• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Latest buzz on Gibson film "Passion"

CNN

Any Latin or Aramaic speakers here . . . you may be the only ones capable of understanding William Wallace's version of history . . . legend . . . folklore. I'm not implying Jesus of Nazareth wasn't crucified but most of this film is fiction not fact. How do I know? Well I studied early Christianity (religion minor) . . . no one knows the details. And if as Mel says, "it's based on the Four Gospels", the next question is which version b/c the four Gospels depict appreciably different accounts of this event.

(excerpts)
NEW YORK (AP) -- Those who have seen Mel Gibson's film about the final hours of Jesus Christ have called it beautiful, magical, a great and important work.

Those who fear "The Passion" could fuel anti-Semitism, however, until now hadn't been allowed to see the film. Seven months before its release, this extraordinary vanity project is stirring passions over Gibson's exclusionary screenings and the potential for a negative depiction of Jews.

Ted Haggard, president of the National Evangelical Association, saw a screening in late June with about 30 evangelical scholars. The scholars are very strict about adherence to scripture, so Gibson "had no assurances that we would be friendly toward that movie."

But Haggard loved it. "I thought it was the most authentic portrayal I've ever seen."

Cal Thomas, a conservative syndicated columnist, called the film "the most beautiful, accurate, disturbing, realistic and bloody depiction of this well-known story that has ever been filmed."

Internet personality Matt Drudge told MSNBC: "It depicts a clash between Jesus and those who crucified him and speaking as a Jew, I thought it was a magical film that showed the perils of life on earth."

But what is Gibson's version of the story? His traditionalist religion rejects the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which in 1965 rejected the notion that Jews were collectively responsible for killing Jesus. The actor is building a traditionalist church in Malibu, California, for about 70 members, and intends to hold Sunday services there in Latin.

His father, Hutton Gibson, was quoted in a New York Times Magazine article in March as denying the Holocaust occurred.

Masters said industry people who have seen the film respect its quality, but said it is disturbingly graphic.

"It's not a family film, from what I understand," she said. "It's a really difficult film."

 
I think I will probably see it, but a little OT here, how can someone deny the holocaust happened? I don't get it, it was a well documented event, there are still people alive today that lived through it, I guess it was a defensive measure? Bury your head in the sand and it will go away?
 
I'm looking forward to seeing this film.

"His father, Hutton Gibson, was quoted in a New York Times Magazine article in March as denying the Holocaust occurred"

First Arnold, now Mel Gibson, what does this matter? Why are we being told what our public figures fathers said/believe? Are they to pay for the sins of their fathers?
 
Originally posted by: tw1164
I'm looking forward to seeing this film.

"His father, Hutton Gibson, was quoted in a New York Times Magazine article in March as denying the Holocaust occurred"

First Arnold, now Mel Gibson, what does this matter? Why are we being told what our public figures fathers said/believe? Are they to pay for the sins of their fathers?



Actually Arnold looks like a freaking bleeding heart leftist liberal son of Karl Marx when compared to Gibson. Gibson in the past has back Australian candidates who were very much extreme right wingers who were also openly anti-jewish, anti-native and anti-foreigner.
 
The fruit don't fall far from the tree . . . my father was somewhat racist and very sexist but I reject both in words and deeds. Maybe Schwarzenegger and Gibson reject their fathers' misguided notions. But there's little doubt that Gibson is making a movie which takes a decidedly skewed perspective on an historical event. Jewish authorities played a pivotal role in the prosecution of Jesus . . . almost as pivotal as the Roman authorities that ultimately determined he should be crucified and carried out the sentence. From the limited information I have available it appears Gibson's film is biased towards giving his POV not history.

I think Gibson should be commended for making good art (after multiple courses in early Christianity I never bothered to learn Latin, Aramaic, Hebrew, or German) but far too many consumers don't know the difference between art and history.
 
The fruit don't fall far from the tree . . . my father was somewhat racist and very sexist but I reject both in words and deeds

That adage is true, but are we to "remind" everyone that your father was somewhat racist and very sexist, whenever you make a statement on public/social policies?
 
Back
Top