Religion in Cinema

[cinemabon]

Thanks to Johann and his friend, Anduril, we have endeavored (within the scope of these postings) to address how the subject of religion is being portrayed in cinema, and how that has changed in the last few decades. European filmmakers have had increasing freedom to examine details of religious themes and mores which have plagued them centuries. Johann likes the American approach to current trends in cinema, like Scorsese's "Last Temptation of Christ". Anduril, whose website is a facinating blend of the sacred and profound with surly the sacrilegeous, is a great devotee on how many film artisans have tackled various aspects of religious themes. His "Ten Directors and 100 great movies" is worth examining by every cinemaphile who logs onto this site. I value his contribution and look forward to his other posts.

I started this subject because I found myself judging a work of art before even seeing it... so powerful is the rumor mill on the film, "Passion". Just watching and reading the publicity on "Passion" made me examine my own feelings on religion in film. I found myself more of a traditionalist than I wanted to be. I thought I would be more trendy. I was wrong about myself.

I pride myself in being open minded and accepting of what others consider art. I may not agree with their interpretation, but I have to recognize their talent and effort no matter how much I may be repulsed by their work. I value the work of all artists in our country and the world. Without art, we would all be less colorful, less insightful, and the lessor of the two evils. Those being, having art one does not like, or having no art at all. I choose art.

[MickeyMoose15]

I stand firm in my view that they were complaining about something they hadn't seen and therefore had no real reason to be scared, logically. I believe this because it is all dying down, thankfully, since the film was released.

[MickeyMoose15]

I also understand what makes this film so different from "Jesus Christ Superstar", "Jesus of Nazereth", "The Gospel of John" ... and "The Passion" is the only one that has received this large amount of bad press. I am certain it has to be about Gibson, his traditionalist catholic religion, and the comments made by his father.

[anduril]

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
I stand firm in my view that they were complaining about something they hadn't seen and therefore had no real reason to be scared, logically. I believe this because it is all dying down, thankfully, since the film was released.

With all due respect, MickeyMoose15, I don't think you have an appreciation for the point of view from which the Jewish Anti-Defamation League sees this issue. Also, "they" (if you mean the Jewish Anti-Defamation League) had seen the movie when "they" commented on it.

[anduril]

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
I also understand what makes this film so different from "Jesus Christ Superstar", "Jesus of Nazereth", "The Gospel of John" ... and "The Passion" is the only one that has received this large amount of bad press. I am certain it has to be about Gibson, his traditionalist catholic religion, and the comments made by his father.

On the contrary, other Jesus movies have sparked as much, if not more, controversy than Gibson's movie. "Jesus Christ Superstar", for one, was not greeted receptively by the Christian community and received considerable press at the time. This, however, pales in comparison to the reception received by Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ, which resulted in demonstrations, picketing and even the bombing of theatres. Scorsese also received death threats.

Also, it is important to point out that there is a fundamental difference between the Jesus movies you mention and the "Passion" movie Gibson has produced, namely these other movies tell the story of Jesus in context while Gibson's movie is a Passion Play. This is critically important in understanding the criticism surrounding Gibson's movie, which incidentally has not died down. Consider the Denver Pentecostal Church which posted a sign on their front lawn reading "Jews killed Jesus." Or, how about this excerpt from an email I received after posting my own short review on my website: "As fas as your opinion on the Jewish Sanhedrin, THE FACT IS THEY WERE GUILTY!! I don't give a SH*T what the Jews say then or today. And if they don't like it. WHO CARES! In fact people are getting SICK of the Jewish people re-writing history to suit them!"

Your opinion might be better informed if you read the official ADL FAQ on the film: http://www.adl.org/Interfaith/gibson_qa.asp.

In any case, Gibson started the whole charade himself when he appeared on the O'Reilly Factor. As far as I can tell (and I've researched this reasonably well, going back to the earliest comments on the film), Gibson has played a masterful public relations game.

[MickeyMoose15]

Originally posted by anduril


With all due respect, MickeyMoose15, I don't think you have an appreciation for the point of view from which the Jewish Anti-Defamation League sees this issue. Also, "they" (if you mean the Jewish Anti-Defamation League) had seen the movie when "they" commented on it.

I don't know what they saw then because it wasn't the film I saw. And some of the people, the people protesting outside of a New York theater the day before the film opened, hadn't seen and weren't with the Anti-Defamation League.

[MickeyMoose15]

Originally posted by anduril


On the contrary, other Jesus movies have sparked as much, if not more, controversy than Gibson's movie. "Jesus Christ Superstar", for one, was not greeted receptively by the Christian community and received considerable press at the time. This, however, pales in comparison to the reception received by Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ, which resulted in demonstrations, picketing and even the bombing of theatres. Scorsese also received death threats.

Also, it is important to point out that there is a fundamental difference between the Jesus movies you mention and the "Passion" movie Gibson has produced, namely these other movies tell the story of Jesus in context while Gibson's movie is a Passion Play. This is critically important in understanding the criticism surrounding Gibson's movie, which incidentally has not died down. Consider the Denver Pentecostal Church which posted a sign on their front lawn reading "Jews killed Jesus." Or, how about this excerpt from an email I received after posting my own short review on my website: "As fas as your opinion on the Jewish Sanhedrin, THE FACT IS THEY WERE GUILTY!! I don't give a SH*T what the Jews say then or today. And if they don't like it. WHO CARES! In fact people are getting SICK of the Jewish people re-writing history to suit them!"

Your opinion might be better informed if you read the official ADL FAQ on the film: http://www.adl.org/Interfaith/gibson_qa.asp.

In any case, Gibson started the whole charade himself when he appeared on the O'Reilly Factor. As far as I can tell (and I've researched this reasonably well, going back to the earliest comments on the film), Gibson has played a masterful public relations game.

If that is so, why hasn't anybody learned from the past that this isn't causing anti-Semitism. And even if it is then it is in very, very small amounts.

Granted there are some, as you have demonstrated but that is not the fault of the filmmakers. By protesting this in they way they did, I feel they are making people feel more like they should expect anti-Semitism in the film going into then if they went to it without a warning or

Their claims about the film are ridiculous. I don't care, being polite here, what anybody else says ... What they are saying is not the film I or anybody else saw on opening day and their comments are ridiculous. There is no reason what-so-ever they should be upset about this. Gibson portrays the Jews as "blood-thirsty"? What film were they watching because it wasn't this. If anybody should be blamed, it should be the leader of the Jewish high-priests who voiced his opinion before anybody else's and took control of the crowd.

[anduril]

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15

What they are saying is not the film I or anybody else saw on opening day and their comments are ridiculous. There is no reason what-so-ever they should be upset about this. Gibson portrays the Jews as "blood-thirsty"? What film were they watching because it wasn't this. If anybody should be blamed, it should be the leader of the Jewish high-priests who voiced his opinion before anybody else's and took control of the crowd.

First of all, I've seen the movie... actually I saw an advance screening... I'm among the many "Christian leaders" who were invited by Mel Gibson to see the movie before it was released. The ADL also had representatives who saw the film. So, to say that these comments are not from people who saw the film is simply inaccurate.

Second, did you read the FAQ?

Third, in what sort of position are you to evaluate the effects of the movie on the Jewish population? Are you Jewish? Do you have Jewish friends? Do you live in an area highly populated by Jews? Have you bothered to discuss the film with Jewish people to see how they perceive what they see on screen?

Fourth, are you familiar with the history of the Passion Play, particularly in Europe? Are you aware of past portrayals of Jews in such plays and how the accusation of "Christ-killers" has effected Jewish groups throughout the history of medieval and modern Europe?

Fifth, consider for example the opening scene and the arrest of Jesus by some Jewish authorities... as they bring Jesus back to the Sanhedrin, they beat him to a pulp. At one point, Jesus is even thrown over the side of a bridge. Please show me where in the New Testament Gospels this information is derived; the Gospels suggest a completely different scenario.

Or, how about the scenes when Peter denies Jesus three times? Peter is tossed back and forth through an angry mob of Jews who are clearly presented as hostile to him and towards Jesus. This hostility, at this juncture, is not reported in the Gospels.

Or, how about the scene that shows Satan moving in and through the Jewish mob who were watching the trial and scourging as if to suggest that Satan is somehow controlling the people and inspiring their blood lust?

Then, look at Caiaphas... this character is presented as a carciature... he is a high priest, who without any apparent motivation, seeks the death of Jesus as if it were a personal vendetta... compare that with the statement made by Caiaphas in John 11:50, "You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed." This quotation from the Gospel of John gives Gibson the perfect license to portray a more conflicted Caiaphas, someone who earnestly sought to avoid Roman retribution for the state of constant political and religious unrest in the region.

Sixth, look at the sympathetic portrayal of Pilate, his wife, and other members of the Roman aristocracy in the movie... compare that with the first thirty minutes of the movie, "The Greatest Story Ever Told," where you'll see Pilate's brutal takeover of Judea, including the crucifixion of thousands of Jews and the political realignment of the entire region in order to place it more firmly under Pilate's iron grip. Historical documents tell us that Pilate was later recalled to Rome to answer for his gratuitous use of crucifixion to subjugate the Jewish people.

Seventh, why in all the flashbacks do we see Jesus with only a handful of people at most? Why not have a flashback of him in a Jewish synagogue or being embraced by all sorts of Jewish people?

Eighth, why the overdrawn and overexaggerated brutality of two hours of pure, unmitigated, relentless, and uncontextualized violence?

So, is the movie itself anti-semitic... I'd still say no, just like the ADL has not called the movie anti-semitic. However, does it have sufficient elements in it to incite anti-semitism? Most certainly. It is a dangerous movie and the ADL and its supporters are right in raising the issue.

[MickeyMoose15]

I read the FAQ and their comments are utterly ridiculous. The main audience that will see this is Christians and they don't understand where WE are coming from. All this does is cause hatred amongst the Jews themselves against us. This doesn't the opposite affect, at least not in large numbers. I stand by my viewing that their was nothing any where close to anti-Semetic in that movie and anybody who interprets it that way, doesn't get the message Mr. Gibson is trying to portray and the filmmakers should not be held accountable for their response. I didn't leave the film saying, "I want to bash a Jew in the head for what his people did to Christ" and anybody who thinks that needs to learn common sense. Their comments are ridiculous, plain and simple. Somebody had to have called anti-Semetic in the first place or else this would be of such high controversy.

By what you and the ADL are saying, any film has the potential to cause something it is not intended to do. The Matrix, for example, was blamed for causing those two kids to take guns and shoot people at Columbine High School. Did the filmmakers intend that? No! Should they be held responsible? God no! Two nuts in the $171 million worth of people in the United States who saw the film and misinterpreted it as a promotion for violence should be blamed on the studio? Absolutely not and the same should go for this film. They are raising concerns about something that will not and is not happening in large numbers. If their was any anti-Semetism raised in past films, it is from the backgrounds of those people and their hatred for Jews, not the films. In my mind, you are persecuting the Christians and calling all of them anti-Semetic or having the potential for anti-Semetism, which I just find insultive.

[anduril]

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
I stand by my viewing that their was nothing any where close to anti-Semetic in that movie and anybody who interprets it that way, doesn't get the message Mr. Gibson is trying to portray...

Well then you are ignoring the extensive reply I just gave you in my previous post...

BTW, have you read the source material, specifically The Dolorous Passion... by Anne Catherine Emmerich?

Are you aware that Gibson's traditionalist Catholic Church rejects Vatican II and the measures of reconciliation set out in that historic document?

It is best not to be so sure about Gibson's motives...

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
...and the filmmakers should not be held accountable for their response ... By what you and the ADL are saying, any film has the potential to cause something it is not intended to do. The Matrix, for example, was blamed for causing those two kids to take guns and shoot people at Columbine High School. Did the filmmakers intend that? No! Should they be held responsible? God no! Two nuts in the $171 million worth of people in the United States who saw the film and misinterpreted it as a promotion for violence should be blamed on the studio? Absolutely not and the same should go for this film. They are raising concerns about something that will not and is not happening in large numbers. If their was any anti-Semetism raised in past films, it is from the backgrounds of those people and their hatred for Jews, not the films. In my mind, you are persecuting the Christians and calling all of them anti-Semetic or having the potential for anti-Semetism, which I just find insultive.

Ethics in the production of movies and film is an important issue and I think you are being dismissive... practically every field of human activity that involves the dissemination of information and ideas needs to be cognizant of the potential harm that the release of such information can have on the public, especially where that public may not have the education to properly assess and critique the information presented to them. Furthermore, it is important that producers, directors, and distributors take stock of the power of their medium to incite and inflame people across various different ideological spectrums. To ignore these considerations is irresponsible. Artists should not have carte blanche to present anything and everything that they want... while such may be the argument of those who laud "freedom of speech" as an absolute good, it is ultimately a very dangerous policy. Am I calling for censorship? No. But, I am calling for ethics.

In addition, I'm not calling Christians anti-semitic; I am a Christian myself so that would be very self-defeating of me to do. You, however, are apparently not reading the nuances of the arguments against the Passion of the Christ nor do you show that you are equipped with the historical background concerning the Passion Play and its history of complicity in inciting anti-semitism. As a Christian, I consider it of fundamental importance to ensure that the Gospel story is never used as a tool for hatred or racism. The history of its use to these ends is sadly and horribly extensive. In your rush to embrace and defend this movie, you clearly are not pausing to take into consideration the views of those whom Jesus called Christians to serve and love. Instead, you simply assume that because you do not respond to this movie with a desire to "bash a Jew in the head for what his people did to Christ" that the claims of the potential for anti-semitism are "ridiculous, plain and simple." You've offered no evidence to support this position except your invective-laced opinion while on the other hand I've given you several sources of information to show that the movie has already produced the reaction you claim it will not.

[MickeyMoose15]

I am well aware of Gibson's traditionalist catholic beliefs and I am also aware of what they do and do not reject but the fact is that it is a branch of Christianity none the less.

The simple fact remains that this has the POTENTIAL to inflame anti-Semetic feelings but that doesn't mean it will actually happen. We are a lot more acceptable of other religions today then we were years ago

I am not saying you specifically are calling Christians are anti-Semetic but these claims by the Anti-Defamation League make it sound like all Christians have the potential for anti-Semetism in them. Any question on whether someone has the potential for anti-Semetism depends on their background and the people who raised them.

"Am I calling for censorship? No. But, I am calling for ethics." That is just twisting the words around to say they are censoring it. They negotiated with Gibson to remove the line "May his blood be on us and our children" which I think should have remained in the film.

The thing is the Jews have a problem with the Bible. The Bible is not historical fact, I know ... I take it from a literary prospective. I know of Gibson's faith but most Christians seeing the film don't have the same view as Gibson.

I still stand by my statement of "the claims of the potential for anti-semitism being ridiculous, plain and simple". Every person I have talked to has said they found no bit of anti-Semetism in the film.

This is the last I will posting on this as I stand firmly on what I stand for and view the Anti-Defamation League as provoking something they shouldn't have. All their claims are of POTENTIAL and POSSIBILITY but nothing definite with today's culture.

[anduril]

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
I am well aware of Gibson's traditionalist catholic beliefs and I am also aware of what they do and do not reject but the fact is that it is a branch of Christianity none the less.

Your posts certainly have not revealed a knowledge of the nature of his Church.

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
The simple fact remains that this has the POTENTIAL to inflame anti-Semetic feelings but that doesn't mean it will actually happen. We are a lot more acceptable of other religions today then we were years ago

Really? Read this report produced by the EU: http://uk-org-bod.supplehost.org/EUMC/EUMC.pdf.

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
I am not saying you specifically are calling Christians are anti-Semetic but these claims by the Anti-Defamation League make it sound like all Christians have the potential for anti-Semetism in them.

No, what they say is that film has the potential to incite anti-semitism, that's it that's all... Your statements would seem to suggest you actually didn't read the information on their site.

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
"Am I calling for censorship? No. But, I am calling for ethics." That is just twisting the words around to say they are censoring it. They negotiated with Gibson to remove the line "May his blood be on us and our children" which I think should have remained in the film.

No. It is not twisting words around; it is recognizing that people have ethical responsibilities and carte blanche should not be an inalienable right, especially in the realm of film. It is recognizing that most freedoms have limits.

And, I think you are wrong in your opinion of that line... few people today correctly understand its meaning because they have no sense of ancient Jewish culture. Thankfully that one change was made in the movie.

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
The thing is the Jews have a problem with the Bible.

I'm sorry but I must digress... what an incredibly ignorant statement for you to make... 39 books of the 66 books in what you call the Bible are Hebrew Scriptures, written in Hebrew and Aramaic for Jews.

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
I still stand by my statement of "the claims of the potential for anti-semitism being ridiculous, plain and simple". Every person I have talked to has said they found no bit of anti-Semetism in the film.

Any of them Jews?

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
All their claims are of POTENTIAL and POSSIBILITY but nothing definite with today's culture.

As mentioned already, I've given you several "definite" examples of anti-semitism that directly relate to the release of the movie. The ADL could give you thousands upon thousands of emails that they have received. If you talked with more Jewish people, you would get hundreds and thousands of stories about being called "Christ-killers" as well as considerable evidence about anti-semitism. I'm sorry to say, MickeyMoose15, your opinions are based on ignorance.

[MickeyMoose15]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...ute.guest.html

[anduril]

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...ute.guest.html

The information contained at this site does nothing to support your arguments in this thread. It's an opinion piece by Rush Limbaugh that does not address the issue of anti-semitism in the movie in any significant sense nor does it support your claim that there is little to no potential for anti-semitism as a result of the release of the movie nor does it prove that we should not attempt to understand and empathize with those who have concerns about the movie.

In one paragraph, Limbaugh writes, "I want to know: Where are the roving bands of hateful Christians throughout the streets of America wreaking havoc and violence on the innocent and harmless people of this country? Where is this happening? Remember all of these predictions? You know, all of this panicked outcry: 'Why, why, anti-Semitism! Why...' This movie doesn't create any anti-anything."

Limbaugh is using typical "straw man" rhetoric. He is suggesting that the ADL and those who have criticized elements of Gibson's movie claimed that "roving bands of hateful Christians" would march "throughout the streets of America wreaking havoc and violence on the innocent and harmless people of this country." This is outrageous and I remember no such predictions. It is certainly not at all what the ADL was really worried about; anti-semitism is often more subtle than that.

On the issue of anti-semitism, that's about it for that article (with the exception of a criticism of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which only reveals Limbaugh's ignorance about Gibson's Church affiliation, and a brief statement of Limbaugh's position that the movie isn't anti-semitic and that anti-semitism doesn't exist in the American South; this last point that anti-semitism doesn't exist in the American South is just a crock and incredibly ignorant).

I could find you much more eloquent and well-spoken proponents of your position on this than Rush Limbaugh.