Skip to comments.
Gibson's film a mirror for critics' views
Cathy Young ^
| 3.8.04
Posted on 03/07/2004 11:56:11 PM PST by ambrose
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:11:46 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
MEL GIBSON'S "The Passion of the Christ" may well be, to some extent, a Rorschach test onto which different people project their expectations. Where some will see a message of love and redemption, others will see hate and bigotry. Likewise, looking at the brouhaha surrounding the movie, some will see the triumph of courage and faith over the antireligious bias of the cultural elites; others will see a slick and cynical publicity campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: thepassion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
1
posted on
03/07/2004 11:56:12 PM PST
by
ambrose
In Gibson's version, the walls tremble and one of them splits, columns fall, fires erupt, and the evil priests wander dazed amidst the rubble; Caiaphas burns his hand and looks terrified. No such destruction befalls the palace of Pontius Pilate.Actually, Caiphus looked fairly upset, perhaps questioning if he did the right thing. So, when Caiphus is portrayed with some degree of humanity, this is evidence of Gibson's anti-semitism. When Caiphus is portrayed as indifferent to Jesus' suffering, this is also evidence of Gibson's anti-semitism.
Nice damned if you do/damned if you don't reasoning.
2
posted on
03/07/2004 11:59:28 PM PST
by
ambrose
("John Kerry has blood of American soldiers on his hands" - Lt. Col. Oliver North)
To: ambrose
Someone who doesn't even understand basic christianity
3
posted on
03/08/2004 12:00:09 AM PST
by
GeronL
(http://www.ArmorforCongress.com......................Send a Freeper to Congress!)
To: All
4
posted on
03/08/2004 12:03:49 AM PST
by
Cindy
To: GeronL
I think I've figured out why liberals feel Pilate was portrayed in a sympathetic light... because he's the type of politician they like! Pondering, brooding, worried about his poll ratings, indifferent to right or wrong "what is truth?", and ultimately to be counted on to make the decision that's in his best personal interest, not what is right.
He flips and flops on whether Jesus should die. To liberals, that is a sign of a "deep thinker"...
The more I think about it, the more this Pilate reminds me of your average Rat politician. Kerry especially comes to mind.
Thoughts?
5
posted on
03/08/2004 12:04:18 AM PST
by
ambrose
("John Kerry has blood of American soldiers on his hands" - Lt. Col. Oliver North)
To: Cindy; GeronL
(based on the visions of a notoriously anti-Semitic 19th Century German nun, Anne Catherine Emmerich).Who was this nun? Was she anti-semitic?
6
posted on
03/08/2004 12:08:53 AM PST
by
ambrose
("John Kerry has blood of American soldiers on his hands" - Lt. Col. Oliver North)
To: ambrose
Pilate is flippers' distant relative?
7
posted on
03/08/2004 12:24:34 AM PST
by
GeronL
(http://www.ArmorforCongress.com......................Send a Freeper to Congress!)
To: ambrose
Hey, Ambrose, This is a good article... but you might be getting Jim Robinson in trouble. This is copyrighted by the New York Times... and we cannot repost ANYTHING in its entirety. You should tease it with excerpts and link to the article.
8
posted on
03/08/2004 12:24:36 AM PST
by
Swordmaker
(This tagline shut down for renovations and repairs. Re-open June of 2001.)
To: Swordmaker; Admin Moderator
does this need to be excerpted?
9
posted on
03/08/2004 12:34:20 AM PST
by
ambrose
("John Kerry has blood of American soldiers on his hands" - Lt. Col. Oliver North)
To: ambrose
I couldn't disagree more with Young's assertion that "there was no bias" by the liberal elite against Gibson's film. The New York Times' Frank Rich was livid at the thought of Gibson actually screening his movie without it first being vetted by the ADL. Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen were said to have vowed never to work with Gibson again. I personally have read perhaps two dozen stories claiming that the story that Gibson tells in "The Passion of the Christ" was one which "paved the way to the Holocaust" (or other variations on the theme).
Even so, I don't think the alleged anti-Semitism of "The Passion of the Christ" was the real (or only) reason so many in Hollywood and the media poured out such vituperation over Gibson's film. I think what also made them mad was their totally unforseen loss of power. They had always thought they were the ones who got to decide what kind of films Americans got to see. Then along comes Mel Gibson with $30 million in spare cash and goes right over their heads not only to make a movie that they didn't approve of but then to outfox their attempts to block it by marketing it directly to the unwashed masses.
And that's another point, when accused of bias, Hollwood always says its real bias is making money. All they try to do is make movies that people want to see. If that were really true, how do they explain the enthusiasm for "The Passion of the Christ"? Obviously there must have been huge pent-up demand for religiously-themed films which don't mock or ridicule Christians. Otherwise, the gross for "The Passion of the Christ" wouldn't be headed for $300 million by the end of this week.
To: GeronL
Notice how he orders the crucifixion, then immediately washes his hands of it and lays it entirely on Caiphus. Reminds me of Kerry's explanation on voting for the Iraq War. It wasn't his fault. Bush tricked him into doing it.
11
posted on
03/08/2004 12:37:24 AM PST
by
ambrose
("John Kerry has blood of American soldiers on his hands" - Lt. Col. Oliver North)
To: ambrose
12
posted on
03/08/2004 12:38:43 AM PST
by
milemark
(Privilege has its membership.)
To: ambrose
BUMP
13
posted on
03/08/2004 12:38:58 AM PST
by
GeronL
(http://www.ArmorforCongress.com......................Send a Freeper to Congress!)
To: ambrose
---He flips and flops on whether Jesus should die. To liberals, that is a sign of a "deep thinker"...
The more I think about it, the more this Pilate reminds me of your average Rat politician. Kerry especially comes to mind.
Thoughts?---
Pilate figures, with just cause that the Jews are out to screw him. Everything he does and everything that is brought before him is charged politically. Judea is in a state of almost constant turmoil with more factions than can be kept track of. Pilate must be constantly on guard against the spark that will light this tenderbox.
Judea was an important posting, but not one that was sought after. It was important to the empire strategically but in itself was a liability. From the Roman perspective the country was poor and filled with irrational fanatics that seemed to have nothing better to do than make the Roman's life miserable.
When the Jews bring Jesus before Pilate he tries to show a kind of calm, judicial interest, while frantically trying to discern just how the Jews are trying to screw him this time. Pilate simply had no frame of reference for a Messiah. The Jews probably appeared to him much as the Shiites do to us.
Remember Pilate was directly accountable to his superiors in Rome and he couldn't have been very popular with them, seeing that they sent him to Judea. I think Pilate would have agreed with Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan, when he said, "We're not here to do the right thing."
14
posted on
03/08/2004 12:47:57 AM PST
by
claudiustg
(Go Sharon! Go Bush!)
To: ambrose
15
posted on
03/08/2004 12:49:09 AM PST
by
milemark
(Privilege has its membership.)
To: ambrose
Cathy argued in favor of the homosexual marriage thing, and I disagree with many of her arguments on social issues. At the same time, I'm strictly monotheistic, Protestant, and won't be seeing the film. Seeing the beginnings of such an ecumenical, charismatic and possibly worldwide religious political movement is interesting, though.
16
posted on
03/08/2004 12:51:27 AM PST
by
familyop
(Essayons)
To: GeronL
Someone who doesn't even understand basic christianity I think that's practically a prerequisite for writing for the Boston Globe.
17
posted on
03/08/2004 12:56:19 AM PST
by
maryz
To: familyop
18
posted on
03/08/2004 12:59:14 AM PST
by
claudiustg
(Go Sharon! Go Bush!)
To: milemark
If we enter the following keywords (just as they appear, quotes and all) in a google.com search, we see that the propaganda part of the war regarding Emmerich has already begun.
"Anne Catherine Emmerich" anti-semitic
This is going to get interesting, alright. ...think I'll take a comfortable, reinforced, shielded spot under a peak somewhere to watch the Spectacle. ...or prepare to be drafted out of retirement, even? ...and start praying.
19
posted on
03/08/2004 1:01:59 AM PST
by
familyop
(Essayons)
To: ambrose
Concerns about reactions abroad, particularly given the recent upswing of anti-Semitism in Europe and the anti-Semitic hysteria cultivated by many governments in the Arab world, are eminently justified.HUH? Europe has ALWAYS been largely anti-Semitic, and the Arabs, well, let's just say that this movie won't do anything to make them any MORE what they are already.
20
posted on
03/08/2004 1:03:56 AM PST
by
SuziQ
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson