Posted on 07/18/2003 11:12:44 AM PDT by ex-Texan
It wasn't simply the fact that they hadn't seen the movie:
Strangely, the criticism comes mostly from critics who have not even seen the movie but were basing their attacks on an old draft version of the script.
Its fair to infer from the context that the people whom he is criticizing hadn't seen even the trailer, "but were basing their attacks on an old draft version of the script." In contrast, this reviewer said he'd seen the trailer and that based on what he saw, it looked impressive.
He never said that the movie was a great movie. He was pointing out that some pundits seem to be condemning it based on nothing more than outdated information. Seems like a pretty fair criticism to me.
but if you keep spewing the bitter hatred
That's a rather strong statement to make with no basis.
For one, you can't just say "I think you spew hatred, but in the unlikely event I am wrong, sorry." In plain English, that's BS. Second, it's a problem easily solved. Look over this short thread. Show me the bitter hatred. I think you know what the result of your search will be.
Plainly, it was a quip on a slow work day.
For filmmakers to do justice to the biblical accounts of the passion, they must complement their artistic vision with sound scholarship, which includes knowledge of how the passion accounts have been used historically to disparage and attack Jews and Judaism.
What is this supposed to mean? That the film has to include a disclaimer?
Absent such scholarly and theological understanding, productions such as "The Passion" could likely falsify history and fuel the animus of those who hate Jews.
Pretty presumptuous, don't you think? It sounds like an a priori assumption that Mel is going to be either too dumb or too bigoted to present a film with any "scholarly or theological understanding," and is "likely" to "falsify history." Close to venomous, in fact.
Specific recommendations to remedy the numerous anti-Semitic elements in the script have been conveyed to Mr. Gibson's ICON Productions.
Which are....?
Mr. Gibson has said that his film is not anti-Semitic. We hope that is the case.
Yeah, me too. Only way to find out is to see the finished product and the reaction to it. This is 21st Century America, remember? Not 12th Century Europe.
ADL stands ready to advise ICON Productions constructively regarding The Passion to ensure that the final production is devoid of anti-Semitic slander.
"Advise" or censor? That's the question this article left in my mind....
Thoughtful Christians do not and never have used the crucifixion as an excuse to engage in Jew-bashing. But Jewish men and women were involved in every aspect of the arrest and crucufixion. This attempt to edit Jewish conspirators and actors out of the event--or even to suppress history itself--is beyond silly. Jesus Christ himself was a Jew, as was Joseph of Arimathea (who in an act of tender kindness asked for Jesus' body and placed it in his own tomb), and all the disciples.
It has been said, quite accurately, that at its birth Christianity was merely a Jewish heresy--but Jewish nonetheless to its very roots. The arrest and crucifixion of Jesus Christ is first and foremost a Jewish story with a strong supporting cast of pagan Romans.
Jewish critics of Christianity are safe in this country. They really ought to try to come to terms with the Jewishness of the Passion account instead of denying it, suppressing it, and attacking it.
Release date is Ash Wednesday, 2004.
Why?
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.