Gibson's Next Movie? Boston Globe Letter To Editor (WOW)

[matcom]

AFTER READING James Carroll's article "An obscene portrayal of Christ's passion" (op ed, Feb. 24) and the reviews of the film, I have a great idea for Mel Gibson's next movie. It would be about the last hours of Rabbi Akiba, who died in 135 AD after a failed Jewish revolt against the Romans. His flesh was flayed by iron combs while he persisted in reciting the Sh'ma ("the Lord is one").

It's great gore (I'd match iron combs with whips any day), and Rabbi Akiba stretched out the word "one" with his dying breath (the final "freedom" uttered by Gibson's character in "Braveheart" comes to mind).

Never mind that he believed in another messiah or that the Romans may or may not have had a Christian tilt. What counts is that everyone acted in "good faith," making it clear that we -- the children -- are all responsible.

Ergo, no one should take offense, and we can let the blood fly. How about it, Mel? Got another $30 million?

[molly]

1. I don't think Mel's daddy would let him

[Sgt. Peppers]

2. So when are all these threads to be locked?

?

[molly]

3. Why would it be locked?

[Az]

8. He is upset

because a number of his threads got locked.

This is a tricky subject. It runs the along the line of being offensive. Take it too far and it moves into that territory. Taken correctly and it can be a valid examination of our current social situation.

Religion and Poltics are the taboo subjects of our society. We have lost the ability to discuss them civilly. Its going to take patience and practice to find that ability.

[chiburb]

25. You really are a 1-note wonder...

Aren't you?

[Mistress Quickly]

4. Why can't this guy take his own money and make his own movie

I'm tired of all the bashing of this movie, Mel Gibson, etc etc etc.

Good grief, if it offends you, don't see it.

He (Mel Gibson) has every right to make a movie and sink all his money into it. Do I think others believe their prophets, Gods, whatever suffered at the ahnds of others? Yes. Fine. Make your movie.

As a Christian, I have no problem with the "violence and gore" in the movie (which I haven't even seen - YET), because the story is of the sacrifice Christ gave for me to go to heaven. If you don't believe what I believe, fine. I'm not telling you to, not making you, and barely mention my beliefs on these boards. But if people said the things being said about this movie / Christianity in regards any other religion, or even atheism, they would be stoned (to use a good biblical punishment).

I admit it. I'm the sinner Jesus died for!! There. Pile the blame on me.

Sheesh, that's been building up in me for weeks now. Thanks for the outlet, and I'm not particularly directing this to you, Matcom. It was the first thread about the movie I came across.

[carolinayellowdog]

5. He can and did

There is something terribly ironic about the Christian DUers who denounce the free expression of negative commentary here about Gibson and his movie, in the name of defending *his* free expression. There is also something terribly ironic about all the claims by Christians to be victims of discrimination, in a country where they overwhelmingly dominate the religious scene-- and have a huge political influence.

The reason people are so up in arms about this movie, generally, isn't because they are anti-Christian. It's because they are Christian, or at least admirers of Jesus, and therefore particularly offended at how this film treatment makes his story all about violence and blame and hate. Gibson is the one who is anti-Christian, IMO, for turning the story of an apostle of nonviolence and forgiveness into a vehicle for glorifying violence.

[Mistress Quickly]

7. It makes the story all about violence

because the last 12 hours of Christ's life were violent, and that is what the movie covers, the last 12 hours. The fact that Jesus suffered terribly for my sins to be forgiven underlines the pain he was willing to endure for my eternal life.

Thanks for the response, and I see your point in the irony of my weariness of the negativity of the commentary, and thus wanting it to stop. I don't think I can discuss it, because Gibson is not anti-Christian, or anti-Semite, for showing the paradox of the non-violent Son of God being put to death so violently, all so I could go to heaven. And I don't think I can change anyone's mind, nor will anyone change mine, so I think the best thing is for me to not discuss it anymore.

[starroute]

22. Let me ask you some theoretical questions

Suppose Jesus had never done anything noteworthy. Suppose he had been born a peasant, grown up to work as a carpenter, lived in obscurity, just gone along from day to day, maybe done some modest good deeds in the process, and eventually been arrested by the Romans because his name was similar to that of one of the terrorist Zealots they were trying to suppress. Suppose he had then been scourged, crucified, the whole nine yards.

What would you make of that? Would you still consider that the Son of God had willingly been born as a man, suffered horribly as a man, and died as a man in order for your sins to be forgiven? Would that be an adequate basis for yoru religion? Or would you feel that there was a missing piece?

Do the teachings of Jesus have anything at all to do with the story? Are they completely irrelevant? Or are they relevant only to the extent that they caused certain people to want him dead and thus set up the necessary sacrifice?

Is the life of Jesus meant to be a model for all Christians? Or is the only significant to Jesus's soujourn on Earth that he suffered horribly, and are the only Christians who can be said to imitate him those who suffer similar hideous martyrdoms?

What does it mean to be a real Christian?

[Mistress Quickly]

23. I'll try

Here goes, please be kind to me.

Is the life of Jesus meant to be a model for all Christians? Or is the only significant to Jesus's soujourn on Earth that he suffered horribly, and are the only Christians who can be said to imitate him those who suffer similar hideous martyrdoms?

Yes and No. His life is a model, yes. But Jesus came and suffered for us so we could have eternal life with Him and his Father in heaven. That is the sacrifice. He sacrificed his only Son, brought into the world with His full knowledge of the outcome, to cleanse us of our sins. We only have to believe, truely in our hearts, that he is the saviour and the way to Heaven. We should always try to live more Christ-like. It's harder than it seems. Does that mean we have no suffering in life? No, of course not. But the good and beautiful would not be so if there were no bad and ugly to offset it.

Do the teachings of Jesus have anything at all to do with the story? Are they completely irrelevant? Or are they relevant only to the extent that they caused certain people to want him dead and thus set up the necessary sacrifice?

If you are specifically asking about the movie, I will let you know later in the week. Otherwise, yes, they are relevant. They demonstrate how we should act in our lives. They demonstrate his love of all, prostitutes, tax collectors, beggars, etc. Forgiveness. And yes, they did cause certain people to want him dead, but the bigger picture I cannot tell you yet, and when I can, I don't think I'll be posting on DU, lol.

Suppose Jesus had never done anything noteworthy. Suppose he had been born a peasant, grown up to work as a carpenter, lived in obscurity, just gone along from day to day, maybe done some modest good deeds in the process, and eventually been arrested by the Romans because his name was similar to that of one of the terrorist Zealots they were trying to suppress. Suppose he had then been scourged, crucified, the whole nine yards.

I cannot suppose that because his being the Son of God, that he came to earth to live amongst us, to suffer and love as we do, and then to die a terribly human suffering death so we all could be saved is the noteworthy item, so to presume he did nothing noteworthy is to presume he isn't the Son of God, and I can't do that. Does that make sense?

What does it mean to be a real Christian?

To me, that Jesus is the way to salvation, and I accept Christ as my saviour. If that sounds fundie to some, than so be it. I am not embarrassed by it. If you look back on my posts, you will notice I do not push my Christianity on people. It's up to the individual. I will gladly express my beliefs if asked, but the only person I have to answer to is God, and I believe the only person you have to answer to is God (my belief, not necessarily yours) and thus it is not my position to beat people on the head. Live by the examples of Jesus, and if asked, yes, profess your belief.

But I may pray for you, lol.

I hope that answered some of your questions.

[starroute]

33. Your answers are interesting but don't quite address my questions

So I probably wasn't stating my concerns clearly enough. Let me try again.

As an outsider, I see there as being two very different theological interpretations of the story of Jesus. One of them focuses on Jesus as bringing a message of salvation to mankind. In this version, the message itself is the important part. It's the hidden key, the knowledge of how to escape from the prison of the world. Jesus's mission took the form it did because that knowledge had to get out publicly and be accepted and acknowledged. He died as the inevitable result of spreading a message that the powers of this world wanted kept secret, but his very triumph over death was the most dramatic possible reinforcement of his message of the possibility of escape.

The other interpretation casts the crucifixion into a great cosmic drama of fall and redemption. Adam and Eve sinned against God, a sin that ordinary humans were incapable of wiping out, so God had to send his own son as a sacrifice to restore the cosmic balance. That sacrifice alone, along with the blood and suffering that were part of it, was sufficient to accomplish the purpose. There was no message, nothing ordinary humanity had to hear or understand or act upon. Salvation was a free gift.

Now, neither of these interpretations is orthodox Christian doctrine. The first is essentially a gnostic point of view, the second, if taken in isolation, a universalist position. Mainstream Christianity has always tried to reconcile them by insisting that both are true -- that the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary for the redemption of mankind but not in itself sufficient for the salvation of the individual. And I think that that kind of fruitful ambiguity has been on the whole a good thing.

What worries me about fundamentalism is that I see in it a tendency to ignore the message of Jesus in favor of the sacrifice-story. For example, the association of so many fundamentalists with extreme right-wing political and corporate figures suggests that they no longer believe it is necessary for Christians to actually follow the path of Jesus. And this Gibson movie, which apparently dwells obsessively on the last twelve hours leading up to the crucifixion to the exclusion of the materials which form the bulk of the Gospels, seems to point in the same direction as well.

I don't trust people who view their lives and those of their fellows exclusively in terms of some cosmic drama. They tend to end up like Hitler or Stalin, sacrificing millions of living beings to one mad dream or another. Christianity has occasionally slipped into that sort of cosmic obsession, but for the most part, its emphasis on the human aspect of the Gospel story has kept it on a more even keel. However, I see the potential effect of the Gibson movie as being terribly unbalancing, and that scares me.

[Mistress Quickly]

34. Salvation isn't free, per say

You have to accept Jesus as the Son of God, who died on the cross for the sins of man, so we could all enter Heaven. But yes, it is available to everyone.

I believe the two views you present independently aren't independent. Jesus's death on the cross was a great victory, because we all had a way into Heaven. But there is the way to live your life God would prefer: Christ-like, or as well as we humans can do.

As for people who don't follow the path of Jesus, they are not being true Christians. But, in the end, if they ask God and Jesus for forgiveness and admit they are sinners, God will cleanse their souls and allow them into Heaven. My God is a forgiving loving God. Seem easy? Try it, with true conviction.


As for the who what why how, I don't know. See, I believe it is all a big plan by God, God is in control and we cannot see, or even imagine, the big picture. So when Bush says he is in the White House by divine providence (or some sorta remark like that), I believe that, he and I just have different views about why. I have absolutely no idea what God's big picture is, how could I? Many will think I am juvenile, stupid even for turning all that over to God. But, like I said before, I don't have to answer to anyone but God in the end, and I feel like it's in competent hands.

All I know, is I want to ask God about dinosaurs. In fact I have A LOT of questions to ask.

I'm still not sure I'm answering your question. But you cannot get into Heaven without confessing your sins and asking for forgiveness.

The sacrifice had to happen. But the life of Jesus was relevant too. It's all inter-twined.

I think the Gibson movie has the potential effect of causing a lot of people to think about their actions, to step back from the hectic pace of their lives and re-examine their values. At least I hope it does.

[HootieMcBoob]

9. my 2 cents

I haven't seen the movie. I'm not a practicing Christian although I was raised in a Christian family.

The movie needs to be violent if it's supposed to be based in reality because the death of Christ was horribly violent. That's what is pounded into the heads of Catholic kids all the time "the suffering of Christ" -- "the blood of Christ". It's all about how much Christ suffered for "us". The fact that it's violent is exactly the point of the whole thing.

Now, about the Jew's involvement. My take on the whole thing is that the story goes this way - God sent his only begotten son to die on the cross for the sinners of the world. OK - he was sent here to die right? So, if it was all preordained by God in the first place, it only makes sense that Christ's own people would have some hand in his death.

Look at it this way Christians: what if he didn't die? You/We wouldn't have been saved. Isn't that the whole point of Christianity? This whole Jews as killers of Christ thing doesn't make sense to me. Why would a Christian hold it against the Jews for "killing" Christ when that is the very thing that "cleansed them of their sins"? If Jesus hadn't died on the cross there would be no Christian religion.

I'm not a scholar of Christianity by a long shot and maybe I'm missing something but logically it doesn't make sense to me.

The one thing about the movie (that I haven't seen) that seems weird to me is, why doesn't Jesus look like someone of Middle Eastern descent? Particularly, given that Gibson was supposed to be shooting for reality with this movie. He looks more like a European with long hair and a beard.

[oc2002]

12. good point.

Gibson, is just portraying the accepted immage of Christ. What if Christ had been tan skined, tall, bearded, and looked like Osama Binlad?\


lol!

[Mistress Quickly]

18. He probably looked more like a Palestinian n/t

[HootieMcBoob]

21. Right

I guess that little bit of "reality" is something Gibson thought might be too much for the Christians that are his target audience.

[smirkymonkey]

35. Thank you - that is the

question I have been wondering about (and have posted about) and I never get an answer from a self-proclaimed Christian. He had to die apparently, that was his agreement, so what was he supposed to do? Stone himself to death?

I just don't get it.

[digno dave]

36. duhhh

Why can't people understand that? I have been saying that for as long as i can remember. SOMEONE had to kill him. May be he should have been dropped off in the central plains of North America. The Indians surely would have left his poor, peaceful soul alone and we would have had a reason not to wipe them off the face of the earth.

[itcfish]

13. Exactly.

Just like any move, you have a choice. The only thing all this whining is doing is giving more publicity to the movie. I think it is far more dangerous to stop freedom of speech or control people's religion. We have freedom of Religion and freedom from Religion. Jesus was Jewish. I don't see anyone fearing Spielbergs portrayal of Nazi German as dangerous to German Americans or Coppolas mafia movies as dangerous to Italian Americans etc. Sure as hell no one cared about all the movies made about Native Americans.

[4323Lopez]

14. I agree

[rman]

15. if you get tired of these threads, don't read m

or would you be bothered by the idea that someone, somewhere, is discussing something that would make you tired if you'd read/hear it?

[LeahMira]

17. Tough!

I'm tired of all the bashing of this movie, Mel Gibson, etc etc etc.

I think that had this film been made even five years ago it would not have caused the stir it's causing now.

Since you're posting on this board, I hope that I can reasonably assume that you are as concerned about the influence of the fundamentalist religious right on our government of late as are many of the rest of us. Whether we're talking Ashcroft's breakfast prayer sessions or therecent proposal for an amendment to ban marriages between people of the same sex, we're all talking about the increasing power of fundamentalist Christians on all our lives.

Combine their new-found power with a film that's made to demonstrate "how much Jesus suffered for sins" and I think you can understand why not a few of us aren't pleased with Mel Gibson's timing and his choice of subject.

[digno dave]

37. we let the conservatives frame us as God-haters

and some of us play right along.
I am not religious but i don't hate God, or Mell Gibson. I am not gay but i have been to a few gay parades in my life and hang out with gay friends.
I am afraid that some of us are bashing Gibson when we should leave him alone and let him do what he wants to do. Heck, support it even. There are brilliant principles in the Christian faith that i dare say pro & anti religious liberals and progressives live their lives by closer than any right-wing conservative i know.

I haven't seen the film so i may have a different opinion about him afterwards, but i know how staunch he is in his beliefs and I have read some of the complaints about the film. I think anyone who has cerawled up from the depths of a sorry existence(as he claims) is more prone to latch onto a belief system that is unwavering and dogmatic. That is the only way they can can keep themselves "honest". The problem with that is that not all people are in such piss-poor shape emotionally/spiritually to need such guidance and/or assistance. The reformed people, however, don't think that is true. In steps Gibson and "The Passion".
Now conservatives have latched on to this and the gay mairrage issue in an attempt to portray us as hating anything that promotes religion or "traditional values". And what do SOME of us do...we play along. We slam Gibson and his movie. We come off looking like sour-pusses. I say leave him alone & let him make his movie. I would prefer more people see that movie that the latest Adam Sandler piece of shit or The Fast & the Furious 12.

[Az]

6. Frank Swaggart claimed Jesus suffered the most painful death ever

This morning Katie Couric was interviewing the son of Jimmy Swaggart and he claimed that Jesus suffered the most painful death in history. This is the canard at the center of this story. There have been far worse deaths than that suffered by Jesus. In fact he suffered a standard death sentence for the time. There were 2 guys hanging behind his suffering the same fate. Yes he died a horrible death in the story. But there have been far worse forms of torture invented since then and will continue to be.

[Lars39]

16. I wonder if this viewpoint is responsible for lack of empathy

with those that are sick and dying.

[Az]

19. Not so sure

Remember that the christian belief is in essence a death worshipping cult. That is they believe that which happens after you die is superior to that which happened in life. Of course they redifine things so that death is just a continuation of life an such. And of course you have to have played by the rules in order to gain access to the superior life. But in the end they believe that all the suffering and pain in life is made up for and then some after you die. Death is simply a change of address for them.

[BigDaddyLove]

26. Death is simply a change of address for EVERY major.......

religion, not just for Christians.

[Az]

27. Not every religion

But it is certainly a major factor in most. No suggestion that the others are not a death based religion.

[nolabels]

32. "Religion, not just for Christians." Thank you, for that

May I also ad "Religion not for everybody"

Why is it that emperors, frauds, politicians and other people incurious about the space in life they occupy always seem to be claiming a shield that uses religion as an excuse for their ignorance?

Lastly, is one death of more inportance than another, WWJS

[chiburb]

28. It was Franklin Graham, not Swaggert....

He also said that it was mostly historically factual...

[Az]

30. Doh

My bad. I get them mixed around. Thanks for the correction.

[oc2002]

10. I dont understand what all the big deal is?

Getting crucified was standard execution by Romans, the blood and gore are what makes the sentance an example to the public that you 'do not mess with us'.

Romans where savage in dealing with criminals and uprisings, although they where also the most civilized culture of thier time.

[Az]

11. The deal is

That some try to sell the crucifixion as the worst torture ever. Frank Swaggart was selling this notion this morning in an interview with Katie Couric.

[Blue_Chill]

29. that's not a big deal

it's a opinion. I've yet to meet a Christian who considers the amount of suffering Jesus endured a factor in his faith or decision making. Crucifiction is easily up thier in worst ways to die; it combines hunger, pain, immobility, thirst, heat, and humiliation. It may not be the worst but it isn't exactly a lethal injection either.

My point is argueing that jesus didn't have it THAT bad is silly. You may prove your point that it isn't the worst but nobody will care.

[Az]

31. Its not really the argument

Its not whether the crucifixion (although the irony of spelling it crucifiction is interesting) was the most horrid execution. The issue being addressed is some adherants try to agrandize every aspect of the event. It shows that there is a tendency to exaggerate. Nothing much beyond that.

[Mistress Quickly]

24. I think the usual means was tieing people

on the cross, not nailing them.

[ex_jew]

20. Why is it important to trump Jesus' suffering with Jewish suffering ?

I happen to admire Rabbi Akiba very much, but I don't see why having attention paid to the sufferings of Jesus automatically creates some imbalance that must be remedied by documenting Akiba's death. Is it unfair to report some atrocity with saying "but of course Jews have suffered too and even worse" ? Try reading the book "The Language of Make Believe" by Derrick Jensen. It starts with a lynching of a pregnant black woman whose stomach is cut open, the fetus pulled out and its head crushed under someone's heel while she watched. Then of course she was killed too. Why not a movie about that ?

[northofdenali]

38. Read that letter earlier today - it floored me!

San Francisco Chronicle's poll:



There's also an excellent article about Mel and Movie in this month's Vanity Fair (sorry, no link, they don't put articles on line). The author seems to think Mel is a few chips short on the board.....