![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was reading over friends in LJ and came across ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
morrigan's thoughts on the hype over Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. I've seen the hype over the past few months too and I'm astounded by the press over antisemitism. I'm pretty much in agreement with her on most of what she said - I think if a person reads the gospels in the Christian bible, they're going to get the same material. Calling someone an antisemite for creating a film based off this material - or for just liking it - is no bases for that sort of claim. Unless you're willing to bite the bullet and say ALL Christians are antisemites at their base. And so far no one's been willing to go that far in the press.
I will agree that some people look at the bible, see Jews handing Jesus over to the Romans and then deciding to hate all Jews because THEY KILLED JESUS! These are the same type of people that call Mark Twain a racist for using the word "nigger" in Huckleberry Finn. The mentality exists and there just ain't nothing you can do about it but sigh and go on with life. But some feel we need to be responsible and cater to the reactions of the lowest common denominator, I guess. I don't know. I think if we're ever going to get smarter as a people, we've really got to stop doing that. Cut the cord. Let people grew up a little.
BUT - let me have my say on what I feel the Jesus film makers of the world should pay a little more attention to - and that's the actual history vs the Gospels as the sole source of material. They many times ignore that it is a particular group of Jews that hand Jesus over because they're afraid that the Romans are going to severly come down on them unless they keep quiet and do as they are told. I mean, these are an occupied people. It's pretty much akin to something like Yassir Araffat handing over the leader of Hammas to keep the Israelis from wiping them all out. It's the same damn thing. Radicalism is a scary thing. And when it comes down to it - they were right. Rome sends in the troops in 70 AD and they destroy the Temple. Couple decades later, they kick all the Jews out of Palestine for good, thus beginning the 1900 year diaspora until May of 1948. So, you know, these people that turned Jesus over - they had reasons other than being vindictive, mean people.
I think what film makers might want to remember when deciding to do a Jesus story, is that the Jews that handed Jesus over weren't just picking on a good man because he made them look bad. Like it or not, the Gospel writers did have an agenda and they weren't happy with the way things went. Of course the guys that turned Jesus over come off looking bad. The beloved leader this new group of Christian-Jews was dead because of those people. So a little historical perspective PLEASE!
If you want to see a WONDERFUL Jesus story with beautiful weaving in of history and gospel, I recommend Jesus of Montreal - written and directed by Denys Arcand, French Canadian film, if you couldn't guess.
But I can't judge Mel's, having not seen it yet. I don't know what he uses to deliver the story. I do like that it only uses Aramaic, Latin and Hebrew as the languages. And I've heard that he also includes medieval Catholic mystics like St. Maria de Agreda's Mystical City of God (if you've ever read stories of the passion by the mystics they tend to be extreme detailed in violence, hence why the film may be so violent, though crucifixtion doesn't really need an aid, does it?) - I've never seen mystics used in a Jesus film before, so I'm looking forward to seeing it.
We shall see when it's released how it goes . . .
So to sum up, use of bible material in Jesus films does not equal antisemite. Jesus film makers, know your history.
morrigan's thoughts on the hype over Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. I've seen the hype over the past few months too and I'm astounded by the press over antisemitism. I'm pretty much in agreement with her on most of what she said - I think if a person reads the gospels in the Christian bible, they're going to get the same material. Calling someone an antisemite for creating a film based off this material - or for just liking it - is no bases for that sort of claim. Unless you're willing to bite the bullet and say ALL Christians are antisemites at their base. And so far no one's been willing to go that far in the press. I will agree that some people look at the bible, see Jews handing Jesus over to the Romans and then deciding to hate all Jews because THEY KILLED JESUS! These are the same type of people that call Mark Twain a racist for using the word "nigger" in Huckleberry Finn. The mentality exists and there just ain't nothing you can do about it but sigh and go on with life. But some feel we need to be responsible and cater to the reactions of the lowest common denominator, I guess. I don't know. I think if we're ever going to get smarter as a people, we've really got to stop doing that. Cut the cord. Let people grew up a little.
BUT - let me have my say on what I feel the Jesus film makers of the world should pay a little more attention to - and that's the actual history vs the Gospels as the sole source of material. They many times ignore that it is a particular group of Jews that hand Jesus over because they're afraid that the Romans are going to severly come down on them unless they keep quiet and do as they are told. I mean, these are an occupied people. It's pretty much akin to something like Yassir Araffat handing over the leader of Hammas to keep the Israelis from wiping them all out. It's the same damn thing. Radicalism is a scary thing. And when it comes down to it - they were right. Rome sends in the troops in 70 AD and they destroy the Temple. Couple decades later, they kick all the Jews out of Palestine for good, thus beginning the 1900 year diaspora until May of 1948. So, you know, these people that turned Jesus over - they had reasons other than being vindictive, mean people.
I think what film makers might want to remember when deciding to do a Jesus story, is that the Jews that handed Jesus over weren't just picking on a good man because he made them look bad. Like it or not, the Gospel writers did have an agenda and they weren't happy with the way things went. Of course the guys that turned Jesus over come off looking bad. The beloved leader this new group of Christian-Jews was dead because of those people. So a little historical perspective PLEASE!
If you want to see a WONDERFUL Jesus story with beautiful weaving in of history and gospel, I recommend Jesus of Montreal - written and directed by Denys Arcand, French Canadian film, if you couldn't guess.
But I can't judge Mel's, having not seen it yet. I don't know what he uses to deliver the story. I do like that it only uses Aramaic, Latin and Hebrew as the languages. And I've heard that he also includes medieval Catholic mystics like St. Maria de Agreda's Mystical City of God (if you've ever read stories of the passion by the mystics they tend to be extreme detailed in violence, hence why the film may be so violent, though crucifixtion doesn't really need an aid, does it?) - I've never seen mystics used in a Jesus film before, so I'm looking forward to seeing it.
We shall see when it's released how it goes . . .
So to sum up, use of bible material in Jesus films does not equal antisemite. Jesus film makers, know your history.
