Posted on 02/04/2004 11:13:29 AM PST by Antoninus
The woman who plays Mary in Mel Gibson’s passion-stirring Biblical epic The Passion of the Christ, says her parents were Holocaust survivors but she does not consider the film anti-Semitic.
If there is a message, it’s more about how people can be manipulated by their leaders, Maia Morgenstern said.
“Mel Gibson is an artist, a director. He never imposed his religious convictions on anyone,” said Morgenstern, rejecting criticism that the film will fuel anti-semitism.
The film is to be released on Ash Wednesday, February 25.
Gibson who directed funded and co-scripted the film, has denied that his movie maligns Jews. However, it has drawn complaints from those who say it suggests Jews were responsible for Christ’s death.
“When people go and see the film, they will (primarily) see a work of art,” she said.
Muslims, atheists, Christians and Jews worked on the film but race and religion was never an issue, said Morgenstern, 42.
Any political message the film offers is “about the responsibility and impact political and military leaders can have in manipulating the masses,” said Morgenstern.
Morgenstern, known both for her outstanding work in the theatre and the movies, is Romania’s most renowned actress, but her popularity has been generally restricted to Europe.
She has starred in about 30 movies, the most famous of which are The Oak Tree, a Romanian-French Production, as well as Ulysses Gaze, a Greek film and The Seventh Room, a Polish-Hungarian production.
Morgenstern, whose grandfather died in the Auschwitz death camp, denied there is anti-semitism in Romania despite occasional “manifestations.” More worrying is anti-gypsy sentiment, she said.
Morgenstern speaks Romanian, French, English, Russian and Yiddish, which she learned to work at the Romanian State Theatre, one of the oldest Jewish theatres in the world, where plays are staged in Yiddish and Romanian.
She spoke glowingly of Gibson, praising both his professional abilities and his kindness he showed to her when her daughter took sick in Romania – first sending her home to spend time with the child and then allowing the three-year-old to join her on the set.
But the American actor-director is clearly not yet a household name in Romania. Morgenstern’s mother visited her on location, excitedly telling friends that her daughter was filming with Gib Melson.
I've never understood how anyone who professes to be a Christian could at the same time be an antisemite, and I have the very strong impression that Mr. Gibson isn't one either. Yes, I know it used to be common and continues to exist (especially in parts of Europe) but it still doesn't make any sense. The Saviour was (is) a rabbi of royal Jewish blood.
I don't understand this "complaint". What's wrong with a movie suggesting that some Jews were (partially) responsible for Christ's death? Can someone explain this to me? As I recall this is part of the story: some of the people responsible for Christ's death were Jews. (The members of the Sanhedrin who turned him over to Pilate.) Others, of course - and certainly to a greater extent, since they're the ones who actually executed him - were Romans. Ok, so what?
As an analogy, Godfather II suggests that a Jew (named Hyman Roth) was responsible for an attempt on the life of Michael Corleone. Casino by Martin Scorsese suggests that a Jew who ran a casino was tied up with the Mob and with killers. Um, so what?
Are movies not allowed to have Jewish characters do bad things? Obviously I'm missing something.
You must have missed the memo...the only group that is now allowed by the PC police to be the "bad guys" are white males (particularly Christian, republican, businessmen).
LOL.
But what's weird is that it's more than a bit simplistic to call the members of the Sanhedrin who turned Jesus over to the Romans, or the crowd who preferred Barabbas (I'm not sure if Gibson includes this scene as such, but based on the scandal here I'm guessing he does), the "bad guys".
Even ignoring the (obvious) fact that they were all acting out God's plan (thus what is everyone complaining about?), it seems to me that all of these people had understandable, quite human and even rationally defensible motives for doing what they did. (To the Sanhedrin, Jesus was preaching blasphemy, he was claiming in a backhanded way to be the Son of God for crying out loud! To the crowd, Barabbas was a bold resistance-hero (at least this is how the Zefferelli version presents it ;-), while Jesus wasn't lifting a darn finger against the Romans. He even sat down and ate with the damn occupiers!) I dare say that most of us, had we been in the position of those Jews back then who share some of the "blame" for the execution of Jesus, would have acted exactly the same way as they did.
The point here is that saying that the Sanhedrin was responsible for getting Jesus killed, and that those Jews in that crowd who didn't call for his release also share some of the "blame", is not to say that they were "villains" for acting that way. (Let alone that "The Jews" are to blame, for crying out loud.) They were just human and fallible. They represent us, not "the Jews", but humanity. We are supposed to identify with them and in their failings, recognize our own.
At least that's how I've always interpreted these stories. Am I "wrong"? Says who? Mr. Foxman?
My understanding is that the biggest bone of contention was ..."And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!" Matthew 27:25. This passage was used to justify persecution of Jews in the middle ages. I agree with the interpretation you've stated. Jesus was on the cross for all of our sins, and what held Him there was His love for us.
At least that's how I've always interpreted these stories. Am I "wrong"? Says who? Mr. Foxman?
Mr. Foxman is by his own admission a liar (to gain entrance to the movie), and he simply does not understand Christianity. I hold him no ill will. He's just being a rabble rouser, but he is providing this movie more advertisement then they could ever have afforded to purchase.
No need for namecalling, but you might be heading in the right direction with Mr. Foxman (I don't know, is he a rabbi?).
He does head the ADL, and just as controversy is good publicity for the actual film, it might be good publicity (i.e. donations) for the ADL. Groups like the ADL exist precisely because there is "controversy" surrounding their agendae (part of which may be good, and part of which may not be).
I don't doubt it, and certainly I understand the sensitivity on this issue. But the fact that the passage was used in this way doesn't mean that that "usage" of the passage in question was correct. Even the Catholic Church has since formally denounced such an interpretation (albeit only recently ;). (Yes, I do understand that Gibson belongs to a schismatic sect which renounces "Vatican 2", but this doesn't make the charges against his movie any more accurate.)
I don't know whether Mel Gibson reproduces this line in the film as such - it's hard to imagine how in the world one could work "all the people" spontaneously saying this sentence, into a movie, without causing the audience to giggle - but in any event, if he does, people who interpret the line to mean something blameworthy vis-a-vis modern-day Jews or "The Jews" are simply wrong, and it seems to me that Mr. Foxman's beef is with them, not with a moviemaker who chooses to make a film accurately portraying events as described in the book of Matthew, including those of its 27th chapter and 25th verse. (If that's indeed what Gibson has done.)
I hold him no ill will. He's just being a rabble rouser, but he is providing this movie more advertisement then they could ever have afforded to purchase.
That's a good point. To be clear, I don't have a big problem with Foxman per se, but I am tired of hearing people claim that Mel Gibson's movie "blames The Jews for Jesus's death".
This is an irritating charge which gives me a headache, because thinking about movies rationally, I don't even really think it's possible for a movie (at least, movies that are narratives rather than "documentaries") to do that. People can "blame" "The Jews" for Jesus's death, to be sure, perhaps prompted by an interpretation of a movie they've just seen, but I really don't see how a narrative film itself can even *possibly* "blame The Jews" for something. Narrative films portray events participated in by various individuals; it is not really within their capability to "blame The Jews" or any other nation/religion/culture for something, at least IMHO.
Unless there's a point in the film where Gibson himself steps onto the screen and intones "The Jews are to blame for all this", or perhaps there's a Jewish character who wears a sandwich-board placard labeled "I Represent All Jews!" throughout the film (and then does something to help cause Jesus's death), the charge just sounds completely nonsensical to me.
I haven't seen the movie, so I can only go by what I've read. This verse was in the movie, although I believe it was put into the mouth of Caiaphas, the high priest. There are also reports that he's removed it from the film.
That's a good point. To be clear, I don't have a big problem with Foxman per se, but I am tired of hearing people claim that Mel Gibson's movie "blames The Jews for Jesus's death".
I fully agree with you, I'm tired of hearing what I believe is not the truth. I do think that Foxman actually believes what he's complaining about...he's simply wrong.
Unless there's a point in the film where Gibson himself steps onto the screen and intones "The Jews are to blame for all this", or perhaps there's a Jewish character who wears a sandwich-board placard labeled "I Represent All Jews!" throughout the film (and then does something to help cause Jesus's death), the charge just sounds completely nonsensical to me.
Not to be a contrarian, but that verse does say on us and on our children...which is in a fashion suggesting they represent Jews not only present by to come. This issue Biblically, is that they were so intent on having Jesus crucified that they'd make such a statement. This in no way provides a causus belli.
Most Jews, even ones on FReep, have an animus against Christians. And Jews have a heavy influence in what Hollywood produces. Tell you what: if influential Jews in Hollywood will make changes in our direction, we will be a lot more considerate in yours. If not, do what you have told us about pornography for the past 40+ years: "if you don't like it, don't look at it."
Foxman and the ADL have never been about protecting the image of Jews and Judaism. They are Fabian Socialists interested in marginalizing American Jews in the same manner that the NAACP has marginalized American Negroes. The two organizations have worked closely together for Fabian Socialist ends, throughout their histories, along with the third pillar of the attack, the notorious ACLU, which pretends to be protecting Civil Liberties, while taking every opportunity to undermine the civil liberties of the American mainstream. (See Leftwing Word Games & American Religious Freedom.)
Foxman's antics with respect to Mel Gibson are intended to inflame; intended to create animosity, among those who have not previously taken similar bait. No, I cannot look into his head. But if it quacks like an agent provacateur for many years; if it is paid a lot of money to be an expert on improving inter-group relations, but always adopts stances that inflame them; one must draw obvious conclusions: Either Foxman is the ultimate dysron, or he knows precisely what he is doing; and is only to happy to undermine the position of those he claims to be supporting and protecting.
In short, he is a totally contemptible, merchant of deceit, who should be scorned by all men and women of decency, whatever their persuasion.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Christians should not be made to rewrite our history; as we do not demand that any other groups rewrite their history when it comes to religious beliefs. For example, did Christian Germans or any Jew-loving Germans demand that the movie Schindler's List be recast because the movie as told and believed might invite hatred towards Germans as a whole? Movies depicting the abhorrent slave trade might make Black folks detest Whites. That is life, unfortunately. Cowboy and Indian movies probably rub Native Indians the wrong way, I would imagine.
That said, all hate crimes and any antisemitism and racism should never, ever be tolerated.
In this particular case, Christians that really love Christ also really love Jews. I know that is how I feel.
William Flax
More specifically, that verse has (probably) a few hundred individuals, two thousands years ago, saying "on us and our children".
Even if those people in that crowd "really said" that, they can be wrong, or speaking figuratively, or the line can have some more nuanced interpretation, right? The fact that some number of characters say something in a film does not mean one has to "believe" them.
This isn't coming out very well so I'll try to give an analogy. Say I write a story in which some character who is, oh, Puerto Rican, finds himself trapped in, oh, the 1989 San Francisco earthquake. I have the character say (because he's crazy or distraught or whatever): "Puerto Ricans are responsible for this earthquake! And all Puerto Ricans' descendants from now until eternity shall be blamed and punished for this earthquake!" Then that story is made into a film. Question: does this film "blame The Puerto Ricans" for the 1989 San Francisco earthquake? Or does this film, at most, contain a character who blames The Puerto Ricans for it? Isn't there a difference? So I know how to make a film which contains characters that "blame the Puerto Ricans" for something, but I still can't figure out how one would make a film which, itself, "blames the Puerto Ricans" (or, The Jews) for something.
To me, the Bible - and so, apparently, Gibson's film - contains characters who cry out words which can be interpreted as saying that the blame for Jesus' death shall be "on them and their children". But even if I really believe that those characters represent people who actually existed, and that those people actually said that, that doesn't mean I have to actually blame their children for anything! I can interpret the line in various other ways. (And, it is now official Catholic Church doctrine to do so.)
So obviously the question becomes how is that line interpreted by the people who see it; how do they "use" it, and what do they do from there. But we've already established that the official Catholic Church line (let alone most Protestant denominations) is that this line is not to be used to "blame The Jews" for anything. So, people who do, are wrong, and that's who should be the focus of controversy. Is this making sense or am I just babbling? :)
This issue Biblically, is that they were so intent on having Jesus crucified that they'd make such a statement. This in no way provides a causus belli.
Interesting. Well, one thing I'd say is that even if the story is meant to imply that those people in that crowd were "so intent on having Jesus crucified", that still doesn't "blame The Jews" for anything. It "blames" those people in that crowd (who were, presumably, mostly Jews or the closest historical analogue anyway - but that doesn't make them "The Jews"! :).
That being said, my understanding is that a line like this is thought, by most, to have been a later interpolation designed to mollify the Roman conscience. (I certainly mean no disrespect by saying this to anyone who interprets the Bible literally; I'm just saying this is what I've always thought/heard. Nor do I think that such interpolations, if there are any, lessen the importance/meaning/power of the books of the Bible. (To believers I'd say: Those interpolations, if that's what they are, helped the book - and faith - *survive* and be passed down to us.)) On the other hand, this doesn't mean I think there's anything wrong with making a film version of the book of Matthew (or whatever) as-is, interpolations and all.
Because, like I've been trying to say, it's the interpretation of these events and words which counts. And most everyone now agrees that any interpretation of these words which "blames The Jews" is wrongheaded and ought to be fought against. On that issue I would be standing right beside Mr. Foxman.
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.