On 4 Mar 2004 05:00:38 -0800,

RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message

One would be silly to expect that any Jew would have enthusiasm for any

based on the New Testament. But by the billowing plumes of black smoke

from this one you'd expect there to be _some_ sort of fire beneath it.

isn't a child's birthday candle. If any anti-Jewish sentiment arises

movie it will be from resentment that such a loving and affecting

the Judean people has been described in such hateful, bitter and false

Safire (and others) seem to worry how other cultures might translate

interpret the movie. Sorry, that is not the artist's problem.

himself and his audience. If some other audience does not get it, so it

Perhaps an Orthodox Jew would see more in this movie than most of its

does since they do actually learn Aramaic to study the Talmud.

have nothing to go on but the actor's work, the subtitles and the

cultural knowledge of the basic story. What we, the mainstream, see is

the best, most powerful adaptation of a biblical story to the big

made.

Western Civilization for 2,000 years. Believe or not, it is one hell of

movie.

Ron

Jeez, Ron, of all the commentary I've seen on this film, print
included, this essay of yours beats everything. Thanks for the time
and care you spent putting it together. I am cross-posting it because
it deserves a much wider audience.

Thank you. We'll see what quality of argument or debate it might provoke.

Since writing this I've been made aware of some aspects of the movie to

Jewish people might reasonably object. Apparently the Temple is remembered

venerated and portrayal of some of its priests as self-interested,

and otherwise indulging in the temptations of power does insult that

That is a different thing from being anti-Semitic or promoting antagonism

Jews. Still, a decent sensibility should acknowledge the discomfort

Anyway, thanks for the kind words. Though I'm not sure that the crosspost

favor :)

On 4 Mar 2004 05:00:38 -0800,

RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message

One was writing more about the stuff about the film and the other was writing
about the movie itself. Beyond that, it is the nature of art that different
people will see a thing differently. Were this some simple minded screed there
would be no debate about it, or, rather the debate would be whether one agrees
or disagrees. Instead it is a work of art and we get to argue about what it
means. Mel Gibson as a movie maker has typically been a fairly blunt instrument,
deftly wielded, but a blunt instrument nonetheless. Here he has done a beautiful
job painting very real and complex characters in roles that are usually
performed by cliche's and cardboard cutouts.

That is at the core of how this movie tells its story so well and why it is not
going to be used as an incitement. We get to know these people and we recognize
them as real people with the range of character and personality we find in those
around us. A bigot will not need this movie, in fact he won't like it a bit, it
won't conform to his prejudices.

Caiaphus, the high priest does not come off well, if there is a human bad guy in
this movie it is him. He has clearly decided that Jesus must die and will simply
see to it. It is clear he hates the Roman occupiers and if he can't be rid of
them he will use them as the anvil on which to hammer his enemies. On his enemy
list are those whom the Romans might prefer to have his job - Jesus is at the
top. To my eye and probably any other modern moviegoer he reminds us more of the
angry beards we are presently wrestling with in Iran and Iraq than any modern
Jew. The movie is very clear that the people of Judea were decent people with
many characters who are not followers or disciples treating the movie's Hero as
well and honorably as circumstance allows.

It could only be called anti-Semitic by someone who would protest any movie that
portrays Jews as ordinary people with all the usual human failings, or who uses
that word as a code for something that other Jews should hate.

One would be silly to expect that any Jew would have enthusiasm for any movie
based on the New Testament. But by the billowing plumes of black smoke rising
from this one you'd expect there to be _some_ sort of fire beneath it. There
isn't a child's birthday candle. If any anti-Jewish sentiment arises from this
movie it will be from resentment that such a loving and affecting portrayal of
the Judean people has been described in such hateful, bitter and false language.

Safire (and others) seem to worry how other cultures might translate and
interpret the movie. Sorry, that is not the artist's problem. He works for
himself and his audience. If some other audience does not get it, so it is.
Perhaps an Orthodox Jew would see more in this movie than most of its audience
does since they do actually learn Aramaic to study the Talmud. The rest of us
have nothing to go on but the actor's work, the subtitles and the inevitable
cultural knowledge of the basic story. What we, the mainstream, see is simply
the best, most powerful adaptation of a biblical story to the big screen ever
made. A movie that stands on its own telling a story that has affected all of
Western Civilization for 2,000 years. Believe or not, it is one hell of a good
movie.

Ron

Jeez, Ron, of all the commentary I've seen on this film, print
included, this essay of yours beats everything. Thanks for the time
and care you spent putting it together. I am cross-posting it because
it deserves a much wider audience.

Thank you. We'll see what quality of argument or debate it might provoke.

Since writing this I've been made aware of some aspects of the movie to which
Jewish people might reasonably object. Apparently the Temple is remembered and
venerated and portrayal of some of its priests as self-interested, manipulative
and otherwise indulging in the temptations of power does insult that memory.
That is a different thing from being anti-Semitic or promoting antagonism toward
Jews. Still, a decent sensibility should acknowledge the discomfort caused.

Anyway, thanks for the kind words. Though I'm not sure that the crosspost is a
favor :)

Ron

"RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:qske40dm688arpv22ltm4fb901rq58m6ae@4ax.com...

On 4 Mar 2004 05:00:38 -0800,

RonSonic <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message

news:<tl59409h9jrqp2325g5na4fkgvhnbq3hla@4ax.com>...

One would be silly to expect that any Jew would have enthusiasm for any

movie

based on the New Testament. But by the billowing plumes of black smoke

rising

from this one you'd expect there to be _some_ sort of fire beneath it.

There

isn't a child's birthday candle. If any anti-Jewish sentiment arises

from this

movie it will be from resentment that such a loving and affecting

portrayal of

the Judean people has been described in such hateful, bitter and false

language.

Only someone with their head firmly wedged between their back cheeks could
come up with this one.
*Xian scholars* have condemned the movie as anti-semitic.

Since writing this I've been made aware of some aspects of the movie to
which Jewish people might reasonably object. Apparently the Temple is
remembered and venerated and portrayal of some of its priests as
self-interested, manipulative and otherwise indulging in the temptations
of power does insult that memory. That is a different thing from being
anti-Semitic or promoting antagonism toward Jews. Still, a decent
sensibility should acknowledge the discomfort caused.