Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : WAR on Terror. Will it engulf the Entire Middle East? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (6827)	3/9/2004 7:25:32 PM
From: deibutfeif	Respond to of 32591

re:Every word you say bespeaks near total ignorance of Mideast history. Fortunately for all of us lurkers, he has made THAT eminently clear over the last few days of rants. ~dbf

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (6827)	3/10/2004 6:29:50 AM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32591

Hypocrisy and anti-Semitism By Yossi Sarid True, it is not the done thing among cultured people to express an opinion on a creative work without actually seeing it. I have not seen Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ," and it is doubtful that I will. Nevertheless, after reading everything I could about the movie, I would like to say something about it. My desire to write about the movie derives, among other things, from the silence, or alternatively, the sycophantic nature of the way liberal circles in the United States are relating to this inferior movie, as well as the Gibson crowd, among whom a number of the leaders in our country can suddenly be found. Only someone who is being disingenuous can claim that the "Passion" was born in a vacuum, or that it will not boost anti-Semitism. I understand that even Pontius Pilate is portrayed in the movie as an enlightened ruler, surrounded by cruel, bloodthirsty, long-nosed Jews with rotting teeth - so say people who have seen the movie. Undoubtedly, within the global reality of intense inter-religious tensions, with his movie Gibson has added fuel to the ancient bonfire that alternately dies down and flares up. If I thought the movie also provided some new, original analysis of the crucifixion, I would concede: So be it, in the name of art, we will also have to suffer this theo-pornograpy with all its sadomasochist revelations. This is not my impression. All Gibson has done is take the story of the crucifixion from the New Testament as is, and produce it for the big screen while sticking loyally to the sources. What is so artistic or creative in taking Jesus down from the cross just to crucify him again in a ketchup-filled scene? What is to be gained in the exact reenactment of the crucifixion when the viewers are invited to watch nails being hammered into the palms of a tortured man? If this isn't an attempt to stir up passions, to promote a dispute, and to again cast darkness on Jewish-Christian relations under the heavy shadow of the cross, then what do we have here? The "Passion" is on its way to becoming Hollywood's number one blockbuster. From the outset, it would never have made it to the big screen unless it had a sure chance of becoming a major hit. Gibson is familiar with the American soul, with the world's soul, and he also knows for sure that a movie like this, at this time, will ride on the high waves of Christian fundamentalism in his country and in others. Without supportive surroundings, Gibson, who is not exactly known as a modern-day Shakespeare, would not have dared make this movie.