This is topic Mel Gibson's Film On Death of Jesus Creates Controversy Before Premier in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002321

---

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 08-02-2003, 05:37 PM:
 
August 2, 2003

MONTHS BEFORE DEBUT, MOVIE ON DEATH OF JESUS CAUSES STIR~~~ LAURIE GOODSTEIN [Copyright New York Times]


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.
 

---

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 08-02-2003, 05:47 PM:
 
Blah Religious films are not my thing.

Let's just have a re-release of Jesus Christ Superstar. I love it so very deeply. That film rocks and kicks ass!!

Danny
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-02-2003, 06:28 PM:
 
Dialog in Aramaic and Latin? Wow! That sounds like quite a project.
The evangelists wrote in Greek, I think some of them actually were Greeks. But the Roman establishment in Judea DID speak Latin of course.

What is wrong with all these people? It is a film, nothing more. On the other hand, it is all these people who "represent" organized religion who cause hatred and clashes between groups. That is their business, whatever they pretend to do. Organizing religious beliefs into groups is the root of all these conflicts.

And yes, of course, all the established political or religious groups at that time wanted to see Jesus and a lot of other people who stirred the pot dead because they threatened their own interests.
That is basically why they had him and a lot other people nailed to crosses. Or do you think they were just kidding? Of course they treated their prisoners very harshly in those times. Sometimes they also fed them to lions for fun. Do you think there was a committee for humane crucification?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-02-2003, 06:59 PM:
 
Big controversy = huge ticket sales.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 08-02-2003, 07:04 PM:
 
I'm kinda looking forward to this film regardless of the dialog and the boring trailer. Mel Gibson is a businessman and his desire to make this type of film is a business decision. The void between Christians and Jews is as old as Jesus Christ himself, but never once have I looked at a Jew as a so-called "Christ killer". Gibson's religious preference of traditional Catholic practices verses post-Vatican II is at least admirable in this time of changing philosophies in both the secular and non-secular worlds.
 

---

Posted by Ron Keillor (Member # 1790) on 08-02-2003, 08:13 PM:
 
If it stirs up the controversy that Scorsese's THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST did, it will play network television as a special in a couple of years without any notice being taken.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-03-2003, 12:55 AM:
 
I really liked "The Last Temptation of Christ". Great film.

I agree with Danny about not liking religious films in general. But I draw the line at that POS "Jesus Christ Super Star"! I didn't like it at all....only a FEW of the tunes. Sorry Danny. (...walk across my swimming pool?)

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 08-03-2003, 04:32 AM:
 
On the other hand, I will see this picture. Even though I'm not too jazzed about religious epics, I love costume dramas. The costumes really should be a treat in this film, if it is really as historically accurate as is being said.

Speaking of unique costumes, ever notice that in Ben-Hur(Heston version) one of the Roman guard's armor has nipple rings? It's in the march through the desert scene, when Jesus gives the prisoners water.

and Phil said:

quote:

---

But I draw the line at that POS "Jesus Christ Super Star"! I didn't like it at all....only a FEW of the tunes. Sorry Danny. (...walk across my swimming pool?)

---

Don't like it huh? Good, less competition.

Oh, but "king Herod's song" is the best part in the film! A kickline with a few drag queens singing to Jesus, that's a hard one to beat! I love "campy" films!

Danny
 

---

Posted by Oscar Neundorfer (Member # 458) on 08-03-2003, 01:58 PM:
 
I don't know what the film is espousing regarding "Christ killers", but as a Christian, I believe what the bible teaches when it says, "There is no difference for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Him as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in His blood."

We are ALL guilty. In this respect there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles, rich or poor, black or white or any color in between, nationality, etc., etc. Every day when I look in a mirror, I see a Christ killer. It was to pay the price of the sin of every individual that Christ came to this earth to die. So it is that everyone had a part in killing Christ. I thank GOD every day that He shed His blood, died and rose again, overcoming death, so that I am able to receive the grace of God which saves me.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 08-03-2003, 02:46 PM:
 

quote:

---

Mike Blakesley: Big controversy = huge ticket sales.

---

Correction:

Big controversy = A way to generate huge ticket sales when they know the film isn't very good.

In fact, you can probably tell how bad the film will be by the amount of time between the beginning of the brew-ha-ha and the opening of the film. It is an inverse relationship. The greater/longer the controversey, the worse the film will be!


 

---

Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 08-03-2003, 03:20 PM:
 

quote:

---

We are ALL guilty. In this respect there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles, rich or poor, black or white or any color in between, nationality, etc., etc. Every day when I look in a mirror, I see a Christ killer. It was to pay the price of the sin of every individual that Christ came to this earth to die. So it is that everyone had a part in killing Christ. I thank GOD every day that He shed His blood, died and rose again, overcoming death, so that I am able to receive the grace of God which saves me.

---

quote:

---

Big controversy = A way to generate huge ticket sales when they know the film isn't very good.

---

Not always. "The Last Temptation of Christ" was a very good film, the controversy around it was not manufactured to generate ticket sales. Or maybe it was?
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 08-03-2003, 04:45 PM:
 
Another AMEN!!! Oscar.
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 08-03-2003, 05:40 PM:
 
There was alot of noise when "Monty Python's Life Of Brian" was released (or should I say 'weweased?').
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 08-03-2003, 06:02 PM:
 
I distinctly remember walking by the Cheri theater in Boston and seeing a bunch of nuns "praying" in front of the marquee.

I think Last Temptation was an OK movie but I NEVER would have gone to see it if wasn't for those nuns.

Later, I found out that they were either paid or somehow "put up to it" by the film company.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-03-2003, 07:38 PM:
 
The film didn`t show anything controversial as happening - it was the last temptation given in by the devil that was shown. I just couldn`t work out how stupid those people had to be who didn`t understand that but at the same time thought they were in the position to tell others that this was "bad".
 

---

Posted by Jon Bartow (Member # 241) on 08-03-2003, 08:55 PM:
 
Amen Oscar! Preach it!
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-03-2003, 09:05 PM:
 
I agree Mike. I vote the "management" open a sub-board so all the Bible-thumpers have one place to post rather than interjecting their views on all of us.

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 08-03-2003, 11:02 PM:
 
I interpreted Last Temptation as the whole movie being a giant series of flash-backs.

The REAL plot of the movie was not that Jesus had temptations. He did. No question about that. The Bible says so.

No, the plot of the movie was about Jesus, at the moment of his (physical) death, looking back upon his life and thinking, "I COULD have done these things but I didn't because I must lead Mankind into Heaven.

At any time up to the moment of his death, Jesus COULD have said, "No! I am NOT the Son of God!", and the Pharases would have cut him down from the cross and let him go free. THAT's what the "Last Temptation" was.

People who get hung up over the scene(s) where Jesus gets "taken in" by worldly temptations just don't get it.
 

---

Posted by Oscar Neundorfer (Member # 458) on 08-04-2003, 08:41 AM:
 
Phil said, "I vote the "management" open a sub-board so all the Bible-thumpers have one place to post rather than interjecting their views on all of us."

Why? Everyone else in these forums "interjects" their views on whatever topics they choose. Just because you don't appear to like my view does not mean I should be relegated to some "sub-board".

But this is, after all, Brad's property, and he alone makes the rules. There is no voting. This forum is NOT a democracy. Should he decide to make a sub-board or to eliminate all such discussion, that is totally his prerogative. I willingly accept his rules.

The very first post in this topic had these words, "portrayed Jews as "Christ killers". My post seemed quite relevant to this. I was pointing out the Biblical point of view (at least from my perspective) on who the Christ killers really are. You are certainly free to accept or reject my opinion on this. At least my view leaves wide open the possibility that Jews and Christians (and for that matter everyone) can peacefully co-exist without one group blaming another for killing Christ.

I have never been called a Bible thumper before. So, Phil, I must thank you for the high, though most certainly unintended, compliment.
 

---

Posted by Harry Robinson (Member # 265) on 08-04-2003, 09:35 AM:
 
A belated amen to Oscar. And I'll defend Phil's right to his opinion to the death.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-04-2003, 03:02 PM:
 
Oscar, I'm not slamming you or the Bible. Matter of fact, I read it usually everyday and have for at least the last 15 years. I even carry one to read when I travel. I just don't go around "thumping" it.

You said: "….though most certainly unintended, compliment." How do you know what my intent was? Practice what you preach and not judge.

Also, I'm so happy you pointed out who owns this system… all the time I thought it was the C.I.A.

BTW: If you would have taken the time to notice the "evil smile" at the end of my post you MIGHT have gained some insight to Ummm.... "sarcastic humor". You really need to lighten up a bit...it's a big world out there.

At this rate, maybe this thread should be moved to the Political BS board.

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 08-04-2003, 03:07 PM:
 
PHIL, I plan on interjecting my view when I see the movie and after I drink a martini, on your private e-mail. I might even post it.

Stirring the pot! Do I win?
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 08-04-2003, 04:02 PM:
 
You're a good man, Oscar. Well said. It's to the point these days that a guy can't even make a religious film without being crucified!

Phil sed:

quote:

---

Matter of fact, I read it usually everyday and have for at least the last 15 years. I even carry one to read when I travel.

---

I'm happy to hear that, Phil. NOW STOP TELLING US you read the Bible! You're spreading your religion, and destroying my image of you!

 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-04-2003, 04:09 PM:
 
Tim said:

quote:

---

It's to the point these days that a guy can't even make a religious film without being crucified!

---

I like that Tim...it's hilarious!

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Ron Keillor (Member # 1790) on 08-04-2003, 04:52 PM:
 
In Aramaic and Latin? No subtitles? Why not shoot it silent?
I don't think any town outside the Vatican has a population fluent in either language to warrant promoting the film to ethnic groups.
BTW, this would not the first feature in Latin: that was Derek Jarman's SEBASTIANE.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-04-2003, 05:05 PM:
 
Religion is a terrible subject to try and moderate. No matter what the decision is, there will always be people who get offended by what is said.

Per the rules of the forum "religious posts are not permitted". That's all that is written in there about it. A light comment here and there won't and has not been moderated, but religious discussions in general tend to anger people who don't agree with other people's views and quite simply aren't worth the effort and do not belong here. Remember, no matter what your belief is and no matter how much of the majority vote your beliefs are, there will always be others who will strongly disagree. Therein lies the problem that by the time a discussion starts offending people, it is too far out of hand and then everyone blames me for closing or deleting a thread prohibiting their "freedom of speech". Religion is the one subject that's just not worth dealing with. Religion is too personal of a topic with most people.

The jest of it is that a comment here and there is fine, but please no "preaching" and preferably no quoting of passages, regardless of what god or belief it is toward. If members find themselves needing to respond to someone's post regarding religion, it's time to lock it or delete the thread. Please remember this is a website about movies and cinema. A google search will turn up hundreds of appropriate places for religious discussions.

These general policies should not affect everyone's ability to continue this discussion if everyone's posts are worded with other people's beliefs in mind. Thus far there haven't been any problems and I thank you in advance for keeping it professional.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-04-2003, 08:26 PM:
 
You are right, Brad. So let us keep this discussion to the filmic (is there such a word in English?) aspects of this.

I love the fact that they shot in "original" languages. I am not sure about the (lack of) subtitles, though. Sure, everyone knows the story, and a lot of the meaning is transported in gestures and tone. But the finer points of what people say in the movie will not be accessible.
Apparently Gibson is designing this as a mystic experience where the dialog is just part of the texture of sights and sounds, not carrying the story forward. Which, again is not really necessary.
But it will be very interesting to watch and hear. I have never heard Aramaic and have no real idea what sounds like. Also, it will be interesting to see (hear) how they recreate classic Latin. Of course, we do not know exactly what Latin sounded like, but there are many indications as to the pronunciation of most sounds. I believe that spoken Latin should have some of the melody and inflection of Italian.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-04-2003, 08:49 PM:
 
No Matter how good the film is, it will fail without English subtitles...

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 08-04-2003, 09:10 PM:
 
Forgive me for being a little confused but how is the audience suppose to understand what is going on if they can't understand what is going on. The english subtitles HAVE to be there, or I for one will wait for the DVD rental.
 

---

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 08-05-2003, 03:40 AM:
 
Who needs subtitles??? I've watched silent films with very few title cards, and had little problem following the story.

Most audiences are already familiar with this story, so they have an advantage from the start.

Also, having taken Latin in high school, I'm looking forward to discovering how much I can comprehend.

Danny
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-05-2003, 05:45 AM:
 

quote:

---

Forgive me for being a little confused but how is the audience suppose to understand what is going on if they can't understand what is going on.

---

Well, we could give you a summary of the story, but then we would give the ending away
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-05-2003, 06:53 AM:
 

quote:

---

Who needs subtitles??? I've watched silent films with very few title cards, and had little problem following the story.

---

That's because silent films were deliberately scripted, directed and acted in order to convey the plot without dialogue or any other synchronised sound. In fact, it was the mark of a skilled director to keep the number of intertitles down to a minimum - so much so that F.W. Murnau managed to make The Last Laugh without any intertitles whatsoever and still convey quite a complicated plot.

Some directors also experimented with close-ups of dialogue that were meant to be lip-read by the audience, most famously Hitchcock in The Manxman, in which Anny Ondra speaks the line 'I'm having a baby' direct to camera without any intertitle.

But talkies with foreign-language dialogue are not designed that way: the director assumes that you can understand what the characters are saying. I've seen a few unsubtitled foreign films in languages I don't understand, which is rather a bizarre experience, especially with Bollywood.
 

---

Posted by John Spooner (Member # 1565) on 08-06-2003, 01:25 PM:
 
The end result of all of this comes down to profit. Mr Gibson would not make anything unless there was a buck to be made, so he must be sure of a succesful return.
However, the cinema personnel know what will fill their theatres, and with the greatest respect to Mr Gibson I feel that we will certainly not be putting out the House Full signs for this production.
Best regards. John Spooner.

Best regards. John Spooner.
 

---

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 08-25-2003, 05:14 PM:
 
The Passion may get a US release! According to Variety, four imprints that do arthouse product (Lions Gate, Newmarket, Paramount Classics, Sony Pictures Classics) are interested in picking up this film.

A big surprise is that Fox is not interested. Icon (Mel Gibson's production company) is based at Fox, so The Passion would have been a natural pickup for 20th or Searchlight.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 08-25-2003, 05:41 PM:
 
Imprints are subsidiaries of publishing houses.
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-26-2003, 01:49 AM:
 

quote:

---

so much so that F.W. Murnau managed to make The Last Laugh without any intertitles whatsoever and still convey quite a complicated plot.

---

There's that one intertitle that goes before the "alternate" ending which is part of the movie. The alternate ending is the movie's "last laugh".
 

---

Posted by John Spooner (Member # 1565) on 08-26-2003, 12:53 PM:
 
We discussed this film`s possible screenings here in Adelaide and feel that if it does show at all, it will do one week in either the Palace or Trak Cinemas (our arthouse cinemas). Business would be poor and after the week will not go anywhere else.
Unlikely a major exhibitor or distributor will handle this film.
 

---

Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 08-26-2003, 01:50 PM:
 
controversy ... whee...

*gestures towards the signature below*
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-27-2003, 01:48 AM:
 

quote:

---

Jews fear backlash from Mel Gibson's Passion
By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
The Daily Telegraph, 26 August 2003

British Jewish leaders have joined the furore surrounding Mel Gibson's controversial film The Passion, which charts the final 12 hours of Christ's life and includes a brutal depiction of the Crucifixion.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews say they share the growing fears voiced in America that the film could fuel bigotry and anti-Semitism and damage relations between faiths.

The Passion, which is funded, co-written and directed by the Hollywood star, has provoked a storm in America, with Jewish and Roman Catholic scholars calling for changes before its release early next year.

Gibson, a Catholic traditionalist, has defended it as a truthful portrayal of the events surrounding the Crucifixion, and has even insisted that the dialogue is in Latin and Aramaic, the vernacular in Palestine at the time.

He has denied that the film is anti-Semitic or designed to upset Jews, although he told one interviewer: "It's true that, as the Bible says, 'He came into His own and His own received Him not.' I can't hide that."

He has also made extensive efforts to win round his critics by organising private screenings and describing the film as a work in progress which he has already "softened" following criticism.

However, Jewish groups continue to insist that the film portrays the Jewish authorities and "bloodthirsty" mob as primarily responsible for the decision to crucify Christ.

Catholic scholars have also expressed reservations, especially as Gibson is a member of a conservative church which does not acknowledge the validity of the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s. One of the reforming council's pronouncements was that Jews could not be held culpable for Christ's death.

Rabbi Eugene Korn, director of inter-faith affairs at the influential Anti-Defamation League in New York, said after a private viewing last week that the film was "toxic" and would be loved by "anti-Semites and bigots".

He told the Jewish Chronicle: "Jews are uniformly characterised as negative, and the Jewish mob is depicted as forcing the decision on to Pontius Pilate, when in reality it was Pilate's decision alone. There are gross historical inaccuracies, and there is massive, and gratuitous, violence."

In a statement, the Board of Deputies, the official voice of the British Jewish community, called for an "early opportunity" to see the film so that they could make a "definitive judgment".

They expressed fears that it may fuel anti-Semitism "by portraying Jews in an unfavourable light, and perpetuating myths which have been refuted by various religious authorities in the past".

The statement added: "We are aware that some leaders of the American Jewish community have voiced their concern on the matter which, in principle, we would share."

Not all opinion has been negative, though. A number of those who have seen the film, including Jewish commentators, have praised it.

The £18 million production, starring James Caviezel as Jesus, will be distributed by 20th Century Fox. Its American premiere is due on Ash Wednesday, but no British release date has been set.

---

quote:

---

Leaders throughout Hollywood roundly condemned the New York Post for obtaining and then screening a bootlegged film for a news story.

The heads of three studios as well as producer Brian Grazer and director Sydney Pollack express deep concern about news outlets obtaining pirated copies of films and using those incomplete versions for review.

"I find this appalling and unconscionable that anyone would deal with a bootleg tape," said Paramount Pictures chair Sherry Lansing. "I'm as outraged as if it were one of my own films because of what it portends."

She added, "To pass judgment on any filmmaker before they've completed a film is going to make it impossible for us to do our work."

Industry outrage stems from a Nov. 17 report in the Post that the paper had "obtained" a video dub of Mel Gibson's controversial "The Passion of Christ." The paper showed it to a rabbi, a priest, a religion professor, their own critic and a reader selected at random. A reporter interviewed the panelists and wrote up their reactions.

"Passion" is not due to be released until Feb. 25.

"If I had made that picture, I would have felt raped," said Pollack. "There is obviously a great thing to defend about freedom of the press, but there is also a sense of entitlement in the press that is genuinely offensive on a moral level and every other level."

He added, "As a director, the sense that the New York Post has the legal right to take somebody's work that isn't finished is really very frightening to me."

Walt Disney Studios chairman Dick Cook is equally upset. "I think it's outrageous. It's horrible. It's a case of bad journalism, bad ethics and a broken covenant between producers of motion pictures and the press."

Neither Peter Chernin, chief operating officer of News Corp., nor Tom Rothman, head of the Fox studio, responded to requests for comment.

In a statement to Daily Variety, a spokesman for the Post defended the paper by saying it was covering the controversy surrounding Gibson's depiction of Jews in his film about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

"The filmmaker has already held a number of screenings for individuals, and comments from those viewers have been reported in the media. With so much controversy and attention surrounding this film, we feel this is a legitimate news story," the spokesman said.

That explanation doesn't wash with Grazer, who says the Post's "Passion" package displayed "a complete lack of compassion for artists. It's a violation almost beyond words." He added, "Does the Post want us to think less of them? I don't want to think less of them."

The Post's actions come at a time when piracy has been elevated to the top concern of the industry. By accepting and reporting from a pirated tape, some in the industry consider the Post to be complicit in piracy.

"Any act that helps in any way to legitimize an illegal act like piracy is reprehensible," said Chris McGurk, vice chairman of MGM.

Warner Bros. CEO Barry Meyer, who proposed banning Oscar screeners in order to combat piracy, was unavailable for comment. But in a statement for the studio, Warners said, "The precedent-setting nature of this is deeply troubling on many levels."

The Post did not say from whom it received the tape, and on Nov. 19, it returned its copy to Gibson's reps after his lawyers asked for it back. The paper said it made no copies.

Legal action may be pending. But Elizabeth McNamara, a Gotham-based attorney at firm Davis Wright Tremaine, which represents many leading newspapers and magazines on libel and First Amendment issues, said she doubts Gibson's production company would have much of a case against the Post.

"Reporters get handed things all the time. There's nothing illegal and improper in obtaining and reporting on the tape," she said. In the event of action by Icon, "I'm sure they would assert their newsgathering privileges. What they did was clearly a legitimate news story."

People in Hollywood don't see it the same way. Paramount vice chair Rob Friedman said, "I guess they can always hide behind the issue that it's news but that seems a thin argument to me. It's not as if it's a cure for cancer or an end to world hunger."

The New York Post is owned by News Corp., which also owns 20th Century Fox. For the last three years, it has been under the direct leadership of Lachlan Murdoch. He and Post editor Col Allan were both in Australia, unavailable for comment.

---

Seems like this newspaper will do anything to discredit a movie that has yet to be released.
 

---

Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 11-24-2003, 10:17 AM:
 
Seems to me if it's bootlegged then the reviewers themselves have no credibility. Why all the ruckus anyway? Show the damn picture and let the people decide if they like it or not.
In a years time who would even care or remember the thing anyway?
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-24-2003, 06:16 PM:
 
I haven't seen Mel's movie yet but would this not be a good choice to open with an overture...a few minutes of appropriate music on black...just to set the mood? With a curtain, which many art houses still have, it would be very dramatic.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-25-2003, 01:54 AM:
 
[url= http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nypost/450652711.html?did=450652711&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&desc=MEL%27S+%27PASSION%27+PUT+TO+THE+TEST+-+FIVE+DIVERSE+VIEWERS+REACT+TO+POST+PREVIEW]Here is a link[/url] to the New York Post article, though you have to pay if you want to read the whole text.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-25-2003, 01:59 AM:
 
I wouldn`t want to pay and I wouldn`t want to read the whole text. Just sum it up for us, please.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-25-2003, 03:16 AM:
 
I don't want to pay either, so unless someone does we'll have to live in blissful ignorance of what the priest, the rabbi, his wife & her lover thought of it!
 

---

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 01-11-2004, 02:05 PM:
 
The Passion of the Christ opens in the US on Ash Wednesday, 2/25. Newmarket Films is releasing it in the US and going all-out to get the mainstream audience.

The AMC Hamilton has the poster in the large front lobby near the main concession stand. Posters don't go there unless they're for mass appeal pictures.

Midwest chains Kerasotes and GKC are now promoting this film on their respective home pages. Kerasotes plans to sell advance tickets just like with any tentpole picture.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-12-2004, 05:02 AM:
 
I wonder how long it'll be until the first theatre double-bills it with The Life of Brian?
 

---

Posted by Tony Ratcliff (Member # 1196) on 01-12-2004, 11:46 AM:
 
Anyone know where/how to get a hold of marketing materials?

I don't have any info on the distributor.
 

---

Posted by Joshua Lott (Member # 240) on 01-12-2004, 12:53 PM:
 
Go here to order all of the promotional material you want for only the cost of shipping.

And if anyone has information on where this has been booked or any info on contact info for the distributor please let me know.
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 01-14-2004, 06:59 PM:
 
Well, seeing how Monica Belucci is playing Mary Magdelene, I hope they took into account the Roman law that prostitutes could not wear clothes.

Ok, so it wasn't a law but it would boost ticket sales.

Or at least make her wear her rubber suit from Matrix Reloaded
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-15-2004, 04:03 AM:
 
Would you also settle for some wet toga shots?
 

---

Posted by R. Andrew Diercks (Member # 1725) on 01-15-2004, 03:06 PM:
 

quote:

---

Go here to order all of the promotional material you want for only the cost of shipping.

---