 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: I personally think posted by mishmashmusic on August 05, 2003 at 10:47:42:
I'm not talking about the random fruitcake who does the "monkey see, monkey do" routine after watching a movie and claiming it as his/her inspiration. No, I'm thinking in terms of influencing attitudes on a much larger scale, not unlike what D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" did in the early 20th century. Granted, times have changed and folks are more sophisticated nowadays, but we're still susceptable to manipulation from the world around us and entertainment is the most subtle of propagandas.Now, before Clark or someone else hops on this post as an indication prejudice against this film because of it's Christian religious content, let me state emphatically that I am NOT opposed to the film on that basis or any other! Nor am I interested in censorship or prejudging the film based on rumour: I haven't seen the film; apparently, neither has Clark. Yet, Mr. Johnsen has already tried setting match to kindling in this controversy several times. Personally, I think he may just be all wet on this topic, but then again, perhaps it's just his soggy box of matches! ;^)
The bottom line is that if the film is tightly based on scripture and doesn't pander to banal prejudices then why not show the movie to concerned Jewish leaders before wide release?
AuPh
Follow Ups:
many movie producers will show their films to a friendly audience, just to keep the bad press at a minimum. Should he have invited Jewish leaders in? I don't see why not, but maybe he had a good reason, or maybe he knew they would huff and puff about it, who knows?I don't know if we should assume the worst about the film just because it wasn't shown to a particular crowd. I hate sounding like a broken record (hey kids, do you remember records?)---but we will continue to go around in circles on this until the movie is at the local plex. (If it ever does, I might say---it's not "Amercian Pie 3" or anything important like that...)
s
That's not what started the controversy. A leaked copy of the script , which those who've read it say clearly blames Jews for Jesus' death, started it. Gibson says the leaked script was not the final version but won't let any Jewish organizations see the movie.
I haven't seen any specific allegations, other than a odd reference to Caiphas being a bully to Pilate. Hardly a cause to send up red flags.Maybe I'm missing something? Is there a list of explicit examples from from the leaked script?
From an article in the Mail and Guardian newspaper:
a panel of three Jewish and six Catholic scholars, who have studied a draft script, say the film is anti-semitic and theologically inaccurate, portraying Jews as bloodthirsty and vengeful and reviving the worst traditions of the passion plays which contributed to deadly attacks against Jews over the centuries."When we read the screenplay our sense was this wasn't really something you could fix. All the way through, the Jews are portrayed as bloodthirsty," said Sister Mary C Boys, a professor at New York's Union Theological Seminary. "We're really concerned that this could be one of the great crises in Christian-Jewish relations."
The panel was convened by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops with the help of the Jewish advocacy group, the Anti-Defamation League.
I guess the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the ADL must be those liberals who "have problems with recognizing a Higher Power" that Clark rants about.
"Jews are portrayed as bloodthirsty" is hardly a specific example from the script---that's a general statement. What does this mean? Every Jew portrayed in the movie was bloodthirsty or just a few?Sorry to be nitpicky, but it seems like if it were that bad, they could site some examples beyond general terms and add some weight to the argument.
New York, NY, June 24, 2003 ... Throughout history Christian dramatizations of the passion, i.e. the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, have fomented anti-Semitic attitudes and violence against the Jewish people. During the past forty years the Roman Catholic and most Protestant churches have issued pastoral and scholarly documents that interpret the death and resurrection of Jesus in their historical and theological contexts. These churches repudiate the teachings that gave rise to Christian accusations that Jews were "Christ killers." They make clear that correct Christian readings and applications of the New Testament must avoid provoking or reinforcing anti-Semitic attitudes and behavior.In light of the numerous media accounts of Mel Gibson's upcoming film, "The Passion," the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) joined with the Secretariat of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in April, 2003 to assemble Jewish and Catholic scholars to evaluate an early version of the movie's screenplay (the names of the committee's nine scholars appear below). Both offices were in communication with representatives of ICON Productions, including Mel Gibson himself, who indicated their willingness to consider the scholars' suggestions.
ADL thanks the scholars for their work and ADL fully stands behind their report. The committee unanimously agreed that the screenplay reviewed was replete with objectionable elements that would promote anti-Semitism.
Based upon the scholars' analysis of the screenplay, ADL has serious concerns regarding the Mr. Gibson's "The Passion" and asks:
Will the final version of The Passion continue to portray Jews as blood-thirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of Jesus?
Will it correct the unambiguous depiction of Jews as the ones responsible for the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus?
Will it show the power of the rule of imperial Rome-including its frequent use of crucifixion-in first-century Palestine?
Will the film reject exploiting New Testament passages selectively to weave a narrative that does injustice to the gospels, that oversimplifies history, and that is hostile to Jews and Judaism?
Will it live up to its promise "to tell the truth?" To do so, the final product must rid itself of fictitious non-scriptural elements (e.g. the high priest's control of Pontius Pilate, the cross built in the Temple at the direction of Jewish religious officials, excessive violence, Jews physically abusing Jesus before the crucifixion, Jews paying "blood money" for the crucifixion) [emphasis mine], all of which form an inescapably negative picture of Jewish society and leadership.
Will it portray Jews and the Temple as the locus of evil?ADL also welcomes the statement issued on June 17 by the four Catholic academicians in the group that can be found here. This statement explains the complex issues regarding dramatizing the passion in terms of official Roman Catholic teaching, and provides sound guidance for evaluating any presentation of the crucifixion.
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. Absent such scholarly and theological understanding, productions such as "The Passion" could likely falsify history and fuel the animus of those who hate Jews.
Specific recommendations to remedy the numerous anti-Semitic elements in the script have been conveyed to Mr. Gibson's ICON Productions. Mr. Gibson has said that his film is not anti-Semitic. We hope that is the case. ADL stands ready to advise ICON Productions constructively regarding The Passion to ensure that the final production is devoid of anti-Semitic slander.
(The Ad Hoc Scholars Committee consisted of Dr. Mary C. Boys, SNJM Skinner & McAlpin Professor of Practical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York; Dr. Michael J. Cook, Sol & Arlene Bronstein Professor of Judeo-Christian Studies, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati; Dr. Philip A. Cunningham, Executive Director, Adjunct Professor of Theology, Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College; Dr. Eugene J. Fisher. Associate Director, Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; Dr. Paula Fredriksen, Aurelio Professor of Scripture, Boston University;Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. Frizzell, Director, Institute of Judaeo-Christian Studies, Seton Hall University, East Orange, NJ; Rabbi Dr. Eugene Korn, Director, Office of Interfaith Affairs, Anti-Defamation League; Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, Carpenter Professor of New Testament Studies, Vanderbilt University, Nashville; Dr. John T. Pawlikowski, OSM Prof. of Social Ethics, Catholic-Jewish Studies Director, Catholic Theological Union, Chicago).
The Catholic blog site "Pro deo et patria" offered this in an editorial on the film:
What were the issues raised in the May 2, 2003, "Report of the Ad Hoc Scholars Group Reviewing the Script of The Passion"?Someone who has read that report has summarized some of the key points for this writer.
The script exaggerates the roles of Jews. Pilate is portrayed as intimidated by Caiaphas. Pilate is shocked by their treatment of Jesus, while Jews delight in it. The Temple is portrayed as the center of evil; the cross is made there, by Jews. A large Jewish mob is described repeatedly as "bloodthirsty," "frenzied," and "predatory." Whereas the Roman soldiers need to be prodded by demons, the Jews act of the own accord.
The script falsifies the relationship between the Jews and the Romans, with the Romans cowering before Jewish figures.
The script falsifies the relationship between Jesus and the Temple. It shows Jesus slaying the Passover lamb in a private room rather than having it slain in the temple.
It would be very easy for Mel Gibson--or any of the people bragging about having been given the privilege of seeing the movie--to come out and say, "No, these things are not in the movie." But no one who has seen it will do so. They say, "It's just the Biblical account." If that is so, why the secrecy?
The scholars had some recommendations.
Stress that Jesus was executed by the Romans. Crucifixion was not a Jewish weapon. This was how Rome dealt with those it felt to be threats--in this case, a popular Messianic figure who, in the heady days leading to Passover, preaches a kingdom that will overthrow all earthly rulers.
Present Pilate as Caiaphas' superior--not as one afraid of him. The High Priest owed his position to the Roman procurator.
Jesus' death cannot be presented in isolation from his preaching and his ministry. It was his preaching of the Kingdom of God that made him a threat to Rome.
The passion of Jesus needs to be seen for what it was: another example of the suffering of the Jewish people under Roman occupation.
There were Jewish leaders who did collaborate with the Romans, and who were enemies of Jesus. There were Jewish leaders who thought it better that one man should die rather than the whole people be destroyed. There were different perspectives, and different motives, and different actions: these cannot be reduced to the one-dimensional cartoon characters seen in the script.
Many of the concerns arise from script directions, and examples of these are said to be in the scholars' appendix. The crowd is referred to as "bloodthirsty," making a "cacaphony of hot, primitive noises, filled with animal anticipation." Jesus is "momentarily crushed by the weight of the cross," and the Roman Guards "have a difficult time restraining the impatient, predatory bloodthirst of the people."
The crowd "is paying no attention to Pilate." He turns to Caiaphas, who, with a single word, quiets the crowd. When it erupts again, Pilate eyes Caiphas, who "raises his hands over his head," shouts to the mob, which quiets down. "Caiaphas looks up. Smug. Arrogant." The priests "stand separate from the mob, exulting in their sense of power."
When Jesus is brought to Pilate, he asks the Sanhedrin, "Do you always half-kill your prisoners before they are even judged?" Then, "You must all be very eager to attain eternal life ... judging by the way you thirst for this body and his blood."
Pilate tells his wife, "If I don't condemn this man, I know Caiaphas will start a rebellion."
As Jesus is beaten, the eyes of Caiaphas are "shiny with breathless excitement. Annas, beside him ... cannot look, his face twitching."
All these things are but examples of the ways the script is said to falsify the relationship between the Jews and the Romans, and to exaggerate the collective role of "the Jews" in the Passion of Jesus.
That's what I wanted to see. All I could find was the general statements. This is much more detailed, and it makes a little more sense as to why they'd be upset...
who condemn abortion, divorce, and homosexuality right? Do you not see any inconsistency in their being quoted by those wanting to censor this film?
> > Do you not see any inconsistency in their being quoted by those wanting to censor this film? < <What on earth are you talking about? The group of rabbis and Biblical scholars who read the script pointed out 14 pages of errors in it and worry that it's going to harm relations between Christians and Jews. They're not asking for the film to be censored (and please explain exactly how that would happen in the United States in 2003); they're asking for it to be revised to remove the incorrect and inflammatory elements. What does that have to do with divorce, abortion, or homosexuality?
I'm simply curious why Catholic scholars, who would likely find many pages of errors in treatises favorable to other controversial subjects like divorce, abortion, and homosexuality, are found to be so very, very correct and reliable here. RC scholars also condemned the inaccuracies of "The Last Temptation", but in that case the film and cultural elite had no use for their complaints. It sure looks like "cherry picking" to me;, i.e., using only what you agree with and ignoring everything else.From what I've read, virtually none of those who are so strongly attacking this film have seen it or read its actual script. Do you doubt similar pressures aren't being applied in the distribution business? Isn't pressure to change artistic content censorship...or is that only when it comes from the Right?
If it is anti-semetic, I believe the broad public will reject it and it will be clearly identified as such. But please...shouldn't we see it before condemning it?
> > none of those who are so strongly attacking this film have seen it or read its actual script < <Did a light bulb go on over your head when you had that insight? That's what the whole controversy is about! Gibson says his movie isn't anti - semitic but refuses to show it to anyone but hand - picked audiences pre -disposed to be on his side. The only Jew who's seen it is GOP shill Matt Drudge, for example. He says the script that was analyzed by the commitee of scholars isn't the final version but refuses to show the shooting script. What's he afraid of, or hiding? If the movie doesn't blame the Jews for killing Jesus why won't Gibson put the controversy to rest with one screening for the ADL?
> > I'm simply curious why Catholic scholars, who would likely find many pages of errors in treatises favorable to other controversial subjects like divorce, abortion, and homosexuality, are found to be so very, very correct and reliable here. < <
How inconvenient for you that half of the committee were Jews including Orthodox rabbis.
Why do you keep trying to drag homosexuality, abortion, and divorce into a discussion about a movie? What's your problem?
I'm not "trying to drag homosexuality, abortion, and divorce into a discussion about a movie". One more time...I'm simply pointing out that those noisily protesting this unseen film are touting the opinion of "authorities" whose Scripture interpretations on most any other subject they'd most certainly reject out of hand. And these are clearly interpretations.It seems to me that the arguments about this film are hypocritical. Views on censorship, free speech, religion, effects of movies on viewers, and more seem to be quickly thrown out the window at the first faint hint of a non-PC interpretation. Or don't you think people can be trusted to make up their own minds?
Again...none of those who are so upset by Gibson's film have seen even a trailer on it, yet their minds are made up.
> > those noisily protesting this unseen film are touting the opinion of "authorities" whose Scripture interpretations on most any other subject they'd most certainly reject out of hand < <So your argument is that the Anti - Defamation League would reject the "Scripture interpretations" of Orthodox rabbis? And that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops would reject the "Scripture interpretations" of eminent theologians on the faculties of Catholic universities? What a bizarre notion!
> > a non-PC interpretation < <
That's definitely an idiosyncratic way of characterizing The Passion's completely fabricated scene showing the cross being built inside the Temple by Romans obeying the orders of Jewish religious officials, to cite one example. So you're saying that accurately portraying the relationship between the subjugated Jews and their Roman overlords is mere political correctness? I presume you'd also say that a Civil war movie that showed black plantation masters owning white slaves was just a "non-PC interpretation" rather than complete bullsh!t that grossly distorted the historical record?
> > I'm not "trying to drag homosexuality, abortion, and divorce into a discussion about a movie" < <
Yet you kept bringing up those subjects. Weird.
I'm a little late but I'd like to join in. If you would read Matthew Chapter 26 starting at verse 47 and read until you end with verse 26 of chapter 27 it will be very clear who killed Jesus.
However that is really not important. Shocking isn't it. Jesus and all those involved were only doing God's will and fulfilling prophesy. Jesus even stated that.
No one knows what REALLY happened back then, who the mythical Jesus actually was or the circumstances surrounding any crucifixtion, much less the "documented" resurrection. We're too far removed from the events and subsequent interpretations. Perhaps the immortal Keith Richards knows, but it's doubtful that the late Steve Marriott will provide any clues. ;^)As far as Mel Gibson's The Passion goes, we should be at least cogniscent of modern-day audience reactions and perhaps a little more sympathetic to those concerned about a potential increase in prejudice against Jews.
Cheers,
AuPh
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
