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,