and I think alot of the accusations and hysteria about the movie wrt this were somewhat overstated.

that being said, there were some troubling portrayals in the movie:

first off, when the temple guards arrest Jesus and take him back to the temple, the Roman legionnaires show up to see what all the fuss is about, and Caiaphas (I think it was him, or maybe it was one of the other priests) scolds them and tells them, so many words and in a pretty bold tone, to fuck off and mind their business... and they just take that shit from his and turn and leave without a word?

Now I know the Romans let the Jews run the internal affairs of the temple and all... but were the temple priests really chastising Roman officers and ordering them around all bold like that, and the Romans would jump at their command and dutifully follow their orders? WTF? I mean they were under Roman military occupation for christssake, and from all the historical accounts I've ever heard of, the Romans didn't take too kindly to uppity natives in conquered provinces, *particularly* in Judea.

I mean I dunno, maybe I'm making too much of it, but the whole tone of that scene just struck me as really off somehow; it seemed skewed to make it look like the Jews were really running the show and the Romans were these dumb unwitting lackeys beholden to their will. Which is INCREDIBLY ahistorical (that's what really bothered me about it at first actually), and it feeds into some the most pernicious anti-Jewish myths/stereotypes.


as for the general portrayal of the Jews as the bad guys, your friend has a point about a story set among Jews in first century Judea inevitably having the bad guys as well as the good guys being Jewish (I mean in Apocalypto the good guys and bad guys are all Mayans too, right?) And I had actually thought pretty much the same thing, so I guess that didnt' really bother me all that much. Although there was plenty of that stuff to go around: the wicked Jewish temple priests conspiring to persecute the innocent Jesus in order to consolidate their hold on power, the bloodthirsty Jewish mob calling for Jesus' death, Judas scurrying on the ground after the 30 pieces of silver like the stereotypical covetous Jew... I suppose if I were Jewish it would've bothered me more. But then again the good guys are Jewish too; I guess it depends on your perspective whether you think of them as Jews or specifically as Christians though, but I think of them all as Jews (and Peter looked UBER Jewish... ironically the actor was Italian I think), so whatever.


As for including the Romans in with the good guys, well, the portrayal of Pilate was fairly sympathetic - I guess that's straight from the gospel account (I really wouldn't know if it's strictly from Luke, I'm not up on NT scholarship like that.) But yeah that is not in accordance with the contemporary Roman historical accounts, as Pilate was pretty brutal even for a Roman prefect. But what struck me as odd was the portrayal of Pilate's wife as such a saintly figure. I don't know what the gospels say about her, but damn, the movie made it seem like she took Jesus' suffering and death to heart as much as Mary & Mary Magdalene, which seemed pretty absurd to me. My guess would be Gibson could portray Pilate as only so sympathetic before he would not be believable as a Roman prefect in charge of enforcing Roman law, but through his wife could evoke the sense of sympathy even more. But that's just speculation on my part.

But then again, the Roman legionnaires who tortured Jesus were portrayed as mindless, sadistic brutes. I mean they were like Nazi stormtroopers in a Speilberg movie, completely devoid of humanity and taking pure mindless glee in savagely inflicting pain and suffering. Even the Jewish villians were still portrayed as human (if ugly ones at that), but the legionnaires didn't even seem human to me, they were like pink-skinned orcs foaming at the mouth with animalistic murderous zeal. Whatever reluctance or sympathy Pilate is shown as having, his troops have absolutely none. The way I see it, that includes the Romans (and gentiles in general) in with the idea that Jesus' blood is on all humanity's hands, not just the Jews. Gibson even filmed his own hand nailing Jesus to the cross to evoke that sentiment.

Now, does that mean he doesn't think the Jews are *especially* culpable in Jesus' death? No. I do think it makes it a little more complicated than saying he puts all the blame solely on the Jews though. I guess people will interpret it a bunch of different ways. Personally I don't think it's quite as bad as the ADL does, but I don't think it's as harmless as the Christian who came out of the theater in tears do either.

actually, you know what was probably the most offensive part of the movie that I haven't even heard anyone really comment on? when the earthquake hits after Jesus dies, a fissure opens up in the Jewish temple and splits the altar apart, as the temple priests look on in horror and disbelief. Now you can interpret alot of things alot of different ways, but to me the only way that can be interpreted in the context of this movie is that Christ's death rendered the old Judaic faith a dead and invalid religion. didn't even really hit me till I left the theater, but there it is. I can't even think of another way that can be interpreted. And I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the gospel account depicting the altar being split by the earthquake, and so it was a personal touch Gibson added, so that's all on him & it was pretty despicable IMO.

>Of course, when he and all his silly sedevacantist buddies
>reject "Nostra Aetate" as non-authoritative modernist novelty,
>my sympathy is in short supply.

oh, Gibson's a fucking loon. I don't have any sympathy for him as a person. But he can make a hell of a movie.