Krauthammer!!!: Gibson's Blood Libel

[kskiska]

By Charles Krauthammer

(snip)

Christians have their story too: the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Why is this story different from other stories? Because it is not a family affair of coreligionists. If it were, few people outside the circle of believers would be concerned about it. This particular story involves other people. With the notable exception of a few Romans, these people are Jews. And in the story, they come off rather badly.

Because of that peculiarity, the crucifixion is not just a story; it is a story with its own story -- a history of centuries of relentless, and at times savage, persecution of Jews in Christian lands. This history is what moved Vatican II, in a noble act of theological reflection, to decree in 1965 that the Passion of Christ should henceforth be understood with great care so as to unteach the lesson that had been taught for almost two millennia: that the Jews were Christ killers.

(snip)

Which is what makes Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" such a singular act of interreligious aggression. He openly rejects the Vatican II teaching and, using every possible technique of cinematic exaggeration, gives us the pre-Vatican II story of the villainous Jews.

His Leni Riefenstahl defense -- I had other intentions -- does not wash. Of course he had other intentions: evangelical, devotional, commercial. When you retell a story in which the role of the Jews is central, and take care to give it the most invidious, pre-Vatican II treatment possible, you can hardly claim, "I didn't mean it."

(snip)

And Gibson's personal interpretation is spectacularly vicious. Three of the Gospels have but a one-line reference to Jesus's scourging. The fourth has no reference at all. In Gibson's movie this becomes 10 minutes of the most unremitting sadism in the history of film. Why 10? Why not five? Why not two? Why not zero, as in Luke? Gibson chose 10.

In none of the Gospels does the high priest Caiaphas stand there with his cruel, impassive fellow priests witnessing the scourging. In Gibson's movie they do. When it comes to the Jews, Gibson deviates from the Gospels -- glorying in his artistic vision -- time and again. He bends, he stretches, he makes stuff up. And these deviations point overwhelmingly in a single direction -- to the villainy and culpability of the Jews.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31980-2004Mar4.html

[aquart]

1. My champion...........Krauthammer? KRAUTHAMMER???????????

I'm going to lie down now, with a cold cloth on my brow.

[Djinn]

2. An Australian right wing view

Andrew Bolt (many fellow Aussies will be turning off now, please read on) is a total reactionary who writes for one's of Australia's Rupert Murdoch owned shit-sheets. Normally seeing his smug photo and his right wing opinions makes me want to run him down in my car...the following article however has made me see that even with the most offensive person you can think of there's often atleast one thing you can agree on.

This is one of the very few articles I've seen in mainstream Australian media that points out just how FAR Mel Gibson strayed from the Gospels, just why Jewish people find it so offensive and that Mel Gibson is in need of some therapy QUICKLY........

MEL Gibson claims his new film The Passion of The Christ is "true to the gospels". If only. In fact, his film so distorts the gospels' already unreliable history of the trial and crucifixion of Christ that it's troubling so few Christians disown this horrific fantasy.
When you see what Gibson adds to the gospel accounts, it's clear that his film is not just as anti-Semitic as many Jews feared, but disturbingly sado-masochistic

(snip)

In this film, Christ says next to nothing about religion, other than to tell people to love their enemies, honour those who'd die for their friends and think of him as their saviour. It's as if what matters to Gibson is not what Christ preached, but that he was smashed, slashed, thrashed and beaten, beaten, beaten until he was nailed to his bloody cross.

(snip)

True, the Christian writers of the gospels did decades later push the blame for Christ's death from their paranoid Roman masters to their Jewish religious rivals. It was wise to flatter the Romans who could protect or join their church, and distance themselves from the Jews who were giving the Romans so much strife.

http://heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,8875371%255E25717,00.html

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemBones DemBones]

5. Sex sells better, though, but Gibson didn't add sex to a story that

doesn't include it, unlike the director of "Last Temptation of Christ."

BTW, have you seen this "tasteless travesty"?

[DemBones DemBones]

4. Charles Krauthammer is often an idiot, so I'm not surprised at his idiocy

concerning "The Passion of Jesus the Christ."

For example, he makes a big deal about how long the scourging of Jesus goes on in the film (10 minutes) compared to "Three of the Gospels have but a one-line reference to Jesus's scourging. The fourth has no reference at all."
He seems to think that a one-line reference should mean "Just blow by this event, it's unimportant."

If Mr. Krauthammer looks at the OT, he can see lines such as _______begat ______________who begat ______________who begat______________ , describing three or four generations in a one-line reference. Clearly, the actual begetting of three or four generations takes decades, yet it can be described in one line. . . Getting a clue yet, Charlie?

The practice of the Romans was to scourge a condemned man until he was half dead before crucifying him. It's bloody and gruesome, but ten minutes isn't that long, compared to the three hours Jesus was on the cross. Gibson wanted people to realize how Jesus suffered for all of us, by showing them as graphically as possible. Did he over-do the violence? Clearly, some think he did, but they didn't witness Christ's actual suffering and death, anymore than Gibson did. I don't like gratuitous violence, but in this case, we know the violence occurred.

Anyway who knows the Gospels will know where Gibson introduced elements that weren't in the Gospels. Those who don't know the Gospels should familiarize themselves, or not see the film. Everything I've heard indicates that the basics of the events follow the format in the Gospels, with a couple of creative additions. As far as I know, artistic freedom is still allowed in this country, even for Mel Gibson.

Gibson's been upfront about his intentions, too, saying he wants to make Christians draw closer to Christ and draw non-Christians to Him, too. People certainly can object to his intentions and avoid seeing the film if they choose, but Gibson has to be allowed his artistic freedom and freedom of speech.

[Jim Sagle]

8. Krauthammer's right, you're wrong, and that's the end of it.

And what about HIS free speech rights?

[regnaD kciN]

6. Let me observe...

...that few things are as warming to the progressive heart as getting to witness Pat Buchanan's favorite filmmaker and The New Republic's Neanderthal-in-Residence duke it out. Got any popcorn?

:evilgrin:

[Manix]

7. LOL!

nt

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

9. Some of the more prominent Jewish pundits are not big "Passion" fans...

William Safire and Krauthammer have both written articles like this very critical of the movie. They do feel that it is an anti-Semitic propaganda.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/01/opinion/01SAFI.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fWilliam%20Safire

[RainDog]

10. I haven't seen it. I read that, in Aramaic

which is a language understood by certain portions of the middle east, though not understood here...

still contains "the blood libel" of pre-Vatican II.

In other words, a character in the film says, in Aramaic, that the Jews are cursed forever because Jesus was crucified.

...no wonder Jews are upset about the movie, considering the already volatile relationships in the middle east.

to hear a "conservative" repeat slander on the level of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is disturbing.

The Protocols, which Czarist secret police rewrote from a satire written about the little dictator, Napoleon III, were instrumental in justifying the etermination of the Jews in the Nazi world view.

of course, Gibson's dad is a holocaust denier, so it's not unusual to find such hate speech in his son's world view as well.

I read on a blog about a woman who wrote a letter to the editor in an L.A. newspaper. The woman is a high school teacher and her parents are holocaust survivors. A 17 year old student came into her class and asked the teacher if she had seen "ThePassion." The teacher said no.

The student said she cried so much. Then added- I hate the Jews.

I don't think that was the passion of Christ, but it surely seems to be the passion of certain members of the Gibson family.

[gorrister]

11. this article...

seems to be causing freeper civil war. The thread about it has over 800 posts.

(don't want to link over there; just search for "Krauthammer")