So many stupid things are being said about Mel Gibson's new movie... It's hard to say whether I'm adding fuel to the fire by trying to point out really dumb statements. If history is any indication, however, this will probably be equally dumb. Anyway, I happened to click over the Catallarchy.net, a blog I don't know anything about. There I found this analysis of The Passion, by blogger Michael Masten:
"I failed to find any of the anti-semitism the critics have found... In every scene there are Jewish individuals who love Christ and do not want to see him in pain, as well as the Jewish individuals who wish him dead. I left the movie wanting to hurt people who think they should have authority over others."
Now, I haven't seen this movie, so take what I write here with a well-deserved grain of salt. I don't need to have seen the movie to recognize that this is a really silly quote. Let's be clear. The movie, according to Mr. Masten, has two types of Jews: Jewish people who "love Christ" and those that wish him dead. The fact that some fall into the former category is enough to obviate any finding of antisemetism, if I read him correctly.
Fast forward 2,000 years and we can see why the movie is considered anti-semetic. Those "Jews" who "love Christ" are now "Christians." Meanwhile, there are the rest of us Jews, such as myself. The movie would be anti-semetic if it implied that because I'm not in the former camp, that I am (or would have been then) in the latter camp. See, in order for the movie to not be anti-semetic, it would help to portray some Jews as not wanting to see Jesus killed, but still not "loving" him. Where are the Jewish people who just didn't want to see Jesus die, because killing people isn't right? Or where were those that just didn't care? Gibson's (or Masten's) dichotomy is antisemetic, if all non-Jesus-loving Jews are pictured as wanting Jesus to die. Isn't there a middle ground?
By eliminating that middle ground, how is Gibson not antisemetic? The implication seems clear to me: You're with us, or you're against us. Since those with Jesus are no longer considered Jewish, that leaves only those who wanted Jesus dead. Call it what you will, I don't appreciate the implication.
- ► 2005 (19)
- Computer Trouble
- The Grade Rant
- In 12th Book of Best-Selling Series, Jesus Returns...
- A Bohemian Mixer, Anyone?
- I'm Back
- Updating Bundling
- Articles of Confederation funnies
- Indian tikka and cancer
- Trailer watch
- "Awaking to a Dream"
- It's all Greek (?) to me
- Ah, Microsoft
- The Grey Album's next step problem
- Sad, and scary
- Shrink-wrap licenses and personal property servitu...
- Evolution and Harvard Law Review
- Dismay at CNN
- Whither the Whats
- Blogging From The Pacific...
- Programming Note
- Restrictions on Alienability, Anti-Commodification...
- Claremont Professor Suspected of Staging Hate Crim...
- Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
- Service Interruption
- Blogging From The Airport: Potbelly Sandwich Works...
- More on Microsoft's Antitrust Mess
- PeopleSoft Merger
- Microsoft Giveaways
- Coerced Virtue
- Link Fest 2004 - Wacky Washington (State) Law Stuf...
- Link Fest 2004 - Random Stuff
- Quote Of The Day
- Century City
- Howard Bashman's Daily To-Do List
- From the department of not-very-surprising correla...
- Hard Cases Make Bad Law . . . But Only If You Have...
- Passion Pt. IV
- And back at ya...
- "Compassion for Mordor"
- A middle ground?
- Pastorelli Dies
- Judging Judicial Activism
- Williams and Will's Reservations
- South Park Does It Again
- Free Wi-Fi at Airports and Some Rambling
- Rush (the band) on Volokh!
- The O.C.
- Husky Sports Update
- Lawyers with too much time on their hands...
- Chief Justice Rehnquist Interview
- Judge Kozinski: Game Theorist
- Of Note: National
- Of Note: California Events
- Of Note: Entertainment
- "McAuliffe’s Strict Constructionism"
- Brian Said It
- Landes On Coase On Antitrust
- Why The Site Will Be Slow For A Few Days
- How I Lost the Big One, By Lawrence Lessig
- ▼ March (63)