That may explain some of the more gruesome aspects I remember from Catholic School, like those graphic crucifixes I talked about before and the Saint stories and all that, though of course those were some of the parts I liked about Catholicism was all the scary cool stories and pictures. I used to hope I would get stigmata when I was little because it sounded like a neat magic trick! Oh well, there's other stuff about it I just couldn't get with, moreso the older I got. Oh well.

Actually, I knew all that--which is why I agree that the movie went too easy on ol' Pontius.

I'm just not making the "Ah ha! Racism!" connection that you're making.

Although, I can handle how Adam F put it more.

Knowing this stuff (very possibly better than you do), I was puzzled by why Gibson made Pilate sort of... likable, as I said previously.

However, with a background in Bible history, comparative theology, etc., my reaction was more on the level of "Why did he tone that part down?" than "Ah ha! He's toning that down because he wants to send pre-Vatican II anti-semitic messages to people who don't know this stuff well enough to know all the backstory! The cad!!"

I guess Gibson has said that he views Pilate as a weak man, and there are hints of that in the flick. He is indecisive, and while he is interested in pleasing his wife, saving Christ's life and avoiding riots in the streets... he still doesn't do the right thing and... I dunno, pardon Jesus and then slip him out of town with a few denarii in his pocket.

Ordering Jesus severely beaten ain't exactly a positive thing, you know. Going along with the throng shouting for Jesus' death isn't exactly dodging the blame bullet.

It was pretty clear that Pilate could have easily gone against his natural inclination toward killing troublemakers if he had really wanted to, so guess what Reese... he's responsible.

It was just sort of subtle (at least in contrast to other parts of the film).

And as far as Caiphas goes, the Bible portrays him as one of the bad guys.

To me, getting worked up about that actor's portrayal of Caiphas is like saying Alan Rickman was being anti-British when he played the sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.

I'm fine with your addition. I was thinking that it was tied up with the concepts 'Nazi gas chamber' and 'concentration camp'. Regardless of whether the audience or the film puts blame entirely on the informers (I didn't think they should nor the film would as described, nor do I think Gibson's film does), how is the film not anti-Semitic? Does a film have to express the virulence of Martin Luther to qualify? I guess no film has ever been anti-Semitic, then.



Kael certainly had a bias against perceived religiosity. Anyway, I'm not sure why Dumas mentioned her to begin with.



Fine and dandy, Eichmann just helped make the trains more efficient, after all. Who's more responsible, Pilate or Caiaphas? Had the latter not bribed a traitor, brought the charges to begin with, voted along with/instigated the crowd to release Barrabas over Jesus, and generally pushed, pushed, pushed for death, Jesus wouldn't have been beaten or crucified. The film is very clear on this and that's sufficient support for the anti-Semitic charge.

Because you rely too heavily upon the opinions of magazine writers who specialize in things like film reviews instead of, say, real reference books.

It's called sarcasm.

That and a pot will give you something to piss in.

In what way does the film indicate that Caiaphas is representative of all Jewish people?

Good point. Caiaphas isn't even representative of the whole Sanhedrin.

See my thought experiment and its surrounding post.

I'd love to see some of these "look! Racism everywhere!" people tell the actor who portrayed Caiaphas to his face that he's a hook-nosed sheckel-hoarding Jew stereotype - that his very existence is racist...

Ed

Well i had the good fortune of going and seeing the film this past week end. As a Christian i was rightly moved. My final assessment is that this is as powerfully effective a piece of film as has ever been shot. The thing that I think is being missed with all this "anti-semitism" talk is that this is a film for Christians, depicting the torturous death our accepted Saviour. It's not an apologetic piece, it cuts no corners, it assesss no blame. It pretty much systematically details the last 12 hours of Christ's life. Nuthing more, nuthing less. If you read into that "anti-semitism", then i suspect that you consider the New Testament to be anti-semitic and in actuality hold a disdain for Christianity. Not my place to determine. All I can say is that, as a Christian, i am proud of Gibson and his super strong convictions to make this film. It's powerfully effective.