The big five losers from 'The Passion'

Jerusalem Post ^ | 3.10.04

[NutCrackerBoy]

As several posters have pointed out, a starting point is to understand why the other reacts as he does . . .

I agree with that point. I cannot know why, but nonetheless I am sharing my insights, flawed though they may be.

[Passion plays whipped Hitler's Germany into genocidal frenzy] ... weelll that would be an unfortunate oversimplification of a very complex situation; in any case, the Holocaust, Hitler, the Nazis, et al have been discredited and soundly denounced by just about everyone on the planet since 1945. Justifiably so.

Yet there are holocaust-deniers. If the underlying evil of Nazism is not well and truly dead, then there is a chance that re-enactments of the Passion may do again what it has (supposedly) done before. Can we sit here and guarantee to every Jew on the planet that nothing could bring back that evil? Or a different, perhaps more insidious, evil?

My opinion is that there is zero chance of a significant negative effect in the USA. I love Eastern Europe, but don't kid yourself. A Rumanian Christian girl told me "so many there hate Jews."

[Dr. Frank fan]

When you see a movie that uses special effects to morph several Jews into devils,

Why do you say that it morphed "several Jews" into devils and not "several people"? Who cares that they were Jews, why is that even important? (At least, you presume that they were Jews; did they have badges labeling them as such? How do you know these characters weren't, like, Samaritans?) You bring up the fact that many people think "Jews" (as in, "the Jews", meaning all Jews, as a people) are devils. But that is irrelevant or at least it should be. By your own description this film shows "several" (i.e. some) characters morphing into devils; it does not show "the Jews" morphing into devils. In fact the hero of the entire story is Jewish. Why are you focusing on the negative characters which are (presumptively) Jews and ignoring the positive ones which are (definitely) Jews?

Anyway, given where the story takes place, and given that the director has chosen to include some characters who morph into devils (in what is, admittedly, a dubious artistic decision), what nationality should those characters have appeared to be? Chinese? (That would've opened up a whole different can o'worms, I s'pose ;-)

I'm not just arguing because I'm argumentative. (Although, that helps. ;-) I'm really just irked by this idea that Jews need to be treated with kid gloves; I don't think it even actually helps Jews to infantilize them this way - it just reinforces their Otherness. Jews, like other people, are people. This means that some of them are good and some of them are bad. (And that, if people can morph into devils, then, why, so can Jews! What - you're saying they can't? ;-)

Someone mentioned Braveheart. Braveheart's story lacks the fantastical overtones of Passion, but imagine (because this could certainly have been done...) that in Braveheart, Gibson's character while being tortured looked out into the (presumptively, mostly English) crowd and had say a hallucination that some members of that crowd were morphing into devils. No one would then walk out of the film and say it showed "English people morphing into devils" and how badly this reflected on "the English"; they'd say it showed people morphing into devils and discuss the intent and effectiveness (or lack thereof) of that symbolism. I seek only the same blase treatment of Jews. :)

a perception which I can understand, if not share, that these are irresponsible artistic choices.

I can "understand" it too. I am merely saying that it is wrong. I understand lots of opinions I believe to be wrong.

Re: artistic choices, I am not attempting to speak to the artistic merits of such choices here. Just the concrete charge that the film in its objective content is anti-Semitic and/or "charges 'The Jews' with deicide". These things are no less untrue even if you convince me that the film is artistically crappy. ;-)

As far as "irresponsible" goes, I do not really recognize the validity of this notion. I take it you mean by this that a film can be "irresponsible" in the sense that even if it isn't, factually, objectively, in and of itself anti-Semitic, it "could be interpreted as such" (or something along those lines) and thus prompt the vicious pogroms and Jew-slaughterings which we Christians are always so itchin' to engage in at the drop of a hat. What I am saying is that even in such a case I would place the blame squarely on the idiots doing the interpreting and not on the film which got mis-interpreted.

As a conservative, I believe in placing responsibility where it actually belongs. Best,

[Frank_2001]

Exactly!

[NutCrackerBoy]

Correction to my previous post: it was a Lithuanian girl, ~19 years old. My wife mentioned that she was Jewish, and the girl emphasized to us the strength of the hatred of Jews existing in her home country.

[Feiny]

No, we all killed him.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Oh my goodness. That's a picture you don't want hangin' around.

[Blue Scourge]

....anyone else notice that all of the loud mouthed critics before the movie came out have suddenly vanished from sight.

Or that the huge wave of anti-semitism boiled down to one church putting up a sign that said "Jews killed Christ"...that was taken down about 2-3 hours later.

[hellinahandcart]

I hope those who have seen The Passion and value it will not allow him to bait you to anger with his caustic rhetoric in this article.

Anger? For once I'm giggling. I guess I've read these charges once too often or something. ;-)

But I'm really looking forward to seeing the movie that put this fellow's knickers into such a twist.

[cyncooper]

But Mel Gibson, in his wearisome, monotonous, and numbing depiction of endless blood and gore, utterly ignores things like Jesus's beautiful ethical teachings from the Sermon on the Mount, focusing entirely on the horrors of the crucifixion.

This is flat out false. There are many flashbacks, including *the Sermon on the Mount*.

[BraveMan]

I would wholeheartedly agree with the author that this is not a movie for children. The imagery is just too strong, the visualizations too powerful, the subject matter too intense.

I can understand how Jews could look upon this movie with trepidation. I can also understand why some Jews could be fearful of an increase in antisemitism as a result of this movie; if a person does not consider Jesus the Messiah they will interpret this movie from an entirely different point of view than would a Christian.

As a Gentile, this movie drives home how great His sacrifice was for me. It caused me to shed tears several times over the cost paid for my transgressions. In my heart of hearts I cannot blame Jews for the crucifixion of Christ any more than I can blame the family pet. Those stripes on His back are the result of my sins. Mea culpa . . .

This movie left me wanting and wishing I could do something, anything to remove or prevent even one of those stripes. It has strengthened my resolve to try harder to avoid transgressions in the future. It has not caused me to be antisemitic. If anything, the opposite is true.

I would recommend you not see the movie as it may very well shake you to the core. Knowledge is pain . . .

[N3WBI3]

Gibson tells us that what made Jesus special was not that he lived righteously but that he died bloodily. Mel Gibson - who told interviewers that he contemplated suicide before making this film - is clearly obsessed with violence and death.

Sigh way to miss the point of the movie, the death of Jesus only means something because he did it for us. Every blow was borne of our sins..

[Old Professer]

Wouldn't it be great if Gibson just took the money and went out in the woods somewhere and burned it?

[ambrose]

This is flat out false. There are many flashbacks, including *the Sermon on the Mount*.

Among the best scenes in the film.

[Fledermaus]

The writer is a nationally syndicated talk radio host in the US and author of 14 books.

And a complete idiot.

[Zechariah11]

Excellent!

[Romulus]

Jewish conservatives, many of whom now feel alienated from their Christian colleagues and are wondering who are their authentic allies.

The alienation has always been there, only not recognised. The Christian Zionist interest in the dialogue has been almost entirely religious, driven by a late and spurious eschatological mythology, while the Jewish interest has been a political one. To a considerable extent the two sides have been in symbiosis, exploiting one another while never once engaged in the same enterprise. It's just as well that these pretences have been unmasked.

[duckln]

Just follow the money. Could it be that Jackson is
one of his better contributers?

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Boteach has a creepy "want some candy?" look on his face, doesn't he?

I also remember hearing that he was on a publicty stunt to challenge Dr Drew to a debate about some minor point, the guy is well spoken but scratch the surface and there are some disturbing "issues" going on.

[sarasmom]

While not an expert on either religion,I have always thought I grasped the general concepts.
Is not the entire point of the apocropal second coming of Christ not meant to "save" the souls of God's beloved Jews?
I thought that Jesus Christ, Himself, said that the Jews would not know the messiah had come,and that he would have to come again to save them.
I very much doubt that I am spiritually naieve.
It does appear that Christians await the second coming to prove to observant Jews that the phrophesis have been fullfilled.

[Quix]

IGNORANT IDIOT.