How was "The Passion of the Christ" anti - Semitic? I never saw the movie and hence have no basis or motivation to either defend or condemn it, but I read that it was a faithful adaptation of the Gospels. So, are the gospels, the New Testament, and Christianity itself inherently anti - Semitic? And by extension, are all Christians who adhere to a literalist Biblical interpretation anti - Semitic?
Holy smokes you bought the lie hook line and sinker.
First the gospels disagree on essential points. Only one of them presents the Jews as Christ killers. Why did Mel choose that telling? Second, none of the torture and blood - much of it, in the movie, committed by Jews - appears in the Gospels. That was created by Gibson. Third, the Gospels say nothing about how Jews look. Gibson chose to make them hook-nosed, and to give them rabinical beards and talit-like shawls. He chose to have them speak in gravely sneers and to move like vipers. Fourth, the scene where the Jewish high priest builds the cross upon which Jesus was killed appears nowhere in the Bible. It was dreamt up in the 19th century by an insane nun. Yet, Gibson put it in the movie. And there are more example like this. Gibson's portrayal of the Jews is based on nothing more than his own imagination of what they looked like and sounded like - and it isn't pretty.
[Medved] defended the movie when it came out. What has happened since then that would make him change his mind? That it turns out Gibson is an anti-semite? If it's revealed that Leonardo Da Vinci was an ant-semite, does that take away from the Mona Lisa?
Medved is STILL defending the movie. even now after Gibson's melt-down. In his latest article, Medved writes that his critical admiration of TPOC is unabated. But now that we know the movie was made by someone sick to his core with Jew hatred, how is it possible to look at the many and multiple anti-Semitic depictions without seeing an agenda? In the movie, the Romans are presented as ethically delicate brutes who were manipulated by cunning and evil Jews into acquiescing to the crucifixion. Why did Gibson choose to show it that way? Why did Gibson choose to show us things that aren't in the Gospels? Why did he choose to make the Jews look Rabininc? If Da-Vinci was an anti-Semite the Mona Lisa is still a beautiful picture, and a technical achievment. But Gibson made deliberate choices about what to include and what to leave out when he made TPOC. His depictions of the Jews are the consequence of those decisions and he must be held accountable -esp. now in light of his newly confirmed anti-Semitism.
Instead, stuff like "The Last Temptation Of Christ", "Priest", "Saved", and "The Da Vinci Code" ... attacks on traditional Christianity ... get released. And you have the Motion Picture Association of America giving a Christian film that lacks violence, nudity, sex, profanity, or adult themes a PG rating because of the movie's "overt Christian message that may offend those of other faiths."
Excuse me, but TPOC was a masochistic fantasy, a sacred snuff film, full of scenes of brutal toture. No one in his right mind would let a child watch that.
I'll leave deciding if the movie was faithful to Christian teachings to the Christians.
And with a sentance you've abdicated your responsibility to stand up for Jewish honor. Gibson has every right to decide for himself how to present his movie. But does he have a "right" to misrepresent what his movie is? Gibson repeatedly claimed that The Passion was both scripturally faithful and historically accurate. In fact, it was neither. That is the problem. If you let people go on thinking that this anti-Semitic fever dream was an honest protrayal of the Gospels you've done them a terrible diservice.
No comments:
Post a Comment