Bill Maher Likes "The Passion," Tells Larry King Why

[DemBones DemBones]

Hearing Bill Maher say he likes Mel Gibson's "The Passion" was very interesting since Maher is not religious and is often scathingly critical of religion. When Larry King asked him what he thought about it, his first words were "I think it's a serious movie by a serious filmmaker. " Then he went on to talk a bit about why it might seem odd for him to say that, since he considers religion "a neurological disorder," segueing into:


"But having said that, I can understand how infuriating it is to Mel Gibson to read these reviews and the critics who keep saying things like, Well, the movie is very negative. It's all about the last 12 hours. Yes, that's the movie he was making! They reviewed -- they review it like they're reviewing their Jesus movie, except they didn't make a Jesus movie because they don't have the talent or the drive or the passion to make a movie. So yes, it's negative. Well, thank you for identifying the elephant in the room and then reviewing the fly that's on its rear end."


< I was delighted that Bill said this -- so many people have said "But it didn't talk about Jesus's life or his teachings." Hello, it's called "The Passion of Jesus the Christ" because it's about Christ's Passion. It's not about his life or teachings, only his last hours. It's like going to see LOTR and complaining that it wasn't "The Hobbit." Yes, but what's the point? -- it wasn't supposed to be another story, it was supposed to be the story specified in the title. >


Maher continued,

"You know, the other thing I would like to say about is the anti- Semitism angle. People talk about this. OK, I didn't find it especially anti-Semitic. Yes, they portrayed the Romans probably nicer than the Romans should have been portrayed, at least Pontius Pilate, and the Jews not so good. But you know what? I don't know if that's purposeful anti-Semitism."

"I think what you have is a situation where there was a priesthood, and priesthoods protect their power. Look at what we've seen in recent years with the Catholic priesthood around the world, and especially in this country. They close ranks and they protect their power. So I don't think it is anti-Semitic to say that the Jewish elite in the 1st century AD, under Roman occupation, collaborated in the extirpation of a troublemaker. That's what priesthoods do. They collaborate in getting rid of the guy who's a threat. And a guy who's going around saying "The meek shall inherit the earth," that was a big threat."


I thought his point about priesthoods protecting their power was good, not one that's really been raised. Maher, being half-Jewish and having repudiated the Catholic faith he was raised in, has good credentials to speak about the film. He knows about anti-Semitism from experience and is also familiar with Catholic teachings but not a practicing Catholic.


At another point, Larry King brought up the use of Aramaic in the movie, which some have criticized.

"MAHER: Aramaic. Again, you know, we made -- I made jokes about that. When you go to see this movie, you understand that is the exact right choice, was to do it in Aramaic or whatever the language was at the time, and use subtitles. It gives it a gravitas it never would have if he was speaking Americanese. It was the smart choice by a smart filmmaker."

"KING: He's a great filmmaker."

"MAHER: He is. I loved 'Braveheart.' "


link for transcript of entire interview:

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/03/lkl.00.html

After hearing Bill Maher's comments about "The Passion" tonight and reading DU admin Elad's positive review the other day, I'm beginning to want to see the film in the theater, though I think it will be very difficult to watch when Jesus is being scourged. From other reviews I've read, I think it will be beautifully done, a visual treat except for the blood and brutality and that will be reflecting the reality of being scourged and crucified.

[onebigbadwulf]

1. Yeah it's too bad that

Maher is a nutty libertarian.

[ComerPerro]

2. I would have to say I agree with Maher

He made some great points.

I think the movie was very well done, for what it was.

And I especially agree with his take on the "anti-semitism" angle.

I didn't come out of this movie feeling contempt for Jewish people.

I did, however, come out feeling even more disgust that I have now for the heads of religions, and for FReepers.

Yes, The Passion made me hate freepers even more than I already do

[joeybee12]

3. What about the fact that Mel is liar, saying he took out the scene where

the Jewish crowd asks for the blood of Jesus to be spilled on their heads. Very anti-semitic, so the homphobe says we'll take it out.

No, he kept the scene in and simply took out the subtitle, so when it goes overseas, people will still get to see that scene, AND have it translated.

I don't believe you people realize what filth Mel Gibson is, and if you did, you wouldn't be defending him.

[DennisReveni]

4. joeybee12

So we all should become knee jerk liberals?
Always room for more of them at Eschaton.

[ComerPerro]

7. What about it?

Lighten up

[DemBones DemBones]

11. So Mel Gibson is "filth" because he included words directly from

the Bible in his film? I was talking with a bunch of older friends yesterday, including Catholics, Epicopalians, Methodists, and Baptists, and a couple of atheists who were raised in a Christian faith. We talked about the film and the anti-Semitism charges, and none of us, even the octagenarian in the group, were ever taught that "the Jews killed Jesus." We were taught that when the crowd shouts "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" and says his blood will be on them and their children, that WE were the crowd. We read it all aloud at church on Passion Sunday (Palm Sunday) , with the entire congregation playing the crowd and calling out "Crucify Him!" three different times.

[Az]

20. Not to defend Mel

But that scenes subtitles were struck and only the Arimaic remained. Mel never said he was removing the scene, just the translation. Of course there are people fluent in Arimaic coming out and reporting the inclusion of the scene.

[still_one]

5. Maher is entitled to his opinion

but, he has a wonderful opinion of Ann Coulter also. I think Maher's main object in life is to shock. Ever since he expressed his wonderful opinion of Coulter, I have ZERO RESPECT for the MAN!

[gorrister]

6. yeah...

after watching him fawn all over that bitch, his opinion means nothing to me.

[LeahMira]

8. Not "what priesthoods do"

So I don't think it is anti-Semitic to say that the Jewish elite in the 1st century AD, under Roman occupation, collaborated in the extirpation of a troublemaker. That's what priesthoods do. They collaborate in getting rid of the guy who's a threat.

The point is not "what priesthoods do." The point is what that particular priesthood did about Jesus at that time.

Even more to the point is whether or not any of the events actually happened.

If you are going to make a film and claim that it represents fact, better be sure it really is fact.

[JNelson6563]

9. It is refreshing to hear a defense of it

that isn't hammering home the intended guilt message of the movie.

If I hear one more "it's to remind us what Jesus went through for us" I'll hurl.

I think it was meant to guilt the hell out of Christians and maybe whip up the Christian zealots but hey, that's just me. I can't imagine paying good money to see brutal beatings and an execution. I mean hey, you could go tour the Texas penal system for free and get the same thing.

Julie

[Az]

10. The reaction

The reaction many people are having is to the very idea of isolating and showing the death of Jesus seperated from his work. Consider, his life was dedicated to teaching people peace, tolerance, and compassion. The last 12 hours of his life were exemplified by the opposite of this. The focus shifts from his teachings to the violence he supposedly stood against. Imagine if they showed a movie about Ghandi and just showed the beatings he took.

With the focus being on the beating and death of Jesus it shifts the focus of reaction from learning to anger. What do you think the reaction of the crowd would be to seeing a Roman Gladiator standing before them? They are not going to run up and give him a group hug.

This movie was pushed not as entertainment. It was pushed as an evangelyzing tool. It preports to be the true account (despite no mention in the bible of Jesus being dumped off a bridge in chains). Viewing something of this nature that preports to be true will not generate warm fuzzy feelings. It is a deliberate wedge between believers and any that do not accept what transpires on the screen as truth. It is designed to whip up passion and set people against each other.

[DemBones DemBones]

13. With all due respect, that's the way YOU see it, but you have no

evidence that Christians who view the film will want to go out and beat someone up, which is what you seem to suggest with "It is designed to whip up passion and set people against each other." Christians who see it seem to be very subdued afterwards, impressed with Christ's suffering for them.

The focus is on the Passion, which is full of pain for Jesus. A film about Jesus's life could be a great film, too, but that's not the film Mel made. He wanted to focus people on the sacrifice that Jesus made and to make them realize how much suffering was involved. I've also read reviews by Catholic writers who say that the film is profoundly Eucharistic. That wouldn't mean much to Protestants (except possibly Episcopalians and Lutherans) or non-Christians but it would to Catholics. One Catholic writer said that after the film ended, he didn't want to talk with anyone, just to go home and pray.

Jesus was born to die as a sacrifice, to atone for the sins of Adam and Eve and everyone after them. He knew and accepted this. Atonement is a theme in most if not all religions. Christians know why Jesus dies, and that he had to die to save all of us. To watch Jesus die on screen is no doubt a very sobering and moving experience. Anyone who is inspired to harm someone in retaliation and actually carried it out would be working against Christian teachings. Kind of unlikely after a powerful experience with Jesus's death.

[Az]

18. Its not a question of how I see it

I am not insisting that it will inspire violence. I am simply stating it places a wedge between believers and those that do not accept the suffering of Jesus. It increases the passion of those predisposed to the event.

It is presented devoid of any other content beyond the violence itself. Its one singular message. Kicking the snot out of Jesus. It is a singular laser precise shot down the middle. It seperates the crowd into those for Jesus and those against Jesus. And those for Jesus just saw a group of people against Jesus kicking the snot out of him.

Without the message of peace and tolerance the audience is focused on the violence. Are you suggesting that violence is the focus of the story behind Jesus? It takes the violence into an unbelievable level. It tosses in some extra bits that are not even suggested in the bible. It is an orgy of violence. With none of the teachings of forgiveness. His gritty film Payback was less violent. It teaches, in a very real sense, violence.

Having been the victim of religious hate crimes I do not wish to see such messages being pumped into an already heated environment. I well understand that you believe that the message everyone should take from the bible is peace and compassion. But I can assure you that there are millions of people that do not see the bible in the same light you do. And they claim to be Christian too. I dread the use that some may put those nails being purchased too.

[THUNDER HANDS]

12. all this discussion over a fake crusifiction

Odd, considering there was no indication that Christ was actaully ever crusified. It wasn't until about 300 years after his supposed death that the first images of Christ on a cross started to appear.

[ArkDem]

15. What is involved in a

crusifiction? Is it anything like a crucifixion?

[THUNDER HANDS]

16. maybe

But while I didn't intend to mispell the word, it is kinda appropriate spelling when you consider what I was saying in regards to it.

It was fiction. Christ wasn't nailed to a cross. It was just a story made up by some person 300 years later - you know, when anyone who actually might have seen it was dead.

Because, you figure if the son of God were to be killed, it would be written about all over the world. Except, it wasn't.

Not until 300 years later.

Wonder why?

[ArkDem]

21. The internet must have been down.

.

[Az]

22. Actually

The story according to the bible suggests that all manner of events occurred during the crucifixion that should have made a journal or two somewhere. According to Matthew great earthquakes were felt across the land and the dead rose and walked about. Oddly enough there are no recordings of these events.

[ArkDem]

24. The earthquake knocked out the electricity bringing

the internet down.

[DemBones DemBones]

17. Discussion is over a film about Jesus. Why do you

feel the need to say there was no evidence that Jesus was crucified? What evidence do you want -- digital photos? Of course, this was a fake crucifixion -- it's a movie! The guy on the cross is an actor playing the part pf Jesus.

[THUNDER HANDS]

19. because

It's extremely annoying to see everyone discuss a film about a fake Jesus getting crusified when there's no evidence that the actual Jesus was crusified.

Like, can you say propoganda?

I mean, Mel Gibson went to all the trouble to make this movie as realistic as possible - yet the actual event he displays isn't based on any historical relevance at all.

Isn't that odd?

Sure it's just a movie, but it's not - or else we wouldn't be talking about it.

And you ask what evidence I want? How about some acount of the events from ANYONE alive at that time.

Like a scholar or someone who took notes or something at that time?

It's not like the accounts of Christ were written 10 years after his death - they were written 300 years later.

[PVnRT]

25. There is a period of Byzantium history

for which there are no archaeological artifacts. Does that mean Byzantine did not exist during that time?

The point is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Az]

26. True but

Extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence. Lack of evidence does not refute a claim but neither does it make a claim. And the more likely a claim is to generate evidence if it were true the less likely it should be accepted without that evidence.

Say I claimed the entire state of Deleware was obliterated yesterday. The fact that I have no evidence to back this claim alone should call question to it. But the further fact that the news centers of the world are not abuzz about it is certainly suggestive that the claim is unfounded. One would expect such an extrodinary claim to have equivalent evidence to back it up.

[Solomon]

14. I saw the movie. All the so-called "controversies" are distractions.

The real and only point of the movie is to reinforce the belief that Jesus is white. That's why the right wing loves the movie to death. It wouldn't matter what was in the movie as long as Jesus is white.
The savior of the world, whose being punished by the world for saving it.

[northzax]

23. "jews killed Jesus"

anyone who says this wasn't and isn't still taught in many churches around the world is blind to reality. Go see the Passion Play of Oberamergau (sp?) where the Jews are greedy, moneygrubbing evil men. One purpose of passion plays, over time, was to inspire hatred of Jews. This is real, folks, this is a story that has led to the murder of millions of people. Do you want to know the reality of the effect of this story? the rage it can produce (for those who think 'no one is going to go beat up anyone based on it') go to Krakow, on the sabbath and sit in the old Jewish quarter. In 1939, 200,000 Jews lived there. Today there are 60. sixty. And no, as much as Harlan Gibson might wish it was so, they did not move to Sydney.

Go lay your hands on a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to see the hate this story has engendered.

to repeat: the Passion play is a story designed to inspire hatred and violence. There is no mention of the fact that this is what was supposed to happen, that it is God's plan, no, it is a play put on to inspire good catholics to seek revenge against those who "killed Jesus." And even if that was not the orginal intention of Matthew and company, it certainly has been used as a means of teaching people that they are persecuted for two millenia now. Anyone who knows anything of European History cannot tell this story without recognition of the rivers of blood that flow from it.

Jesus was 'killed' in the Passion, but you'll recall, he got to come back to life. Somehow, I don't think the millions of Jews killed for the story got the same deal, do you? Remember the impact of the story when you see it, when you talk about it. Context matters, history matters, and the Passion Play is not a simple religious story with no baggage to carry around.

[Vittorio]

27. I saw that movie...

and I enjoyed it very much. It further cemented my belief in Christ as my Lord and Savior.