response 163 of 306:

Feb 27 16:47 UTC 2004

I'd accept his definition as portrayed by twila, with reservations that he
should (have) acknowledged that the Holocaust in particular, and Nazism in
general, DID have a particularly anti-Semitic and pro-ethno-genicidal element.

response 165 of 306:

Feb 27 16:51 UTC 2004

Todd, in re 160 -- I don't think Gibson made the movie for anyone but himself.
He had a crisis of faith about twelve yeaers ago, according to several
interviews, and he nearly committed suicide, and he was only brought out of
it by returning to the faith and by recommitting himself to God. So out of
that recommittment and his own faith, he made this movie. Whether or not you
agree with the specifics of what he believes, it doesn't make him less
sincere. I certainly didn't find the portrayal to be anti-Semitic. It was very
clear that Jesus was freely submitting to this death, and that while he feared
it, it was his course and his own choice. While Caiaphas and other Sanhedrin
members wanted him dead/silenced, and some of the Temple Guard were violent
and abusive and some people were bought/influenced by mob mentality, it was
very clear that it was not every Jew or even a majority of them who wanted
this to happen. Many other characters (Joseph of Arimathea, and two others
in the Sanhedrin were appalled at Caiaphas's actions; some Temple Guards were
aghast at their comrades; many on the route to the crucifixion protested) were
shown as being against this course of action. It was not a monolithic
presentation that "Jews are bad, it's their fault". As I said, it was more
anti-soldier, who were nearly all presented as brutal drunken louts who
enjoyed having someone in their power and revelled in their ability to hit
and kick and lord it over other people -- IF I thought it was anti-anyone.

response 167 of 306:

Feb 27 18:00 UTC 2004

RE#152 Bruce I'm probably more left (liberal) than Rane, yet I don't attack
you at every opportunity.  I already have a full time job.

response 169 of 306:

Feb 27 18:23 UTC 2004

  Granted that his father seems to hold some appalling beliefs, 
  but how is the son responsible for his father's opinions?

response 171 of 306:

Feb 27 18:47 UTC 2004

Oh, that was affecting. I still cry whenever I read about Theoden King's
death. (But that's in the book, the affect. Not in the movie so much.)

I draw a strict line in my own mind and reactions between violence that's to
a person (beatings, fights, etc.) and the results (dimly seen, usually) of
sword fights, etc. I was perfectly fine with the violence in the Last Samurai,
for example, although there were shootings and beheadings and blood sloshing
around, because it wasn't "real". Someone being shot in modern life, someone
being hit and kicked anytime, that is REAL. That makes me cringe. I know it's
weird, but it's my own reaction. I also can't watch any sexual violence on
the screen (I'll never watch Rob Roy, or parts of Braveheart, for example,
because there are rapes implied. I can never watch the first two Mad Max
movies for those reasons. I have left the room, shuddering, when those movies
came on tv.)

Of course, I am much more affected by books than by movies, usually. I can
keep the descriptions in my head for YEARS of squicky things and still react
to them. One reason that I self-censor my reading to things that aren't
uber-violent or sexually violent or deal with graphic child abuse. 

response 173 of 306:

Feb 27 18:54 UTC 2004

Stephen King is overrated.

response 175 of 306:

Feb 27 18:57 UTC 2004

I've read Stephen King. Mostly the short stories, things like "Stand by Me"
and the recent "From a Buick 8" although I've also read some more graphic
books. (I have also read Dean Koontz, and some other horror writers. Depends
on how graphic and how desperate I am for something to read. :-) I do draw
the line at most splatterpunk, although I'm quite fond of early horror writers
such as Lovecraft, Machen, and the like.

response 177 of 306:

Feb 27 19:37 UTC 2004

Rane in resp:157 :: on a film representation of a mass Roman 
reprisal crucifixion, it's been done; the end of SPARTACUS.
 
On the comparison between the violence in PASSION vs. the violence in
LORD OF THE RINGS:   RINGS is mostly combat; PASSION is entirely 
torture, from the accounts I have read.   I suppose I'm perverse 
in finding that representations of fighting can be exhilirating -- 
I can get really obsessive over James Bond films, for example -- 
but torture scenes in movies range from making me very uncomfortable
to making me stop watching, and movies themed around executions are 
just flat out not watched.

response 179 of 306:

Feb 27 22:52 UTC 2004

I have heard Mel Gibsons father state that he thought teh jews were mostly
forced out of europe, not gassed.

I have heard Mel Gibson say he does not as his father does, and denounce the
nazi atrocities.

Nothing in the movie suggests anti-semetism.  Criticism of the movie began
before the script was even written.  Now some of the hollywood elite are ready
to crucify Gibson for filming and releasing this movie, even talking about
banning him or blacklisting him.

This from people who gave an award to a known rapist.

response 181 of 306:

Feb 27 23:19 UTC 2004

Twila - the Stephen King book you're thinking of is "The Dead Zone".  I have
the same problem that you do, that scenes get stuck in my head for months
and sometimes years, so I have learned (the hard way) to avoid really
violent movies.  Especially documentaries and docudramas about violent
things that actually happened.

response 183 of 306:

Feb 28 05:47 UTC 2004

Wow, there are sure a lot of articles about PASSION on the web.
Christopher Hitchens' very hostile review in Slate led me to a bit 
of information about Sister Anne Emmerich, whose work Gibson seems 
to draw heavily on in the movie.  Beliefnet.com has a compilation
of "extra-biblical" scenes in the movie and discusses the apparent
sources; this site seems fairly neutral.
 
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/140/story_14097_1.html
 

response 185 of 306:

Feb 28 13:27 UTC 2004

What a novel idea!

response 187 of 306:

Feb 28 14:36 UTC 2004

I'd really like to hear from some other people who've seen it. Has anyone else
on Grex seen it? (Thanks, Ken, for posting the beliefnet url. I found it
yesterday but hadn't managed to capture the url for posting.)

The problem, I was thinking, is that people are pre-judging the movie without
seeing it. Which is a problem with a lot of movies, actually. I'm sure that
the "Last Temptation of Christ" was labelled blasphemous by people who had
not seen the movie or read the book because they'd heard that it was, or that
it included scenes that they assumed were played in one way or another. It's
the same now. If Todd saw the movie, and then said it was anti-semitic, with
reference to the pices that made him say so (in particular the supposed covert
anti-semiticism that people have spoken of , but which I haven't seen any
details about), I would certainly have a better basis for re-thinking why I
didn't see that in the movie. Because, as it stands now, I have seen the movie
and I didn't see the elements that people are alleging are in there. Personal
experience trumps allegations every time.