Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 08-01-2003, 09:02 PM

Catholic Scholar Team that Evaluated Gibson Film Defends Itself

"These and other such questions must be asked to assess whether any dramatic presentation of the death of Jesus conforms to official Catholic teaching. They are all based upon numerous official documents, most specifically, the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion (1988). These documents are not private or personal exegetical theories, but official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. In this era, when ancient Christian antisemitic motifs are being recirculated widely because of international conflicts, any Christian producer of a dramatic presentation of the death of Jesus has a considerable moral responsibility."

David Klinghoffer, Jewish historian, on the film

"Gibson apparently depicts the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate, as agreeing to the execution only under Jewish pressure. I say "apparently" because while Fredriksen has reviewed a draft of the script, as part of a scholarly ecumenical group giving their unsolicited critique to the filmmakers, she has not seen "The Passion." But notwithstanding Gibson's dubious claim to have hewed closely to the historical record, such accuracy is not by itself of urgent interest. Rather, what we are confronted with is an alleged threat to Jewish safety."

I think this fits best here, it being a censorship and religion issue...but the mods might not agree.

Vorkosigan

Aria · 08-01-2003, 09:42 PM

Why go through all the trouble of being historically accurate if you're just going to cast Jesus as a white man?

Toto · 08-01-2003, 10:12 PM

Has anyone threatened Gibson's movie with censorship? Will the Vatican put in on the Index? Would it be banned in Germany as hate speech?

Toto · 08-02-2003, 11:20 AM

This seems to be inspired by Paula Friedrickson's article in the New Republic, (full text available only by subscription, but you can get a 4 week free trial.)

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO GIBSON. Mad Mel: by Paula Fredriksen

The article is described here

Another article in the NY Times {free registration required: one gory photo on the page.}

Movie arouses stir

Quote:

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 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.

. . .

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.

The reference to the Senate Republican Conference gets it closer to this forum, but I'm still not sure.

Toto · 08-02-2003, 05:12 PM

I'm moving this from CSSSA to BCH.

Layman · 08-02-2003, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Has anyone threatened Gibson's movie with censorship? Will the Vatican put in on the Index? Would it be banned in Germany as hate speech?

The Vatican has no problem with the film. At least not any of which I have heard. The ruckus comes from a subgroup of the National Council of Bishops and the Anti-Defamation League. They published a joint report attacking the film, mainly claiming it was anti-semitic and that it followed the gospels to closely in some respects and did not follow them closely enough in other respects. They demanded many specific changes to the film even though they knew it was mostly finished. They threatened to attack the film publically and raise concerns about fostering anti-semitism unless Gibson bowed to their wishes.

Unfortunately, all of the criticism was based on a stolen manuscript. Fredrickson was one scholar among about eight who reviewed the script and wrote the joint report/demand.

Fredrickson's article actually came out much later. And I find it significant that she wrote it alone, without any attribution to the other scholars on the "ad-hoc" joint NCCB/ADL committee. Persoanlly, I think her article is a hyperbolic reaction to being caught with her hand in the cookie jar with the stolen manuscript.

I'm appalled at Fredrickson's article. She seems' hell bent on attacking the film as anti-semitic and is insisting that it remove references to Jewish involvement in Jesus' death. Which is pretty bizarre for her because in her most recent book on Jesus she concludes that Josephus admits Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus and notes that if the Romans were really concerned with Jesus leading or causing an uprising, they would have gone after the Christians in Jersusalem. But all the historical evidence is that they did not. IMO, she's kind of lost it and has taken great offense to having been called on using a stolen manuscript. Academics shouldn't be bound by petty concerns as misappropriation and conversion.

Toto · 08-03-2003, 02:03 AM

The article appears to be available here and in pdf format here.

The article does not resemble Layman's caricature. The difference of opinion appears to be whether the film will stir up anti-Semitism, which is a serious issue. I don't see that she is calling for Gibson to remove all references to Jewish involvement in Jesus' death; she is criticizing the ahistorical exaggeration of Jewish evil characteristics.

Layman · 08-03-2003, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
The article appears to be available here and in pdf format here.

The article does not resemble Layman's caricature. The difference of opinion appears to be whether the film will stir up anti-Semitism, which is a serious issue. I don't see that she is calling for Gibson to remove all references to Jewish involvement in Jesus' death; she is criticizing the ahistorical exaggeration of Jewish evil characteristics.

It doesn't?

Quote:

The script, when we got it, shocked us. Nothing of Gibson's published remarks, or of Fulco's and Gibson's private assurances, had prepared us for what we saw. Each scholar, independent of the others, wrote his or her own comments on the document. We then boiled them down, bulleted our points, and made the whole discussion easy to digest. The first section of our report explained the historical connection between passion plays and the slaughter of European Jews, the dress rehearsals for the Shoah. Then we summarized our responses to the script. We pinpointed its historical errors and--again, since Gibson has so trumpeted his own Catholicism--its deviations from magisterial principles of biblical interpretation. We concluded with general recommendations for certain changes in the script.

Perhaps this is unclear to you. But it is not to me. Fredricksen's main complaint, and that of her original colleagues, was that the film was likely to stir up controversy because of its depiction of Jewish responsibility for Jesus' death. As a result, as Fredricksen states in this article, they recommended changes. Why she refers to them as "general recommendation" I do not know. The original report was pretty specific about what it wanted changedd.

Of course, I have the advantage of reading the orignal report demanding changes in the script. Have you?

Peter Kirby · 08-03-2003, 05:07 PM

Everyone, the name is Paula Fredriksen.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto · 08-03-2003, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman

Of course, I have the advantage of reading the orignal report demanding changes in the script. Have you?

No - do you have a link to it?

08-01-2003, 09:02 PM	#1
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Gibson Film and Censorship Catholic Scholar Team that Evaluated Gibson Film Defends Itself "These and other such questions must be asked to assess whether any dramatic presentation of the death of Jesus conforms to official Catholic teaching. They are all based upon numerous official documents, most specifically, the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion (1988). These documents are not private or personal exegetical theories, but official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. In this era, when ancient Christian antisemitic motifs are being recirculated widely because of international conflicts, any Christian producer of a dramatic presentation of the death of Jesus has a considerable moral responsibility." David Klinghoffer, Jewish historian, on the film "Gibson apparently depicts the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate, as agreeing to the execution only under Jewish pressure. I say "apparently" because while Fredriksen has reviewed a draft of the script, as part of a scholarly ecumenical group giving their unsolicited critique to the filmmakers, she has not seen "The Passion." But notwithstanding Gibson's dubious claim to have hewed closely to the historical record, such accuracy is not by itself of urgent interest. Rather, what we are confronted with is an alleged threat to Jewish safety." I think this fits best here, it being a censorship and religion issue...but the mods might not agree. Vorkosigan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-01-2003, 09:42 PM	#2
Aria Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Seattle, Washington Posts: 1,290	Why go through all the trouble of being historically accurate if you're just going to cast Jesus as a white man?

08-01-2003, 10:12 PM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Has anyone threatened Gibson's movie with censorship? Will the Vatican put in on the Index? Would it be banned in Germany as hate speech?

08-02-2003, 05:12 PM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I'm moving this from CSSSA to BCH.

08-03-2003, 02:03 AM	#7
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The article appears to be available here and in pdf format here. The article does not resemble Layman's caricature. The difference of opinion appears to be whether the film will stir up anti-Semitism, which is a serious issue. I don't see that she is calling for Gibson to remove all references to Jewish involvement in Jesus' death; she is criticizing the ahistorical exaggeration of Jewish evil characteristics.

08-03-2003, 05:07 PM	#9
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Everyone, the name is Paula Fredriksen. best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.