Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rIcHrD)
    It's a movie - it makes no claim other than to entertain. If you don't think it will be entertaining, don't watch it. If you think you'll be entertained, buy some popcorn, some cola and nachos and go enjoy the show.

    Exactly why does it matter if a film gives a skewed perception of historical fact. After all, isn't that the creative right of the director? It seems some people are so naive and narrow-minded whenever the concept of religion', race orhistory comes up, they feel the requirement to come to its defence. Shame that it is only worth defending what is being attacked.
    The problem is that it will cause problems outside of the movie theater. With increasing rates of anti semitic atacks against both people and property this movie came at the worst possible time. It is easy to say that the author has the right to say what he wants, but if his movie will influence the public as to promote anti semitism then he is partially responsible for the problems that follow. Even if Gibson is not teh one who is vandalising jewish cementaries and beating up people who wears a kipa on town, his movie will distort the publics attitude towards Jews. Therefore, presenting a greatly incorect picture of Jews in times where antisemitic assaults are rising is extremely irresponsible. Tos ay that he should not be criticised because you dont have to watch the movie is an ignorant view, because mpore people than those watching it will be affected. Say I would go out posting a TV comercial stating that all research saying smoking causes cancer is incorrect. Would that be acceptable? It would surely cause more people to be addicted to nicotin and it would harm the public in the long run. So even if I have my freedom of speach, I am still responsible for what I say and what I do. If I say something deeply racist here I deserve to be punished for it, and so does gibson.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    At the time the Gospels were written, Christianity has just separated from Judaism. A lot of Romans were converting, and the Roman authorities were also mistrustful of the new religion. The Gospel-writers may have (I would say probably did) played down the Roman involvement.

    Yes, if we accept the Gospels as historical documents, the Jews were involved in Jesus' death. It is not anti-semitic to say this - the only reason it was them is because they were the people around at the time. Neither was it the entire Jewish race that was involved, or even the entire population of Jerusalem. A few people wanted rid of him.

    Mel Gibson is a hardline Catholic. He rejects Vatican 2, which is basically when the Catholic Church said, "No, we don't blame the Jews for this." among other things. His father has suggested the Holocaust never happened - although Mel can't be blamed for this, we wouldn't want the sins of the parents to be visited on the children.

    We have to work from the point of view of the Gospels being roughly historically accurate, bearing in mind I've already said that while I don't believe the Gospel-writers to be anti-semitic (they all were Jews at some point, if part of the Christian sect) they did play down the Roman role, to the detriment of the Jews in the story.
    Some Jews wanted to kill Jesus. The Romans were undoubtedly involved also - crucifixion was a Roman punishment.

    Mel Gibson didn't have the same problem the Gospel writers did. He could have presented it in a fairer way. Instead he did the opposite. For example, he adds lines which do not appear anywhere in the Gospels - something to the effect of "It is not you, but the Jews who did this to me" (Jesus to Pilate)

    I should point out that I haven't seen the film. I want to, but I don't want to line Gibson's pockets.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hitchhiker_13)
    The Romans were undoubtedly involved also - crucifixion was a Roman punishment.
    The decision to crucify Jesus was primarely made by the governing Romans. Pontus pilateus hada very significant role in the decision. Gibson, on the other hand, made it look as if he only did what the Jews required of him. In reality, he was such a brutal man that the roman emprie later had him withdrawn from his position.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rIcHrD)
    It's a movie - it makes no claim other than to entertain. If you don't think it will be entertaining, don't watch it. If you think you'll be entertained, buy some popcorn, some cola and nachos and go enjoy the show.

    Exactly why does it matter if a film gives a skewed perception of historical fact. After all, isn't that the creative right of the director? It seems some people are so naive and narrow-minded whenever the concept of religion', race orhistory comes up, they feel the requirement to come to its defence. Shame that it is only worth defending what is being attacked.
    if something is not being attacked then it does not need to be defended.

    the problem with films that a historically inaccurate is that some people will not know they are inaccurate, and may actually believe that the events portrayed in the film happened, because it is a historical film.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The jews protest about the movie, sure it may be graphic, sure it may not look favourable on the Jews, but what about other movies that other people have made themselves, such as Peral Harbour, and the post second world war movies. They hardly depict a stereotypical German etc.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    The jews protest about the movie, sure it may be graphic, sure it may not look favourable on the Jews, but what about other movies that other people have made themselves, such as Peral Harbour, and the post second world war movies. They hardly depict a stereotypical German etc.
    If the movies are historically inaccurate, then it should be critisized. Funny you should mention pearl habour. I heard that they made two versions of that movie. The second version painted a more sympathic picture of the Japaneese, because hollywood wanted to sell cinema tickects in Japan as well. If you ask me, this should be an indication that perhaps the first edition was not the most objective movie you could create... Also, remember that we do experience rising rates of antisemitism around europe and the americas, and a movie portraying the Jews as blood thirsty people who wanted to see jesus dead is not exactly going to make things better...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    If the movies are historically inaccurate, then it should be critisized. Funny you should mention pearl habour. I heard that they made two versions of that movie. The second version painted a more sympathic picture of the Japaneese, because hollywood wanted to sell cinema tickects in Japan as well. If you ask me, this should be an indication that perhaps the first edition was not the most objective movie you could create... Also, remember that we do experience rising rates of antisemitism around europe and the americas, and a movie portraying the Jews as blood thirsty people who wanted to see jesus dead is not exactly going to make things better...
    Maybe they should make a second movie for release in Israel. With the Jews shown in a better light.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Maybe they should make a second movie for release in Israel. With the Jews shown in a better light.
    That would just be repeating the awful hypocratic behaviour from pearl habour. This is exactly what people do NOT want. People want movies to be more historically correct and not demonise a people as violent. Jews are not protesting about this movie because it ruined their ability to enyoy it, they are protesting because they are afraid of the consequences this will have on peoples attitude toward jews. I dont care how much anti-semitic propaganda someone would try to pump into me, because after losing half my relatives in Aushwitz I know I woudl not fall for it. However, I woudl be concerned if such views were being delivered to the public through the TV-cable because it might cause other people to start beleiving in it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    The problem is that it will cause problems outside of the movie theater. With increasing rates of anti semitic atacks against both people and property this movie came at the worst possible time. It is easy to say that the author has the right to say what he wants, but if his movie will influence the public as to promote anti semitism then he is partially responsible for the problems that follow. Even if Gibson is not teh one who is vandalising jewish cementaries and beating up people who wears a kipa on town, his movie will distort the publics attitude towards Jews. Therefore, presenting a greatly incorect picture of Jews in times where antisemitic assaults are rising is extremely irresponsible. Tos ay that he should not be criticised because you dont have to watch the movie is an ignorant view, because mpore people than those watching it will be affected. Say I would go out posting a TV comercial stating that all research saying smoking causes cancer is incorrect. Would that be acceptable? It would surely cause more people to be addicted to nicotin and it would harm the public in the long run. So even if I have my freedom of speach, I am still responsible for what I say and what I do. If I say something deeply racist here I deserve to be punished for it, and so does gibson.
    Point taken. However, I must note I don't find the situation comparable to the smoking association advert you propose. The advert claims authenticity, the film does not. Infact (it may not be so in this case), most films feature some form of disclaimer explaining essentially they serve the purpose of entertainment ONLY and that although they may portray historical events with real persons, the portrayal is not absolutely accurate, that scenes are fictionalised and some scenes show events that are not documented, were documented incompletely or are fictional.

    The point (as I understand it) you're making is related more to what I consider to be a problem of the society in which the problem arises than the film which makes no claims. Yes, it is indeed of significance to Jews that they are not attacked/vilified for acts for which they are not responsible, but I have serious doubts that this is really (ultimately) of any relation to the movie, but an intrinsic ignorance of the society in question. Ignorance to the pretences and functions of the movie, and to the Jewish population.

    Thus, indeed the film is topical and relevant to the discussion. However, only superficially. As was probably obvious, I was merely expressing my annoyance at propositions such as 'a film should be banned because it portrays a community in a bad light' which I find contradictory to principles observable in law and morality of tolerance and open-mindedness, minimising ignorance.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think that Isreal blowin the crap out of Palestine, with the help of America causes more anti-semitism than this film ever will. Trying to get it banned will cause even more anti-semitism, especially when people who havn't even seen the film try to get it banned.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SasunD)
    I think that Isreal blowin the crap out of Palestine, with the help of America causes more anti-semitism than this film ever will. Trying to get it banned will cause even more anti-semitism, especially when people who havn't even seen the film try to get it banned.
    and it doesn't matter that palestine kills isreali daily?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    and it doesn't matter that palestine kills isreali daily?
    Lets clarify this for a second. The palestinans are not ALL killers, just some hardline Islamic fundamentalists.

    And not all Israelis want Palestine to be destroyed.

    At least I hope not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Lets clarify this for a second. The palestinans are not ALL killers, just some hardline Islamic fundamentalists.

    And not all Israelis want Palestine to be destroyed.

    At least I hope not.
    no, of course they dont.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    and it doesn't matter that palestine kills isreali daily?
    yeah it does, but whos helping them? i don't think that if America stopped helping Isreal they would carry on fighting, they would try and come up with some kind of ceasfire or something. But as you have the dumbass bush administration helping, if palestine goes to full war, America will come barging in and give a backhand. But no Muslim countries will intervene.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SasunD)
    yeah it does, but whos helping them? i don't think that if America stopped helping Isreal they would carry on fighting, they would try and come up with some kind of ceasfire or something. But as you have the dumbass bush administration helping, if palestine goes to full war, America will come barging in and give a backhand. But no Muslim countries will intervene.
    remind me what country defeated at least 5 others in one war, alone.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    remind me what country defeated at least 5 others in one war, alone.
    you don't need reminding. things have changed now though. It seems that you feel proud of stealing people's land, which was not originally yours. Nice.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SasunD)
    you don't need reminding. things have changed now though. It seems that you feel proud of stealing people's land, which was not originally yours. Nice.
    the land was for sale. Once they started growing oranges the size of watermelons everyone can crying back. I have taken classes in the subject.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SasunD)
    you don't need reminding. things have changed now though. It seems that you feel proud of stealing people's land, which was not originally yours. Nice.
    Actually Israel has over and over again offered to return the occupied territories in return for a recognition of their right to exist. Egypt did accept this proposal, and so Israel has returned the Sinai peninsula to the Egyptians. The palestinians still does not recognise Israels right to exist and have turned down any proposal for a peace agreement (Arafat even responded to Baracks last proposal by launching the last intifada). The problem is that the palestinian leaders do not realise that you cant have the cake and eat it at the same time. Either they do recognise that Israel has a right to exist, and settle for a peace agreement which works, or they may not recognise Israels right top exist, but then they have no reason to expect Israel to accept the palestinian authorities as a sovereign government. They cannot say that Israel has no right to exist and at the same time demand that Israel should respect their right to exist. Israeli politicians has offered Arafat a peaceful solution several times, ut Arafat does not even bother to negotiate. If he doesnt liek the proposals, he doesnt have to accept them. But if he responds by sending an intifada of suecide bombers into Israel, he must expect some sort of Israeli response. What does he think? That Israel shall had him a bunch of weapons and say: Here! If you want to kill us we woant stop you!
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.