speciale--- PASSION---

[carbonass]

http://www.passion-movie.com/choose.html

[carbonass]

Jewish Heat on Actor Mel Gibson

Michael A. Hoffman II, Editor





http://www.hoffman-info.com/news.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/02/na...02GIBS.html?hp

August 2, 2003


New York Times Keeps the Heat on Gibson


Editor's Note: Debate on Mel Gibson's forthcoming film, "The Passion,"

about the torture and execution of Jesus Christ, continues to draw a

storm of controversy. Opinion is divided between those Zionist hysterics

who believe the movie is a cross between Jud Suss and the Ewige Jude,

and some on the right who think Gibson has sold them out by being "soft

on the Pharisees." Actually, the movie isn't about Christ's enemies, its

about the physical and mental agony He endured, something akin to Jim

Bishop's book, "The Day Christ Died," rather than a cinematic polemic

against rabbinic Judaism.


In Gibson's production, Jews are fleetingly depicted persecuting Christ.

Brutal Roman soldiers are also shown doing bad things. I have no problem

with a movie focused on what Jesus endured, rather than on an intricate

exploration of the dynamic of the Pharisee-Christian confrontation; that

can come later.


What Gibson's critics on the Right seem to have forgotten is that

Auschwitz has replaced Calvary as the central ontological event of

Western history precisely because there has been so much celluloid

devoted to the inmates of Auschwitz, and little or nothing concerning

the horrors the Son of God endured on the Cross. On this basis alone,

the ADL and the rabbis will despise this film, which, contrary to the

statements of those wishing to curry favor with the Money Power, does

not whitewash or minimize the Judaic role in deicide; it's just not the

focus of the movie.


Comments by timid Gibson-supporters suggesting that he shows the Romans

in a worse light than Jews, or that the movie "pays tribute to Judaism"

are spoken out of fear of The Lobby. Let's look at incontrovertible

facts. The fact is the ADL dishonorably attacked Gibson and his

octogenarian father with the usual contemptuous smear tactics, which

have deeply offended Mel. As a result, he's refusing to screen his film

for ADL chairman Abraham Foxman and other blind haters like him. This

says far more about Gibson's mettle than statements by

kosher-conservatives seeking to defend him by currying favor with the

Master Race.


Coverage of this flap continues to be highly prejudicial. The Zionist

authoress of the following NY Times article cannot even conceal her

anti-Christian bias, and must insert a classic rabbinic put-down of the

validity of the New Testament: "Mr. Gibson has said his movie will be

true to the Gospel account of the last hours of Jesus' life. But

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John differ greatly, presenting Rashomon-like

accounts of the roles of the Romans and Jews in the Crucifixion."



Goodstein also chooses to repeat the canard that "the Romans were the

occupying power and that the Jewish authorities were their agents." If

Jewish authorities were the mere agents of Rome, then when Pilate sought

to free Christ, his "agents" among the howling mob would have obeyed

him, rather than continuing to defiantly scream "Crucify him!" Moreover,

we have the Talmud's statement that the Roman authorities were

sympathetic to Christ, while the Talmud describes Jesus as an "enticer"

and idolater" who got what He deserved at Golgotha.


The Zionists are losing their cool, terrified at the prospect of a

Hollywood director opposing their agenda by using the very medium over

which they have exercised a virtual stranglehold. I love it!


After producing hundreds of racist anti-German films and pornographic

filth about Jesus, such as "The Last Temptation of Christ" (distributed

by MCA's Lew Wasserman despite massive Christian protests), and

hit-movies where every other swear word takes the name of Christ in

vain, they now have the brass, the nerve, the gall to claim that a

solitary movie about Christ's sufferings will "stoke anti-Jewish

violence." If that's the only card they can play in opposition to "The

Passion," they're in desperate straits indeed.


True believers in the almighty power of the Zionists would never have

imagined that Mel would have gotten even this far. But one wealthy and

powerful man has finally stood up and exhibited the courage of his

convictions. Assuming that he maintains his intrepid defiance, I predict

that Mr. Gibson will overcome and expose The Lobby for the thought cops

they are. Americans will then begin using as their lingua franca, the

terminology the New York Times studiously avoids in reporting this

controversy, and demand a halt to decades of "Jewish censorship."


Months Before Debut,
Movie on Death of Jesus Causes Stir

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN


New York Times, August 2, 2003

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/02/na...02GIBS.html?hp


With his movie about the death of Jesus under attack as anti-Semitic,

Mel Gibson is trying to build an audience and a defense for his project

by screening it for evangelical Christians, conservative Catholics,

right-wing pundits, Republicans, a few Jewish commentators and Jews who

believe that Jesus is the Messiah.


Mr. Gibson has poured $25 million of his money into the movie, "The

Passion," calling it the most authentic and biblically accurate film

about Jesus' death.


Now, seven months before its scheduled release on Ash Wednesday, the

film has set off an uproar that both sides warn could undermine years of

bridge building between Christians and Jews. The selected audiences who

have seen the film defend it as the most moving, reverential — and

violent — depiction of Jesus' suffering and death ever put on screen.

Detractors, who have read a script but not seen the film, say it is a

modern version of the medieval Passion plays that portrayed Jews as

"Christ killers" and stoked anti-Jewish violence.


The dialogue is in Aramaic and Latin. Scholars say that belies the

assertion of total authenticity, because the Romans spoke Greek. Mr.

Gibson had said the film would not have English subtitles. But it is

being screened with them, the marketing director, Paul Lauer, said, and

they may remain. "The Passion" has no distributor. Mr. Lauer said "two

major studios" were interested or Mr. Gibson might distribute it

himself.


The controversy has been cast by many of his supporters as the Jews

versus Mel Gibson. But it began when several Roman Catholic scholars

voiced concern about the project because of Mr. Gibson's affiliation

with a splinter Catholic group that rejects the modern papacy and the

reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which in 1965 repudiated the

charge of deicide against the Jews.


Mr. Gibson has been screening "The Passion" for a few weeks for friendly

audiences, but has refused to show it to his critics, including members

of Jewish groups and biblical scholars. In Washington, it was shown to

the Web gossip Matt Drudge, the columnists Cal Thomas and Peggy Noonan

and the staffs of the Senate Republican Conference and the White House

Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and others. In Colorado

Springs, the capital of evangelical America, the film drew raves. A

convention of the Legionaries of Christ, a conservative Roman Catholic

order of priests, saw a preview, as did Rush Limbaugh.


Audiences wept, and many were awestruck. "Mel Gibson is the Michelangelo

of this generation," said the Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the

National Association of Evangelicals.


"It's going to be a classic," said Deal W. Hudson, publisher of Crisis,

a conservative Catholic magazine. "It's going to be the go-to film for

Christians of all denominations who want to see the best movie made

about the Passion of Christ."


Mr. Gibson has said his movie will be true to the Gospel account of the

last hours of Jesus' life. But Matthew, Mark, Luke and John differ

greatly, presenting Rashomon-like accounts of the roles of the Romans

and Jews in the Crucifixion.


A committee of Bible scholars who read a version of the script said that

it was not true to Scripture or Catholic teaching and that it badly

twisted Jewish leaders' role in Jesus' death. The problem, the scholars

said, is not that Mr. Gibson is anti-Semitic, but that his film could

unintentionally incite anti-Semitic violence.


One scholar, Sister Mary C. Boys, a professor at Union Theological

Seminary in New York, said: "When we read the screenplay, our sense was

this wasn't really something you could fix. All the way through, the

Jews are portrayed as bloodthirsty. We're really concerned that this

could be one of the great crises in Christian-Jewish relations."


Mr. Gibson, who directed and was a co-author of the script, is vehement

that any criticism is based on an outdated script that was stolen. He

declined an interview, and his company, Icon Productions, said it was

showing the movie just to selected journalists and critics.


Mr. Gibson said in a statement: "Anti-Semitism is not only contrary to

my personal beliefs; it is also contrary to the core message of my

movie. `The Passion' is a film meant to inspire, not offend."


The furor began in March, when the committee of scholars, five Catholics

and four Jews, asked Icon Productions to show them the script. Five

scholars hold endowed chairs at their universities, and all have long

been engaged in interfaith dialogue. The group was assembled by

officials of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the

Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith.


Those organizations were wary, because they had spent years drafting

guidelines for ridding Passion plays of anti-Semitism. Some of the same

scholars had consulted on the overhaul of the most famous Passion play,

at Oberammergau, Germany.


The scholars say the other reason for concern was Mr. Gibson's strain of

Catholicism. He built and belongs to a church in Los Angeles that is

part of a growing but fractured movement known as "Catholic

traditionalism." Considered beyond the pale even by conservatives, the

traditionalists reject the Second Vatican Council and every pope since

then, and they conduct Mass in Latin.


Mr. Gibson also set off alarms among the scholars when reports quoted

him as saying his script had drawn on the diaries of Sister Anne

Catherine Emmerich, a 19th-century mystic whose visions included

extrabiblical details like having the Jewish high priest order that

Jesus' cross be built in the Jewish temple.


Icon did not respond to the request to see the script. But someone

leaked a copy to one of the scholars, the Rev. John T. Pawlikowski, a

professor of social ethics and the director of the Catholic-Jewish

Studies program at the Catholic Theological Union. Father Pawlikowski

said in an interview that the script came from a friend who got it from

another person whom he did not know.


The scholars sent a report to Icon complaining about the script, again

receiving no response. After excerpts of the report appeared in the news

media — both sides say the other leaked it — the scholars circulated

their complaints.


"This was one of the worst things we had seen in describing

responsibility for the death of Christ in many many years," Father

Pawlikowski said.


In particular, the scholars objected that the Jewish priest, Caiaphas,

was depicted as intimidating Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, into

going along with the Crucifixion. Several people who saw the film last

month said the version they saw had that portrayal. The scholars said

that section distorts the fact that the Romans were the occupying power

and that the Jewish authorities were their agents.


Mr. Lauer, marketing director for Icon, said Mr. Gibson's rendering was

not anti-Semitic, but simply followed the New Testament. "There are some

sympathetic to Christ and some who clearly want to get rid of this guy,"

he said. "And that's clearly scriptural. You can't get away from the

fact that there are some Jews who wanted this guy dead."


The script that the scholars read was dated October 2002, when, Mr.

Lauer acknowledged, filming began. But scripts often change after

shooting starts, he added.


Icon threatened to sue the scholars and the bishops' conference. The

bishops soon apologized and said it had neither authorized the scholars'

panel nor the report.


Mr. Gibson has sought to mend fences with the bishops. He met recently

in Washington with officials of the conference and has shown the film to

Cardinals Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia and Francis George of

Chicago, as well as Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver.


But the scholars and the Anti-Defamation League have not backed down.

They are pressing Mr. Gibson to show them the rough cut that he has been

screening.


The national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham H. Foxman,

said, "If you say this is not anti-Semitic and this is a work of love

and reconciliation, why are you afraid to show it to us?"


"There is no way on God's green earth," Mr. Lauer said, "that any of

those people will be invited to a screening. They have shown themselves

to be dishonorable."


People who have seen the movie say it is brutally graphic, dwelling at

length on a scourging scene that renders Jesus a bloody piece of flesh

before he is even nailed to the Cross. He is beaten with a leather strap

studded with metal points that, when slapped across a tabletop, stick in

the wood like spikes.


Roman soldiers administer the beating in the film, Mr. Hudson, the

Catholic publisher, said. "By the time the Romans get through with him,"

Mr. Hudson said, "you've forgotten what the Jews might have done."


Mr. Gibson's vision "pays tribute to Judaism," Mr. Lauer said, by

underscoring Christianity's roots. The controversy, he added, has built

a considerable buzz about the movie. "You can't buy that kind of

publicity," he said.

[carbonass]

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/misc_20021121.html

[carbonass]