|
|
Пишет skeptiq (![[info]](http://lj.rossia.org/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} skeptiq)@ 2004-03-03 03:55:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
H-ANTISEMITISM moderator on Gibson's film
From: Debra Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2004
Subject: Re: _Passion_
I'm going to step out of my Moderator's shoes for a moment and comment
briefly as a listmember.
Like the rest of you, I have been following the _Passion_/Gibson
controversy closely from the beginning. In this last year I have read
countless articles, and listened to dozens of media interviews and
commentaries. In that time, I had certainly begun to form some notions
about the dismal tenor of the (largely ad hominem) arguments being
leveled on both sides--enough to think that if the movie itself didn't
put Jewish-Christian relations back ten years, the controversy over it
might. But I have purposely held back from public comment because, to
me, there is something obscene about intelligent, thoughtful people,
particularly scholars, waxing indignant about a film they haven't seen
and (in many cases) have no intention of seeing.
I'm reminded of my intense embarrassment, as a Catholic, in witnessing
Mother Angelica's televised rant, some years ago, over Martin Scorsese's
_The Last Temptation of Christ_. Media observers gasped at what they
viewed as blatant pre-judgment--which is, after all the very definition
of prejudice. I would feel a great deal better about the state of our
national conversation over this issue if there was a bit more of that
going around now.
As it happens, I have taken the trouble to see the film, finally--am I
the only one on the list?--and am now in the process of putting my
opinions and observations (they are many) down on paper. This will take
a few days, but I'll venture a line or two here, quoting a casual
message I wrote yesterday to a listmember:
"...if that film represents antisemitism, then I, too, am as antisemitic
as Mel Gibson.... Worse, I'm starting to feel like I've fallen down
Alice's rabbit hole. After all the controversy (granted, mostly issuing
from people who hadn't seen it, which makes the whole business shameful
as well as depressing), I certainly went in with my antennae raised, and
expected to see some things that were at the very least problematic; but
I confess I came out of the theater thinking that not only was this
arguably the *least* antisemitic NT story I'd ever seen on film, but
that Gibson had gone way out of his way, on many different levels, to
make sure that Jews could not possibly be seen as collectively culpable.
"Artistically, though I might have done one or two little things
differently, I think the film a one-of-a-kind masterpiece, not like
anything I've ever seen. Theologically speaking, Gibson may have the
verbal sophistication of a third-grade Baltimore Catechism, but
cinematically, I'm with Danny Glover, the guy's a visionary."
Debra Murphy
From: Debra Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2004
Subject: Re: _Passion_
I'm going to step out of my Moderator's shoes for a moment and comment
briefly as a listmember.
Like the rest of you, I have been following the _Passion_/Gibson
controversy closely from the beginning. In this last year I have read
countless articles, and listened to dozens of media interviews and
commentaries. In that time, I had certainly begun to form some notions
about the dismal tenor of the (largely ad hominem) arguments being
leveled on both sides--enough to think that if the movie itself didn't
put Jewish-Christian relations back ten years, the controversy over it
might. But I have purposely held back from public comment because, to
me, there is something obscene about intelligent, thoughtful people,
particularly scholars, waxing indignant about a film they haven't seen
and (in many cases) have no intention of seeing.
I'm reminded of my intense embarrassment, as a Catholic, in witnessing
Mother Angelica's televised rant, some years ago, over Martin Scorsese's
_The Last Temptation of Christ_. Media observers gasped at what they
viewed as blatant pre-judgment--which is, after all the very definition
of prejudice. I would feel a great deal better about the state of our
national conversation over this issue if there was a bit more of that
going around now.
As it happens, I have taken the trouble to see the film, finally--am I
the only one on the list?--and am now in the process of putting my
opinions and observations (they are many) down on paper. This will take
a few days, but I'll venture a line or two here, quoting a casual
message I wrote yesterday to a listmember:
"...if that film represents antisemitism, then I, too, am as antisemitic
as Mel Gibson.... Worse, I'm starting to feel like I've fallen down
Alice's rabbit hole. After all the controversy (granted, mostly issuing
from people who hadn't seen it, which makes the whole business shameful
as well as depressing), I certainly went in with my antennae raised, and
expected to see some things that were at the very least problematic; but
I confess I came out of the theater thinking that not only was this
arguably the *least* antisemitic NT story I'd ever seen on film, but
that Gibson had gone way out of his way, on many different levels, to
make sure that Jews could not possibly be seen as collectively culpable.
"Artistically, though I might have done one or two little things
differently, I think the film a one-of-a-kind masterpiece, not like
anything I've ever seen. Theologically speaking, Gibson may have the
verbal sophistication of a third-grade Baltimore Catechism, but
cinematically, I'm with Danny Glover, the guy's a visionary."
Debra Murphy
