Realism or brutality – has

NY Daily News ^ | February 18, 2004 | TAMER EL-GHOBASHY and CORKY SIEMASZKO

[presidio9]

Mel Gibson's controversial new movie "The Passion of the Christ" was igniting plenty of passion yesterday - even though opening night was still a week away. First Lady Laura Bush said she was looking forward to watching the R-rated film about the Crucifixion of Christ.

"I think it sounds very interesting, and I'd like to see it," the First Lady told reporters while visiting a high school in Bentonville, Ark.

But lots of others weren't so sure.

Gibson's story of the torture of Christ isn't just brutal, it's an exercise in cinematic sadism that opens on Ash Wednesday (Feb. 25) at 18 theaters across the city and 2,000 more throughout the country.

And that left many New Yorkers interviewed by the Daily News wondering whether the one-time "Lethal Weapon" star took the violence too far in his portrayal of "The Passion of the Christ."

They joined a chorus of other critics who fear the movie unfairly scapegoats Jews and who accuse Gibson of straying from the Gospels.

For many parents - even churchgoing parents who don't quibble with Gibson's interpretation of the Gospels - the violence might be too much for their kids.

"I don't think my children would get it," said Debbie Sparber, 45, of Manhattan, a Christian whose kids are 12 and 9. "They'd misunderstand what they're seeing."

Richard D'Alessandro, 45, a Manhattan-based actor who has appeared on violent shows like "The Sopranos," said there's no way he'll take his 9-year-old, Giancarlo, to the film.

"Violence is violence, no matter what the subject matter," said D'Alessandro, who is a Catholic. "For whatever religious value this film may have, the violence makes it out of the question."

Despite the blood and gore, many religious groups such as the New York-based Catholic League have already prepurchased thousands of tickets - virtually assuring Gibson will recoup the $25 million he sank into making the movie.

That Gibson's "Passion" is expected to do boffo at the box office is all the more remarkable because six months ago he was struggling to find a distributor.

True believers like Jurema Farr, 41, of Sparta, N.J., said Gibson's recounting of Christ's last 12 hours alive is something her three kids need to see - even if it sickens them.

"They need to know and learn about what happened to Jesus Christ," said Farr, her 8-year-old, Ulysees, and 6-year-old, Orion, in tow. "You have to show your kids the truth, even if it's violent."

Dr. Alan Hilfer, a child psychologist at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, disagreed. He said kids that age aren't ready for that kind of graphic violence.

"I have seen some of the clips, and it was pretty gruesome," he said. "This is not cartoon violence."

But Manhattan psychiatrist Wayne Myers said "kids from religious families are already programmed to believe in this, and their parents will explain this as this is our Lord suffering."

In an interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer, Gibson admitted he pumped up the violence because he wanted to push the viewer "over the edge." He said he wanted viewers to feel "the enormity of Christ's sacrifice."

Gibson also denied the movie is anti-Semitic, but has resisted requests by Jewish groups to add a postscript to the movie reminding viewers that it was the Romans, not the Jews, who ultimately crucified Christ.

Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League asked Pope John Paul yesterday to tell his flock that Gibson's controversial movie is not the gospel truth.

"It's Mel Gibson's version of the Gospel, it's Mel's gospel," he said.

Joseph Starrs of American Life League's Crusade for the Defense of our Catholic Church, said Gibson is true to the New Testament.

"This film is many things, but it is not anti-Semitic," he said. "If this film were, then the Gospel itself must be, because it is on this indisputable truth of the Gospels that the movie is based."

[af_vet_1981]

Your example would apply if I ...

Oh, you mean you don't really believe you are commanded to go to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to preach the Gospel. I see.

Last I looked Islam was the official religion.

What chapter and verse was that ? I must have missed it.

[twntaipan]

Which part? I challenged her to put up or shut up. Seems she shut up. You challenged me to put up or shut up and I put up.

[BroncosFan]

You've made my point for me. The history of both Rome and Christendom extend beyond Biblical times, correct? Therefore, you cannot provide Biblical citations for such seminal events as Constantine's conversion to Christianity. If things had broken slightly differently and another cult been granted the Emperor's official imprimatur, Mithraism could've dominated the early modern world while Christianity withered to insignificance.

[af_vet_1981]

Which part? I challenged her to put up or shut up. Seems she shut up.

She could just feel your love ...

[af_vet_1981]

You've made my point for me. The history of both Rome and Christendom extend beyond Biblical times, correct? Therefore, you cannot provide Biblical citations for such seminal events as Constantine's conversion to Christianity. If things had broken slightly differently and another cult been granted the Emperor's official imprimatur, Mithraism could've dominated the early modern world while Christianity withered to insignificance.

No, your premise is the Roman Empire was a requirement for the success of Christians. That is a secular view that is incongruent with the Bible. The Biblical view is Yeshua's word and the power of the Holy Spirit would enable genuine disciples against any and all odds. You can choose the secular view. Many historians do.

[BroncosFan]

If the early Christians blithely ignored historical forces, their movement never would've gotten off the ground. They tailored their presentation according to whether their audience was Jewish or Gentile. Furthermore, even if you work from a purely non-secular point of view, you can see the Roman Empire as the tool through which God chose to Christianize Europe (and Europe the tool He used to spread His Word to the world).

[rollo tomasi]

"Last I looked Islam was the official religion."

Of Saudi.

Also remember something about Jesus telling the Apostles if people reject Christ's message dust off your feet and He will deal with them later. I think the Saudi people have basically heard the Christian message (Heck, I met a lot of Saudis at school who go back to their home country) before and most CHOSE to reject it.

Missionary work is done in places that have not heard of the Gospel before, and if they accept His message the mission grows. If they reject it...

Anyway, what does this have to do with the corruption of the Sad. and Phar. and why they wanted Christ dead.

[af_vet_1981]

If the early Christians blithely ignored historical forces, their movement never would've gotten off the ground.

As I wrote, that is the secular view. Historians view it as a world religion in much the same way as they view Islam.

[af_vet_1981]

Oh, I was sure you were braver than and better than those Pharisees and Sadducees. Alas for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan ...

Maybe Afghanistan ?

[twntaipan]

She could just feel your love ...

Which means what? Does loving someone require you to let them perpetuate inuendo? Does loving someone mean you allow them to purposefully malign the truth? What's your point?

[rollo tomasi]

"I was sure you were braver than and better than those I was sure you were braver than and better than those Pharisees and Sadducees"

Yes, I would sell out my religion and pervert God's Temple for cash and political favors. You must think thats noble.

"Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees." (Matthew 16:6)

As for your straw man argument it would be better to start the Gospel in hostile places by using soft targets. Such as hospitals (Which I have vol) schools ect.. God did give us a brain and intellect to use, unlike the Pharisees and Sadducees who used their intellect to serve Satan.

[Texas2step]

Which means what? Does loving someone require you to let them perpetuate inuendo? Does loving someone mean you allow them to purposefully malign the truth? What's your point?

He doesn't have a point. His whole intent is to inflame Christians so he can say, like one of today's liberal pop songs, where is the love?, snidely, before going on to inflame someone else. I call it trolling and baiting, and he's good at it.

[Texas2step]

God did give us a brain and intellect to use, unlike the Pharisees and Sadducees who used their intellect to serve Satan.

Mission accomplished for af

Who'll rise to his bait next?

[Homer_J_Simpson]

The only thing to be aware of is the age of those in the class.

They are ninth and tenth graders. And they need something to grab them and get their attention. I'm not exactly causing an increase in vocations, if you get my drift. Maybe Mel can help me out.

[twntaipan]

Heck, those age kids have probably seen plenty of graphic violence--let them see some that is redemptive for once.

[af_vet_1981]

Yes, I would sell out my religion and pervert God's Temple for cash and political favors. You must think thats noble.

No, you wouldn't do that. That is why you are selling all you have and going to those difficult places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. You are better than those Pharisees and Sadducees.

As for your straw man argument it would be better to start the Gospel in hostile places by using soft targets. Such as hospitals (Which I have vol) schools ect..

Hmm, I don't remember Saul keeping a low profile in a hospital. He did suffer quite a bit though, at the hands of Jews and Gentiles. He was one of those Pharisees though ...

[af_vet_1981]

Which means what? Does loving someone require you to let them perpetuate inuendo? Does loving someone mean you allow them to purposefully malign the truth? What's your point?

She was stating her opinion. You don't love her. You just want to rumble, which is your right I suppose.

[twntaipan]

She did more than state an opinion, she made an assertion of fact ( it's not historically accurate,), which she makes no effort to back up. Opinions are a dime a dozen. But just because you have a right to one does not make it of necessity valid or accurate.

[Modernman]

No, your premise is the Roman Empire was a requirement for the success of Christians.

Not the Roman Empire, per se, but a political entity that was relatively tolerant of non-official sects/cults. Whatever else you want to accuse the Romans of, you have to admit that they were pretty tolerant of a variety of religions within the Empire. Certainly much more tolerant than when Christianity became the official religion of the Empire.

To say that Christianity would have survived if it first arose in non-Roman Germania or within the Persian Empire is to ignore reality. Only under tolerant Pax Romana could Jesus' followers expect anything other than a noose.

[Modernman]

Historians view it as a world religion in much the same way as they view Islam.

How is it not? At the end of the day, every religion (including ones no longer with us, such as Mithraism) claims to know the Truth. At base, the validity of a religion can only be judged by the number of adherents of that religion.