Posted on 02/10/2005 7:02:09 AM PST by malakhi
This week's nominations for the film industry's Oscars for the best movies of the year 2004 provided a sigh of relief to some, as it stoked the conspiracy theories harbored by others.
Nearly a year after Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" launched 1,000 commentaries, the 77th Academy Awards ceremony closes the parenthesis on this remarkable cultural phenomenon.
As much as critics blasted it -- while others condemned it for incitement of anti-Semitism -- "The Passion" turned into the surprise blockbuster of the year. As such, its popularity was widely considered a slap in the face to the liberal media/culture establishment.
So while some feared that an Oscar for Gibson or the film would revive the controversy, the unsurprising refusal of the same Hollywood elite that despised the film to honor it will cause the argument to be revisited anyway.
Let us waste no more ink debating the merits of this thoroughly bad film. But I am still interested in the way this story pushes buttons and illustrates the way some Jews look at the world.
Case in point is the way two people have hung on to the controversy and done their best to keep it alive.
They are the Anti-Defamation League's national director, Abe Foxman, and Rabbi Daniel Lapin, a Seattle-based talk-radio host and the head of a small conservative group called Toward Tradition.
Foxman led the charge against the film and its seeming reaffirmation of the myth that placed the responsibility for the death of the Christian messiah on the Jews. He also took the lion's share of blame from those who believed that Gibson used critics to hype a small film into a mega-hit.
Foxman's still smarting from that charge.
He responded in a recent Jerusalem Post opinion piece that restated his reasons for protest and his fears that those who see it in the future will be exposed to "the film's vile notions of Jews."
Blame it on Barbra
On the other end of the spectrum is Lapin, a marginal figure among Jews but someone who enjoys some notoriety among evangelicals who flocked to see the movie. At the time that most other Jews were following Foxman's lead, Lapin was part of Gibson's cheering section.
But rather than merely gloat about Foxman's discomfort, Lapin is attempting to use the "Passion" anniversary to refloat one of his own ideas. He doesn't think the real cause for anti-Semitism lies in the age-old canards that Foxman and others have sought to debunk. For the South African-born rabbi, the cause of hatred for the Jews can be found in the behavior of actors Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand.
What has this famous Jewish duo done?
The answer is that they made a movie that the right-wing rabbi considered far worse than Gibson's.
For Lapin, the Streisand-Hoffman appearance in the regrettable "Meet the Fockers" wasn't merely an exercise in bad taste. For him, it was a defamation of American Jewry.
In the film -- the sequel to the extremely popular "Meet the Parents" -- Streisand and Hoffman portray the oversexed and eccentric Jewish parents of a character played by actor Ben Stiller, a dorky Jewish male nurse who's marrying a gentile goddess. The conceit of the piece lies in a visit by the girl's uptight parents to Miami, home of their Jewish hippy in-laws. Comic complications ensue, some of which deal with the stereotyped connections of the Jewish couple to Judaism.
But rather than dismiss this as cinematic nonsense, Lapin, in a piece widely distributed by his organization, considers it a prime example of how Jews are destroying American morals.
"You'd have to be a recent immigrant from Outer Mongolia not to know of the role that people with Jewish names play in the coarsening of our culture," fulminates Lapin. "Almost every American knows this. It is just that most gentiles are too polite to mention it."
Was Hitler right?
Acknowledging that any ordinary reader would be shocked at such a statement, Lapin remains undaunted, and goes even further with a quote from Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. Lapin observes that "that evil megalomaniac roused his nation" not through use of the deicide myth, but by noting the Jewish influence in German cultural life.
"It does not excuse Hitler or his Nazi thugs for us to acknowledge that this maniacal, master propagandist focused on a reality that resonated with the educated, and cultured Germans of his day," writes Lapin.
In other words, according to Lapin, avant-garde Jewish artists "linked Jews and deviant sexuality" in the German imagination, and so set the stage for the Shoah. He sees American Jews as similarly responsible for our country's "cultural decline" -- something that "angers more Americans than the crucifixion."
Lapin is right that some Jews on the left have been all too quick to wrongly stigmatize Christian conservatives as anti-Semites when, in fact, many are ardent supporters of Israel.
He's also right when he condemns the decline of public morality. But who but an anti-Semite or a Jew who hates liberals more than he despises Jew-haters would place the blame for this solely on the Jews?
Blaming liberals for anti-Semitism is as vile as blaming it on Jewish actors.
When Lapin claims that actors who spoof Jewish secularism are practicing anti-Semitism while at the same time rationalizing those who would single out "the Jews" as the destroyers of American decency, the rabbi has crossed the boundary from irresponsible commentary to fomenting hatred of his own people.
Out of all the loopy things that have been said and written about Gibson's film, Lapin's article qualifies as the low point of the discussion. In his zeal to condemn his foes, the talking rabbi has proven that self-hatred isn't a virus that can be solely linked to the Jewish left.
Say what you will about Foxman's dogged attempt to justify his role as Gibson's unwitting foil in last year's cultural follies. But Daniel Lapin represents an example of how "The Passion" helped motivate a cultural conservative to turn on his own people. Viewed in that context, it turns out to be a far scarier movie than anyone may have dreamed.
I stand by the line you quoted but not your interpretation of it. If Jews allow themselves to be held up to ridicule, as so different from the rest of the culture as to be deviant, and even to cooperate in the caricature, then in some way this will be accepted by those who are susceptible to this sort of influence, i.e. moviegoers.
This is part of what Lapin was trying to get across and what Tobin was obscuring with his ad hominem attack.
Some Brit probably already has, pal.
I don't care enough to be "miffed" for five or six years. But then, I can distinguish historical fiction from documentary.
I don't care enough to be "miffed" for five or six years. But then, I can distinguish historical fiction from documentary.
...........................................................
I have every right to complain when a director innacurately portrays my country. I am sure most people on here are the same. A film does not have to be a documentary to bring about criticism. A good example would be Nazi propaganda films form the 30's ad 40's. They were made along time ago and but if someone started praising the directar ala Leni Reifenstal then I would make sure they knew that directors history.
I do not see why I would be less concerned about a film because it was made 6 or 60 years ago. I will not forget a film is innacurrate just because the film was made last year.
Okay, let's see - historical fiction includes some things that are not historically accurate. Certain characters in "The Patriot" were composites of real people, some are just characters based loosely on real people, with slight name changes. Some characters were probably created out of thin air.
I can honestly tell you that I didn't imagine for a moment that every single thing I saw in "The Patriot" actually happened, but what is it, exactly, that bothered you so much?
There was a war. War is ugly. The people that really won, won. The people that really lost, lost. Are you mad because one particular Brit was made to look mean, or what?
Your statement illustrates one of the most fascinating and galling phenomena among ethnocultures: the erasure of the English as a distinct nation and their replacement by the abstract "British" monicker.
Granted, the villains in The Patriot were British, but in Braveheart everyone involved was British. The villains of that film were the English, not the British (which includes the Highland Scots).
While the Irish, Scots, and Welsh are enjoying an upsurge of nationalism, the English are being absorbed more and more into the "British" nationality. This is a pity, as England is a most distinctive nation and gave us our language (which is after all called "English" and not "British").
I urge all English people to hold fast to their ethnic identity, which is just as valid (and in terms of historic contributions much more important) than those of the Irish, Welsh, and Scots.
May I suggest an English legislature of some kind to correspond to similar bodies in Cardiff, Belfast, and Edinburgh? Or perhaps even an independent England (independent not only of Europe but of the UK as well)?
Forgive my selfishness. As an "English-American" I am singled out among all the peoples of the world as the only one without an ethnic identity or historic homeland.
Old threads, but you can still comment on them. Hollywood loved her!
Nazi Propagandist and Hitler Sympathizer Leni Riefenstahl honored at the Oscars
Mel left Rick Rescolara, a transplanted Brit on the cover of the book, out of "We Were Soldiers". Maybe we can read something into that.
PLease refer to post 44.
I said this:
The only surprise in Britain was that Gibson did not blame us for killing Jesus. He seemingly blames us and distorts history in all his other films.
............................................................
You then took up an arguement in which I was criticised for being offended by a non-documentary film. Just because a film is fiction when it is based ona historical situation it will be held to account. If it stereotypes or purposely makes one side look worse because of the Director's personal leanings then it will be criticised.
Am I mad because one Brit looked bad?
No.
I am upset because Gibson constantly distorts the British in his films. Jut because you liked the Passion does not mean that all Gibson's other fimls are so good.
Why doesn't Cynicom go far, far away to some forum where he won't have to worry about support for Jews and Israel? Why does he hang around here and horn in on every pro-Jewish thread to pitch his little temper tantrum about it?
The miserable little naval got me suspended one time. Only time it's ever happened, too.
I think he should go to "Liberty Forum" and flirt with Tex-oma.
Granted, the villains in The Patriot were British, but in Braveheart everyone involved was British. The villains of that film were the English, not the British (which includes the Highland Scots).
While the Irish, Scots, and Welsh are enjoying an upsurge of nationalism, the English are being absorbed more and more into the "British" nationality. This is a pity, as England is a most distinctive nation and gave us our language (which is after all called "English" and not "British").
...........................................................
Granted. But Britishness was forced on the Celts. In most cases Britishness is essentially Englishness. While I agree that I am English I would love anyone to try calling someone in Scotland, Wales of N. Ireland British.
Thanks. Is it ok to comment on old threads? I normally only comment on current ones.
While I respect the film the Passion. I do not like Gibson or his Brit-bashing films.
Hmmmm....
[twists imaginary moustache]
Sure, as long as it accepts posts, and I think everything back about 3 years will. Once or twice a week I get a ping on a year or two old thread. Sometimes you'll get some responses, most of the time you won't.
I loved The Patriot. It made me want to hack a Redcoat up with a tomahawk.
Ya know, Braveheart and The Patriot are not documentaries or anything - they are entertainment...
I'm really sorry that your fragile ego was crushed by some stupid movies loosely-based on historical events. It is a documented fact that atrocities occurred during the War for Independence (I had ancestors who fought on the side of the Brits) and no amount of whining, historical revisionism, or complaining will change that fact.
So, take a moment of reflection and realize that not every celebration of American or Scottish glory is a slight against the British, mmm kay? In other words - grow a pair.
First of all, "Britain" is an island named for its inhabitants the Britons. These Britons were Brythonic Celts, and their descendents are the Welsh, Cornish, Bretons, and to a certain extent the people of western England and southwestern Scotland. "England" did not exist until the Anglo-Saxon invasions that began in the fifth century. Therefore, England is a country on the island of Great Britain. In fact, it is perhaps the least British nation on that island. Why therefore should British Welsh, who were British before the English arrived, resent being called British? Why do you use "British" in a purely political sense to refer to advocates of Unionism (which includes Ulster Protestants and a substantial number of Protestant Lowland Anglo-Scots, btw)?
Why do you ackquiesce in the complete absorption of England into "Britain?" Of if "Britain" and "England" are the same thing, why don't we speak the British language? Why isn't it called "the English Empire?" Why not just erase the name England from the map and stamp "Britain" on it, removing that name from Scotland and Wales?
Forgive my horror at your cavalier attitude. Without a nation somewhere in the world called England and not Britain, I have no ethnicity, no roots, no nothing. I am merely a rootless bubble that somehow came to be here in North America.
It is the fact that "Britain" threatens to absorb England so completely that I advocate English (not British) nationalism, with at least some sort of political autonomy, and at most (though I know it will never happen unless the Scots and Welsh leave you flat) an independent sovereign England.
I may not be Irish, but I fail to see why I am not entitled to an ethnic identity and ancestral homeland as well.
I do nto know why you make this so personal. I do not like when people brit-bait on here. I have massive amounts of respect for America and Americans and I hate when people tarnish their great image.
I do not like some of Gibson's films because he targets and distorts Britain and England. Many Scots hate Gibson for his gross distortion in Braveheart.
Nowhere have I said that watching a Mel Gibson film would make people target British people. That is something you have thrown into this discussion. All I have said is that he has distorted history to serve his own personal agenda.
Look! Up there! What is it? It's a lantern in the Old North Church! What was it we were supposed to do? Oh yeah, "One if by Man, one if by woman!" Quick! Someone tell Paul Revere to ride! Ride like the wind, Paul, and tell everyone, "THE BRITISH ARE WHINING! THE BRITISH ARE WHINING"...
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.