Gibson`s Passion: Box Office Hit

SeaMax News ^ | 2/21/2004 | Fr. Michael Reilly

[Hugenot]

The New York Post is reporting that Mel Gibson stands to make $25 million profit on his new film The Passion of the Christ.

Question: How does a movie written in Aramaic and Latin with subtitles about a religious topic become a blockbuster film? Answer: Abe Foxman.

Abe Foxman has spared no expense in assailing this simple recounting of Jesus' crucifixion. His assault has galvanized the support of Christian groups across the countries which are now determined to see this film succeed.

Meanwhile, has Mr. Foxman considered the consequences of his position? Does his strong opposition to the film risk alienating culturally conservative Jews from culturally conservative Christians?

Unfortunately, opposition to this film may create much more anti-Semitism than any film could ever cause.

[ultima ratio]

I don't think this will hit the video circuit at all soon. I am willing to bet Gibson keeps it under wraps and releases it periodically during Lent. I may be wrong. We'll see. My guess is it will be on the big screen for a very long time.

[ultima ratio]

My fear is that ministers and pastors will come on too strong too soon. People should be allowed to let the film germinate in their minds and hearts and not be subjected to pressure sales tactics too soon after viewing it.

[HitmanLV]

That would be very unusual but certainly possible. If thats' the case and it becomes an event every year, It's hard to imagine how much $ it will make. I hadn't considered that. Kudos!

[Aquinasfan]

our parish here in Wyoming has rented the theater for an afternoon showing on the 29th and then and after-movie discussion period.

That's great to hear. Our parish here in Massachusetts is doing... nothing. Surprise! But the good news is that the number of screens in this area for the opening keeps growing and growing. Things are looking good!

[mlmr]

Unfortunately, opposition to this film may create much more anti-Semitism than any film could ever cause.

True. It seems that antisemitism is the grease that oils the ADL coffers. It is important to the ADL for this movie to be anti semetic.

[FreedomSurge]

"Why is this group of liberal Jews so intolerant of Jesus and his followers?"

Christians tend to made the assumptions thate Juanism and Christianity are the same religions just different flavors. the Jews do not make this mistake and find the Christians attitudes to be condesending.

For the Jews Christianity is blasphemey.

"the Jews felt that, in Christianity, their core teachings had been perverted and abused. They read some of the New Testament's insidious attacks against them and wondered how a book claiming divine authorship can be so blatantly anti-Semitic. Although Christianity stemmed from Jewish origin, it took the concept of the Jewish God and associated it with a man; took the concept of sacrifice and associated it with a human sacrifice. Christianity took their cherished Torah and said that it had been superseded by a new testament. And finally, it took the concept of the chosen nation itself, claimed that the Jews had been abandoned by God, and called themselves the new Israel. Jews reacted in outrage." . Rabbi Boteach

[HoHoeHeaux]

That's wonderful. I am going to try to find a mennorah to put in my window.

[TopQuark]

I'd say it's pretty anti-Christian for Foxman to slander Gibson as an anti-Semite for making a movie true to the Gospels.

That is exactly my point. It is pretty anti-Gibson for Foxman to slander Gibson --- why do you say it is anti-Christian? Is it also anti-male? Anti-brunet Anti-people-over-thirty?

And, furhter, I am no friend or admirer of Foxman --- to me he is not a Jew but a leftist who forgot his Jewish roots --- but most Christians I hear offended by his words do not really understand what he says.

Nor do they understand why Jews are apprehensive and dismiss it as unfounded paranoia. This is true especially with respect to those truly Chirstian, good souls that cannot comprehend the full scale of evil. You have to be beaten in the street, with baseball bats, by a crowd leaving the Easter Mass where THE JEWS just killed the son of G-d. For centuries, Jewisn mothers would not let the children outside during Easter week.

I know that America is now different, although anyone who gre up in the 1950s still remembers much of that. I know that the best friends of Israel are Christian (they are much better friends, and for the right reason, than many Jews). But this is also very new, while the past is long.

More importantly, that is how things change to the worse: you expect it coming, and do nothing. Many Jews --- overestimating the dangers in my opinion --- try to prevent that mistake: a rise of anti-Semitism while they did nothing.

Hope this helps. And, although Foxman has GREAT many sins, neither he is anti-Christian in general, nor did he say anything anti-Christian about this whole affair.

[TopQuark]

Please read #48.

[Wallace T.]

It wouldn't surprise me if the incident was not contrived by leftists or other anti-Passion activists to "prove" that the movie has created anti-Semitism.

[TopQuark]

You may find this to be an interesting addition to #48: this too comes from the ADL:

Jews Urge Christians to Stand Up to Persecution--"Learn from our example," they urge

[Captainpaintball]

Back to earth.

OK...I said that it will be one of the most widely seen movies in history. I'm not exactly talking about ticket sales, specifically. I'm talking Box Office, DVDs, and more importantly, (in total numbers) viewings in churches and communities all over the world organized by missions and evangelical groups.

Those too young to see it now will see it 5, 10, 20, 50 years from now. From CCD classes in Laredo Texas, to mass viewings in Poland, all over Africa, and underground in China, The Passion of the Christ will be the most widely viewed movie in history.

[TopQuark]

Foxman's real opposition is to the Gospels.

That is what you think. And you are wrong.

Each story may be told differently and undestood differently. One can emphasize blood and destruction to whip up anger and entice people into action. One can emphasize love and compassion with an oppoisite effect.

Further, the question in this issue is around what constitutes "Jews," and what constitutes "Romans."

Talk about chutzpah. Can you imagine anything more incediary than a group of people from one religion telling another group of people from another religion what they must and must not believe?

I completele agree with you. The chutzpah of those Crusaders that wiped out whole Jewish villages on the Rhine; the chutzpah of all those Papal decrees; the chutzpah of thise Church Fathers prohibiting a Chrsitian to befriend a Jew; chutzpah of the English expelling their Jewish fellow citizens in 1190 for FOUR HUNDRED years; chutzpah of Isabella the Catholic doing the same in 1492 --- and financing the second trip of Columbus with the looted possessions of those she expelled (she was a really nice, fair lady and expelled the Gypsies as well). I can continue, but no need: I agree with you.

One other thing you forget: gospels are written by people about certain events. Jews were there too; they have memory. In fact, gospels are written BY the Jews and about a Jew. So only those who accept the divinity of Christ are allowed to have memory? Whose is arrogant now?

I'm appalled--and stunned-- As you can see, for all thw wrong reasons. And after all, you got worked up for nothing: nobody, including this idiot Foxman, told you what to believe in.

[TopQuark]

Unfortunately, opposition to this film may create much more anti-Semitism than any film could ever cause. Why should it?

[ultima ratio]

You say, "Jews were there too; they have memory. In fact, gospels are written BY the Jews and about a Jew. So only those who accept the divinity of Christ are allowed to have memory? Whose is arrogant now?"

Yes, Jews were there--and they're welcome to make their own movie. But this is Gibson's vision based on the Gospels. He's got the right to express it without others daring to question his political correctness or the historicity of texts sacred to all Christians.

It is true Jews have suffered persecution. But persecution is not unique to the Jews. In the French Revolution 300,000 Catholics were deliberately slaughtered for their faith in just one region of France. In the sixteenth century Lutheran princes slaughtered 130,000 Catholic peasants. Right now in Sudan Muslims are murdering and enslaving Christians by the hundreds of thousands. In Pakistan and India Muslims relentlessly persecute Christians. So too in Egypt and Indonesia and elsewhere. There is nothing new about any of this nor anything that is unique to the Jews.

Look at the history of Catholics in England whose priests were hunted down for the crime of saying Mass and Catholics were forced to convert. Trace the history of the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. This is the sad story of the human race and its intolerance, it is not the story of Jews alone nor of Christians alone. The Sunnis persecute the Shiites and vice versa. To suppose that such universal frictions--found in certain regions of Europe before WWII--were especially unique and unusual is to misinterpret history. These clashes have always existed, not only between Jews and Christians, but between Christians and Christians, between Christians and Muslims, etc.

[DentsRun]

And, although Foxman has GREAT many sins, neither he is anti-Christian in general, nor did he say anything anti-Christian about this whole affair.

We must be reading different stories. According to the Peter Boyer story on the Foxman-Gibson imbroglio, Foxman's real complaint with "The Passion of the Christ" wasn't that it was an inaccurate retelling of the Crucifiction, but that it was too faithful to the Gospels, relying on them (and the anti-Semitic visions of a European nun) instead of on the Catholic Church's recently revised instructions for presenting Passion plays or recent Jewish-Catholic bibical scholarship which totally absolves the Jews of any responsibility for Christ's death. It was Foxman who co-convened that group of Christian and Jewish scholars from the Bishop's Conference who, working with a stolen script, issued a report saying that any movie based on a literal reading of the Gospels would promote anti-Semitism. Thereafter, Foxman called Gibson an anti-Semite, both for his movie and for a remark Gibson made to Peter Boyer, complaining that "atheistic Jews" blamed Christianity for the Holocaust.

Foxman's problems with Christianty go back a long way. Last year he published a book asserting conservative Christians want "to impose their faith on everyone else in America, replacing pluralism and tolerance with theocracy." And five or six years ago, the ADL, under his leadership, published a rather famous report attacking conservative Christians. Even some Jewish columnists considered the report egregiously biased and went out of their way to denounce it. The problem with the ADL is that it only makes money when Jews get alarmed. So there's every incentive to paint everything Christians do with the blackest possible brush, such as, for instance, when they deign to make a movie about the death of Christ.

[mlmr]

Because it is presumptuous for people of one faith to ask people of another faith to change their interpertations of sacred books.

[TopQuark]

Foxman's problems with Christianty go back a long way.

I am absolutely sure of that. I am appalled not only by his attacks --- all too often Christians are a fair prey in our "post-modern" society.

You seem to be very well factually informed --- cetainly much better than I am. What you may or may not know is that Foxman's problems are not just with Christianity but with RELIGION. He is not a Jew: he is a leftist and attacks religion. Christianity is dominant, so he goes for a bigger pray.

Now, your reading of ADL is too narrow: it's an organization that no longer has reason for existence. It's not about the money --- and even the ones giving it can read. He needs to justify his existence, and that is done by making the world more spooky than it is.

Whay I find amusing (not at all) is that many people, including those on this forum, view what he says as the "Jewish view." And speak of possible increas of anti-Semitism. It is Foxman. A man. A dumb man. That's all.

Enjoy the movie. I respect your beliefs, and if the movie speaks to you --- great! I have repeatedly said on this forum that we should strive to return this country to its Christian roots and Judeo-Christian values (yes, I am Jewish). If this movie helps to reinvigirate Christianity in this country --- so much the better.

Most people, however, respond either to concerns they understand not --- and, disturbingly, choose to view them as attack on religion --- or to a dumb person like Foxman, whom they choose to view as representative of all Jews.

[TopQuark]

Yes, Jews were there--and they're welcome to make their own movie.

There is such as thing as a dialoge. You do not have to shut up jsut because I speak.

In this country we often say that response to speech is more speech. You do not appear to have accepted that.

But this is Gibson's vision based on the Gospels. He's got the right to express it without others daring to question YOu may have been born here but your views are grossly unAmerican. You can speak but it is everyone's right to question. You must've worked for the Inquisition for too long.

his political correctness No one asks him to be politically correct.

or the historicity of texts sacred to all Christians. Once again, he is not creating texts, and RETELLING may be done differently.

As for the texts, when taught literally, has enticed great the mobs for centuries to kill Jews. Apparently, you condone that.

It is true Jews have suffered persecution. But persecution is not unique to the Jews. No one said it was.

In the French Revolution 300,000 Catholics were deliberately slaughtered for their faith in just one region of France. Yes. But you will not find a single group of people now living that has suffered 90% loss in just five years --- as Jews in Poland, for instance.

Nor will you find the duration of persecution and georgraphic scope remotely similar to any other group. There is one group that is comparable on the second dimension -- Roma (Gypsies).

All other peoples who suffered as much as Jews have been wiped out (Indians of Argentina, for instance). You are an apologist and do not even attempt to adhere to principles when you address this issue. And, you cannor evne see how plain you are: why, for instance did you bring up the issue of persecution? I did not. It has nothing to do with the topic. You brought it up because YOU are tired of hearing about Jewish suffering, which must of course be exaggerated because your Church would never permit or participate in it. Well, that's the bias you choose to have. Look at the history of Catholics in England whose priests were hunted down for the crime of saying Mass and Catholics were forced to convert. Yeh, compare that to expelling from England not just the rabbis but the entire Jewish population in 1190 --- and not a Jew has been seen their until mid-1500s!

This is the sad story of the human race and its intolerance, Yeh, right. Tell us also that putting people in the oven is suffering as much as not having enough to eat. What a nice sensitive soul you are.

Yeh, and Holocaust was a little misunderstanding, I know. Who among us doesn't suffer, after all. I myself, hurt my pinky the other day.... That is what you essentially say. And all the while call yourself a Christian.

[ultima ratio]

Those who oppose Gibson and his film do more than speak--they attempt to poison the atmosphere by lies and innuendoes. They have threatened Gibson and made demands that he change his film even before it was completed. There has been an overt attempt to blackball this film, to prevent its distribution and to smear its profoundly Christian content with the false charge of anti-Semitism. A 47page screed against the film has already been sent to film critics in all major newspapers. That is more than speech or dialogue, that is a declaration of war.

Your charge that I am working "for the Inquisition" is interesting in itself, insofar as you seem to feel no need to restrain your own anti-Catholic hostility. In any case, your claim that the telling of the Passion has incited mobs for centuries is another of those received opinions that gets bruited about without proof. Still another even more egregious is the absolutely hateful assertion that Christianity itself led to the Holocaust. This is a smear that is casually propagated inside the Jewish community and in the secular press as well. In fact, Christianity had nothing to do with Hitler. The attempt by Jewish historians and intellectuals to make the connection--and even to smear the pope who did more than anyone alive to rescue Jews from the Holocaust--can only inspire further mutual mistrust and suspicion between the two religions.

The trump card with you guys is always the Holocaust--as if Christians were the cause of it. I don't accept this at all. It was the doing of a secularist evil--of the same sort that killed 300,000 French Catholics in a brief span of time in the French Revolution; the same that inspired Stalin to engineer a phony famine to starve 10million Ukrainians even while the graneries were full to capacity in the Ukraine. It is secularism gone mad--socialism that brooks no interference--that taught Hitler how to murder masses with souless impunity. Dostoievsky warned about this in Brothers Karamazov generations earlier: where there is no God, anything is permissible--even mass murder. In Russia, in fact, devout Christians were the first to be murdered by the hundreds of thousands.