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."

[bereanway]

Millions were killed by crucifixion going back to the Assyrians who apparently invented the barbaric act. The Romans further developed and perfected the process.

The overwhelming difference is, no one else in history willingly chose to die in this fashion in order to redeem others.

[Lazamataz]

How about now? Do you have an opinion now?

No comment.

[Skooz]

Thanks for posting that. A good read.

[TheGunny]

You have indeed heard wrong! I you have the time perhaps you (probably an atheist)should do some medical and historical research on what crucifixion was and the propensity and willingness of the Romans to visit violence and torture upon those they ruled over. The cost the Christ paid IS the heart of the matter and means (or should) everything to the true believer! Now, get your paper bag to breath into and please take your pills!

[FourtySeven]

As an aside, I find it interesting that there are some people who call themselves Christian who also have a problem with this movie. Why? Because of the excessive violence? No. Because it's R rated? No. Because it's "anti-Semetic" even in their eyes? No.

Because Mel Gibson is Catholic, and they "reject all products of the Catholic Church". They'd rather that NO film be made about the Passion, than one made by a Catholic. They condemn the film simply because it was made by a Catholic, even though there's nothing IN the film to suggest that the Catholic church is any "better" than any other.

I find such people disgusting. At least the critics who are Jewish have a concern that one could possibly argue is "valid". After all the Jews have been persecuted throughout the centuries. (I don't believe this film is anti-Semetic though).

The "Christian" critics though, have absolutely nothing but their rabid anti-Catholic bigotry. Pitiful, as well as disgusting.

[MissAmericanPie]

Sorry but homosexuals cast themselves in the role of, as David recorded in Psalm 22, "dogs" that encompassed Christ on the cross, mocking him.

It will be interesting to see if Gibson held to that much autentisity in his interpretation of scriptures.

[Skooz]

Yes, and how many rose again three days later?

[MrLee]

The liberal anti-Christian media did the same smear job on "Gods And Generals" too. Unfortunately they were successful. I hope they're not this time! Praying!

Lee

[presidio9]

Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

[ZULU]

I am a conservative and a Christian. I wish Gibson well with his film. I don't believe he is Anti-Semitic personally. Not having viewed his film in toto, I can't really speak about it.

Personally, I read the book and know the story. I also know from some of the outtakes Gibson, as he customarily does, takes artistic license with historicity.

If you have a strong stomach and wish to see it - fine. Do so. I have no desire to watch Christ being brutalized.

But this is DEFINTELY NOT a movie for young children. The horror of it will haunt them all their lives.

[presidio9]

movedtochat :(

[general_re]

No comment.

So then you don't deny having an opinion.

[Lazamataz]

Yes, and how many rose again three days later?

Not having stop-motion cameras at the time, we'll just never know.

[Skooz]

Moved to chat to die.

Also changed the title of the thread to :"Realism or brutality – has"

Chat: The Hospice of FR

[Lazamataz]

So then you don't deny having an opinion.

Look, I'm not on trial here.

[Agnes Heep]

You have indeed heard wrong! I you have the time perhaps you (probably an atheist)should do some medical and historical research on what crucifixion was and the propensity and willingness of the Romans to visit violence and torture upon those they ruled over. The cost the Christ paid IS the heart of the matter and means (or should) everything to the true believer! Now, get your paper bag to breath into and please take your pills!

First place, I'm not an atheist--I'm a non-sectarian whose opinion on God and things eternal is informed by the central tenets of Judaism. As such I share the moral beliefs of Christians, but not their belief in a trinity of deities, or blood sacrifice as remission for sin. I don't really have a dog in this fight, as the saying goes. And you can rest assured I'm well up on Roman methods of judicial punishment, including the various methodologies of crucifixion.

Beginning in the fourth century, when Christianity assumed politicial power in the Roman Empire, Christians tortured and murdered one another over the simple question of whether Christ had existed alongside the Almighty from the beginning of time, or whether he had arisen from the Almighty after the event. How unenlightened they seem to us in this day and age, now that we have a simpler test for Christianity--belief in a Hollywood production!

[the lone haranguer]

Amen to that! Why is it that everyone else knows better what REALLY happened than those of us who accept the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God?

Secondly, from how many quarters must this film be attacked before its enemies realize the futility? (I know this is a naive question; I'm being rhetorical.) First, Foxman states that Gibson has some serious anti-semitic leanings and need help. Then, he changes tack and says that Gibson is not anti-semitic, but that people will be moved to anti-semitic displays/actions by the film to which Gibson answered that he had seen "Schindler's List" and he didn't hate Germans. Now having been silenced on his previous two arguments, Foxman now wants the Pope to tell his church that the movie is not the Gospel truth. Gibson has freely and openly admitted that it is his interpretation, but at the same time states that he has stayed true to the Gospels. Since when do statements of the obvious become grounds for attack? As for the violent aspect, life was violent then, moreso than it is now. Life was cheap and punishment extreme. You can't soft peddle the truth. I often read about individuals, who being punished for some crime received Moses' law (40 stripes less one). I have been struck with a bullwhip accidentally as a kid, and I cannot imagine being struck 39 times across my back and behind with a cat of nine tails. I truly believe I would die from it. Finally, kids should not see this movie until they are of a maturity level to handle it. They must be able to understand the relationships and history. I would be hesitant to take a child younger than 13 to this movie, but I will most certainly be there.

[stuartcr]

The media cannot let anything go, especially if it's potentially profitable...they will make it controversial if it isn't already.

[Lazamataz]

Chat: The Hospice of FR

I don't get why they didjya like that.

It was a sourced article about a current event.

I have an opinion about this sentence of death-by-chat.

[Skooz]

If anyone were as intelligent, erudite and learned as you presume to be, their head would explode.