York"? Or the Italians when the Godfather (or any number of other movies or TV shows) portrayed them all as mafia? I would argue these were portrayals were FAR, FAR worse than those depicted in Passion of the Christ: pretty much everyone in the film who is not Roman is a Jew, and many of them are portrayed as compassionate people. . . in particular the character of Simon of Cyrene. In that way, depiction of Jews in "Passion of the Christ" is much more like the depiction of Germans in "Schindler's List." In the latter, most Germans are depicted as horrible twisted monsters (which some were during WWII) but there are others (mostly just the Schindlers) who are depicted in a much more positive, if not heroic, light. I don't seem to remember hearing much protests from Germans towards that movie both from German North Americans or Germans themselves. . .* well, except for the same whacko neo-nazi/anti-semites we were talking about earlier, whom I'd like to reaffirm are a fringe minority largely considering to be whackjobs.

 

And the thing is, most of the protests are being raised by POLITICAL groups representing Jews (not necessarily by individual Jews themselves.) Perhaps that what's got me the most irrate about all this controversy - it seems to me to be a baseless accusation made entirely for political motivations. Which in turn scares me, because there is a group out there (not anti-semites such as the Aryan Nation but rather another group. . .) that has been arguing for years that Jewish political groups have been manipulating North American opinion to influence the US to support Israel in its midlle-eastern conflicts. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS TRUE. . . in fact, I've always thought this was BS, but seeing this amount of controversy raised (including the long delay before this film was released) makes me wonder if I'm being naiive.

 

This is particularly scary to me, because I grew up (as what I thought was a relatively objective non-israeli non-palestinian not-sure-if-he's-really-a-christian westerner) always thinking Israel was in the right and they were fighting against a bunch of evil terrorists. Thing is, I then grew up and started to read, talk and think for myself. I worked with one woman whose father was a wealthy landowner in Palestine before 1948. . . after the first war, his land was confiscated and she grew up poor in a refugee camp in Jordan. I lived with another palestinian as a roommate who had some pretty crazy stories from back home as well. At the moment, I'm pretty much on the fence as far as the whole Israel-Palestine issue is concerned. . . after all, it really is not my quarrel (though I am pretty ticked now at the Romans for having kicked the Jews out of Israel back in 70 AD. . . things would be so much simpler if the dispersion had never happened!! Apologies if I offend any Romans with that statement.) But when I see political groups jumping on this movie and creating an issue that is not their, possibly for political purposes, it really does make me question whether I should be dismissing some of the arguments I've been hearing from the opposing camp.

 

So what does all this have to do with the holocaust? From my perspective, not much at all. I was just asserting the fact that I could see at least from one perspective where moo was coming from, one that doesn't seem to open for discussion. But it does scare me that the same groups who are most active in going after creeps like Zundel are the same who are now "blowing the horn" on Passion of the Christ. . . it would be really disturbing if a "boy who cried wolf" scenario set in and as a result people gave more credence to holocaust deniers.

 

* Of course, I don't mean to say Jews are the only group to ever overreact to a movie. I remember when the movie "The Siege" came out, the Dalhousie Muslim Student's group was quite enraged by it and wrote an editorial in the school newspaper. Of course that piqued my curiosity, and after seeing the movie I was really quite surprised and had to wonder whether the authors had actually seen the movie: my impression of the movie was that the movie was (a not so great) attempt to get at America's fears/ignorance of Islam and to show what havoc that could cause. Of course that was only my humble person opinion.

[Guest peachy]

Ah, I see what you mean now. I really honestly didn't understand before what connection you were making with the original topic of discussion! Thank you for clarifying.

 

I do think, though, that there is a very fundamental difference between the Irish and Italian examples you gave, and the movie that prompted this discussion. That's probably why I didn't understand your original point - because I really don't see the situations as being the least bit analagous. And to me, that fundamental difference is between the motivation for the complaints. This is not an issue of slander. It's not fears of "looking bad". It is not an attempt to preserve a sterling reputation. Those would be rather silly reasons to complain.

 

But the ADL exists and makes the statements it does out of a very real fear of increasing anti-semitism that already exists with the potential for inciting violence. While you and I may think that there is no real possibility of violence arising from what's portrayed in this movie, or in similar events, the people who issue these warnings certainly do hold that belief. And THAT is why they make their comments. Maybe their perspective IS skewed because they are the children of Holocaust survivors, and they are blowing personal fears way out of proportion - but I do believe that fear is their motivation.

 

Correct me if you think I am wrong, but I do not think that a single Irish person living in North America feared that the movie the "Gangs of New York" would cause Irish churches to be desecrated. I also don't personally think that the movie the "Passion of Christ" is going to cause synagogues to be desecrated. (I, personally, have absolutely no problems with the movie at all!). But I see why the ADL might think so.

 

And the other issue, of course, is that this is not just a bunch of Jewish people making a lot of noise, it is the media blowing an issue way out of proportion. For whatever reason, this kind of thing is deemed a juicy issue, and the ADL is not entirely to blame if they issue a press release and every newspaper in North America chooses to put it as the top story in their Entertainment section. The media could have chosen to equivalently inflate Irish complaints about Gangs of New York, but they didn't. I don't know why.

 

After all, the ADL didn't ask this to become a topic of discussion on a premed bulletin board (of all things!)