All the talk shows are on the trail of what may prove to be the biggest cult movie money maker in history.
Merchandisers are getting $26 for the T shirt and are even selling official nails . The action fugre can't be far behind.
Before this movie becomes a sanctimonious phenomena I thought I would editorialize its poster...

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/passion.jpg

Also the less than relevant political statements by Gibson's dad deserve a passing comment...








http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/gibsondad.jpg

For us outside the US could someone please explain what the problem is, And how nazies and Mel gibsons father is tied into it.

His dad is one of those holocaust deniers.

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/passion2.jpg

For us outside the US could someone please explain what the problem is, And how nazies and Mel gibsons father is tied into it.Some Americans are very sensitive about the role of Jews in Jesus' death. In history, the notion that Jews murdered Jesus has motivated two millennia of reprisals. Yet the role of the Jews in Jesus' death is unclear; Elaine Pagles discusses this matter in The Origin of Satan. The gist of the argument centers on whether or not the Bible accurately represents certain aspects related to the events described. Jesus' nighttime trial by the Sanhedrin is a massive procedural--and therefore holy--blunder by the Jews; Pontius Pilate is described differently in the Bible than in history, and the difference between a hand-wringing politician caught sincerely between "what is right" and "what the Jews want" and the idea of a cold bureaucrat participating in oppressive politics is a huge difference when considering the role of the Jews.

Thus there are some who would charge Gibson with anti-Semitism because his film reflects the Biblical telling. Absent thus far from the discussion is the question of whether or not the Bible is intentionally anti-Semitic.

Gibson's father enters into it because he's anti-Semitic, and Americans have this weird obsession suggesting that despite the tendency of the child to rebel against the father (an American tradition, no less), having an anti-Semitic father must necessarily mean that Gibson made this film for anti-Semitic reasons. We might look at Schwarzeneggar's family ties to Naziism. Does that fact alone matter, or is there something more compelling afoot that makes it important? In either case, it's a difficult sell.

But this is America; some Catholics complained about Dogma, though when you get right down to it, the substance of the complaint was essentially that Kevin Smith used existing philosophies in history for purposes other than singing the praises of God and Jesus. Some Americans complain that Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic, and the essence of this argument is that he did not choose to edit or restructure the Bible in his cinematic adaptation. At such a level, if Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic, there will be millions of self-righteous Americans who shouldn't, by any logic associated with honor, virtue, or integrity, be able to look themselves in the mirror.

Personally, I'll invoke the old pinko phrasing and say that it's at least in part about American decadence. We have the luxury of having such arguments, and have not yet learned that just because such a meaningless dialogue as the anti-Semitic flap over Passions can be had does not mean that it should or must. In the end, it's easier to worry about this than foreign terrorists, encroaching government, spiraling deficit, and so forth. Any reason to get mad at the rich and famous makes Americans feel better. Which is strange since there are plenty of more legitimate reasons, so there seems to be a couch-potato or armchair aspect to it, as well.

American Jewish organizations having trouble with this film may be overreacting; I have not yet seen the film, so I can't say with any certainty. However, should this prove to be the case, I cannot say I blame their oversensitivity without accounting for the reasons for it, and would hope that maybe something so public and superficial as this brouhaha might expose the paucity of these worries.

There are Jews who support this movie too. The only American Jewish organizations concerned about this movie are the schizophrenic paranoid freaks with a severe persecution complex.

As for Gibson’s father, he is a senile old man and thus should be ignored.

If one were to view the story in general terms it would be clear that a reformer/whistleblower is often set upon by the "true patriots" and condemned for merely doing the right thing.

The story can be contemporary and the characters can be interchanged.

This is known as an allagory but fundamentalists rarely accept such global interpretations.

Seems to me Gibson's just competing with the churches for the revenue. Better him than them. Apparently the churches think they can increase their profits by riding on the movie's coattails. Let's remember that Jesus did not know what a Christian is.

Thanks for the reply tiassa, it put words to what I all ready suspected. I wonder when people are going to wakeup and see that religion is just a nice story to lull them in to submission and control them.

As zanket above, I too belive this is just an attempt to make a buck or 2 by Mel Gibson by using the most succesfull story of them all.

I don’t think Gibson is that crass. Sure he is probably going to enjoy the money, but he HAS money, the only reason to take a movie this controversial rather than "What Women Want II" is if he really cares about it. Having not seen it, I believe that "The Passion of the Christ" is probably only anti-Semitic in that Christianity is anti-Semitic in nature. That said, I also don’t think that the reactions to its anti-Semitic themes are overblown. Christianity at its base cannot tolerate the existence of other religions, and every now and then Christians are going to vomit forth something that is a little edgy and reminds people of that.

There is little profit motive for Gibson in this movie. He spent 40 million dollars of his own money after every single major movie industry turned him down. A large portion of the script was lifted directly from the Bible and the whole movie is on Latin and Aramaic (with subtitles).

So no, he is not doing this for the "money".

When someone spends $40 million you can bet there's a profit motive. He is hoping for a return significantly greater than his outlay. Religions hope for the same when they build a cathedral.

It was $20 Million guys... but what is 20 mil between friends. :D

apparently from whati understand, the US media has already blowne it up huge for Mel he will proberly make a nice amount of cash on it, as many will see it just the find out what the fuss is about.
It seem pretty obivius to me to use the bible as a source when you make a bible movie, just like every other movie based on a book.

Whats the problem with with subtitles, dont the amerikans know how to read?

"The Passion of the Christ" is probably only anti-Semitic in that Christianity is anti-Semitic in nature
Jesus was jewish, and the early Christians considered themselves Jewish, even requiring circumcision, and the following of Jewish dietary laws. It was only later that Christianity dropped the major Jewish requirements and aquired a separate identity. Christianity branched off from Judaism. The kind of people that opposed Jesus still exist in Judaism and Christianity, people that follow laws and scripture instead of love and compassion, people whose literal interpretation of scriptures cloud their judgement.

It is ironic that the same people that bring their 3 year olds to see this graphic depiction of one of the most barbaric and brutal forms of torture and execution that ever existed are the same ones complaining about Janet Jackson's boob.

With all of this free publicity I would think Mel would love every minute of it! He is seeing the $$$$$$ roll in for his work. That's not a cut but a compliment on his work well done!

What a bunch of bullshit. If he believes the bible to be the truth as he does, I quite frankly cannot see how he shouldn't portray Jesus as having been indirectly murdered by the jews-- who believed him a blasphemer. Fuck all this nonsense. Where are all the bashers of political correctness in this mess? Theological interpretation my ass. The jews wanted him killed, he was killed-- so says the bible, and he believes it.

Well... you obviously don't understand Christianity too well.

Since you use the Bible as a source, I will too.

Jesus chose to die for the sins of the world. It was His, God's will.
He died by his own choice, his own merciful acceptance of the deserved burden of man.
The sins of men brought Him to destruction, not the Pharisees and Saducees. They were merely the instrument of that destruction.

No rational Christian could possibly blame the Jews for His death.

If this is what Mel Gibson is, a rational Christian, he is NOT anti-semitic.

No rational Christian could possibly blame the Jews for His death.


haha, did you just make a pun?

Jesus was a liberal and a Jew, his followers are conservatives and think poorly of Judaism. Even with that alone, and disregarding their other supernatural beliefs this makes Christians irrational. I still don’t think Mel did it for the money, he has lots already, and it would have been far easier to do something that would be less controversial, he really thought this was an important movie that had to be made.

He really thought it was important to make a movie that shows how Christ suffered was tortured and then executed. Surely this is the important part of Christ’s life, yes? When he was being tortured and executed, not when he was talking all that radical philosophy that changed the world?

In case you cant catch the sarcasm, I do think this movie was the misguided passion of a fanatic who follows a faith that is inherently hateful towards Jews. It was not a crass capitalistic decision.

How do you know he thought it was an important movie to make? Of course he's going to say that, it increases revenue. It's not like the story line wasn't already done to death (literally!). People who have a lot of money generally want even more of it. That attitude is how they got the money in the first place. Nothing wrong with that. I think he thought it was important to remake the movie because there's been sufficient time since the last remake, so it can be newly controversial. Wait another 10 years and there will be yet another remake. The idea is a proven money-maker; churches have been making money off it for ages.

Somehow the thought of Mel sitting at home and pondering if god has called him on a holy crusade to produce this movie, seems more realistic to me than Mel sitting in his home steepling his fingers and wondering how he can swindle the suckers. I guess I find him far more likely to be a fanatic than a kingpin.

haha, did you just make a pun?
He really thought it was important to make a movie that shows how Christ suffered was tortured and then executed. Surely this is the important part of Christ’s life, yes? When he was being tortured and executed, not when he was talking all that radical philosophy that changed the world?

In case you cant catch the sarcasm, I do think this movie was the misguided passion of a fanatic who follows a faith that is inherently hateful towards Jews. It was not a crass capitalistic decision.


Ummm....
... it's pretty sad that you're so ready to denounce Christians as irrational and yet so poorly versed in their faith.
The movie is based on the Bible, yes? Well, if so... then...

The crucifixion is infinitely more important than the teachings.
According to the Gospels, He was the lamb, a sacrifice to atone for all the sins that men could possibly commit. Without the crucifixion, the execution of divine plan, all the teachings are useless; without it, there can be no salvation for anyone. NOBODY gets into heaven at all.

Jesus' death at Golgotha is the integral, defining moment of Christianity, the ultimate exhibition of God's grace and the climax of the whole, big deal.
It's the epitome of suffering servitude; it's paradise regained.
That is why the movie centers on it, not the birth, not the temptation, not the sermon on the mount, but the crucifixion.



From your perspective, definitely an irreligious one, the teachings may seem more significant than the death.

But guess what... the movie is a religious tale, based on Scripture, not a historical account...it wasn't made to accomodate people who don't believe the shit, and that means you.

No rational Christian could possibly blame the Jews for His death.

I"ll leave the sardonic alone. I said indirectly responsible-- instruments or not, they accept choice, no?

I'm just the messenger here, buddy.

This is what most Christians today think of it; they don't blame the Jews.

I'm not going to try to explain it to you 'cause, chances are, it's a load of crap anyway.


But you know what?
That really doesn't matter, because the problem here is whether or not Mel Gibson is anti-semitic, not whether or not his religion is horse-shit.

If Mel Gibson fits todays definition of a Christian, rational or not, he feels no resentment toward the Jews in regard to the killing of the Christ.

What would actually lead you to believe that he does?

The crucifiction is infinitely more important than the teachings.

He's got you there, moose. Even a cursory glance at Christianity today will make it evident that they don't give a crap about what Jesus had to say. What they're interested in is death, suffering, outrage, and the moral high ground that it somehow makes them believe they are entitled to. The way that they celebrate it, you've got to wonder if they'll nail him to a cross again if he ever shows up, that damn tree hugging brother loving hippy!

From a Christian standpoint, which is the one the film uses, the crucifiction is the central theme and colorful cherry-on-top of the New Testament. It is THE THING.

Your complaints aren't going to change the Bible or the movie. Whether or not you like it, that's the way it is.

From your perspective, definitely an irreligious one, the teachings may seem more significant than the death.

It is irreligious to pay attention to the teachings of Jesus? I'm not sure Jesus would agree with you.

Had it not been for his crucifixion, however, we may have never even heard of Jesus. But the murder of this good person by the powers that be, left a horrible wound in the psyche’s of those who witnessed it; a wound so painful, a blow of such impact, that it has itself become paradigmatic and remains open and bleeding to this day. Again, it is my contention, that Christianity is a Band-Aid that attempts to cover this wound that obviously needs a tourniquet and a number of stitches instead. Jesus died 2000 years ago and we still haven’t dealt with it. We haven’t grieved the loss of Jesus. For how can we grief his death when Christianity tells us he has risen?
...
The message of Jesus becomes lost under the guise of Christianity. His unjust death which adds great emphasis and value to his teachings, is overshadowed by a theology of Resurrection that portrays the crucifixion as part of God’s divine and just plan, and ends up downplaying the importance of his lessons about love, peace and justice. Hence, Christianity has allowed us to safely cross the open and bleeding wound, the great gap left in the Dominator Paradigm by the teachings of Jesus, and continue our patterns of violence and hatred and oppression, without ever grieving the death of Jesus and his better way.


from here (http://www.cliftonunitarian.com/toddstalks/jesusfornon-christians.htm)

"I'm just the messenger here, buddy."

huh?

"This is what most Christians today think of it; they don't blame the Jews. "

Who said they did?


"I'm not going to try to explain it to you 'cause, chances are, it's a load of crap anyway.
are you high?"

explain what?

"But you know what?
That really doesn't matter, because the problem here is whether or not Mel Gibson is anti-semitic, not whether or not his religion is horse-shit.

If Mel Gibson fits todays definition of a Christian, rational or not, he feels no resentment toward the Jews in regard to the killing of the Christ.

What would actually lead you to believe that he does?"
who said i did?

get this through your stupid head: Although Jesus came to die for man- it was his fate to die for man, and that the Jews who asked for his crucifixion were merely living out their parts, christians believe in choice-- an ability for one to choose for themselves, what is right and wrong; were they unable to choose, the notion of sin would be nonsensical. Hence, the jews chose to ask for his cruxifion and hence indirectly-- they did not give the order or commit the act, killed Christ. The controversy has been whether or not to include a scene in which the jews in the audience ask that Jeus be crucified. Gibson originally had the subtitles in the movie. It is no more. The argument was that Christians in seeing those images, would blame the jews. In the bible that Gibson uses, the characterization of the crucifixion, and the behaviour of the crowd was correct. Succint enough?

As for Gibson’s father, he is a senile old man and thus should be ignored.
Gibson's dad sounded perfectly clear and coherent when he was interviewed about his view of Jews. He suggested that 6 million Jews simply moved to brooklyn, and were not murdered during WWII. His views are extremely racist, and it is a valid question how much of this idiot's ideas rubbed off on Mel.

It is irreligious to pay attention to the teachings of Jesus? I'm not sure Jesus would agree with you.

It really doesn't matter what you or anybody else thinks about it.
In Christianity, it's plain that humanity, without Jesus' sacrifice, is incapable of entering heaven. Thus, the crucifixion is more important than the teachings; without it, they're purposeless.

by thefountainhed
explain what?


Explain the obvious paradox between the free will of the Jews and the destined death of Jesus.


who said i did?


Nobody.
What makes you think that I believe you do?
I'm simply asserting that there is nothing anti-semitic about any of this.

EDIT: I shouldn't have addressed it "you".

The controversy has been whether or not to include a scene in which the jews in the audience ask that Jeus be crucified. Gibson originally had the subtitles in the movie. It is no more. The argument was that Christians in seeing those images, would blame the jews. In the bible that Gibson uses, the characterization of the crucifixion, and the behaviour of the crowd was correct. Succint enough?

The film is simply an illustration of the Biblical account, yes?

Well, since most Christians read that account and do not persecute or detest Jews but instead simply view them as helpless instruments of God's plan, it seems reasonable to assume that neither that original account nor the film is anti-semitic in nature.

As I stated before, I'm not going to argue the logic of the predominant Christian viewpoint, seeing as it's probably untenable anyway. I'm just making it clear that there's no reason to assume the movie and its creator are anti-semitic, even by suggestion.

It really doesn't matter what you or anybody else thinks about it.
In Christianity, it's plain that humanity, without Jesus' sacrifice, is incapable of entering heaven. Thus, the crucifixion is more important than the teachings; without it, they're purposeless.


Forget about me, does it matter that the early Christians, the Gnostics, considered such orthodox Christian views to be heresy?

from CNN:

The number 666, which many Christians recognize as the "mark of the beast," is appearing on movie tickets for Gibson's film at a Georgia theater, drawing complaints from some moviegoers.

.....................


How appropriate, God has recognized this heretical movie as the work of evil that it is, and is trying to tell us, thanks for looking out for us, bro!