Post by rikkidunbar on May 30, 2005 22:39:41 GMT -5
There have been many negative responses to this film. As a film student, i am trying look at why these responses ocurred. In Britain the film passed through censorship with no cuts made, even though the level of violence was quite severe for lengthy periods of time. The obvious reason for this is of course that the film has religious significance and is thus exempt from normal film classification guidlines. However, those who were opposed to the film - Jewish spectators, for example, seemed less offended by the violence than by what they percieved to be anti-semitic implications.
Once upon a time in the UK - laws against blasphemy in films were strictly upheld - now it could be argued they are a thing of the past - nurturing freedom of speech. However, new laws have been implemented which grant powers to prosecute those who 'incite religious hatred' and there is a great potential for films (which aren't as high profile as 'The Passion') to be considered for censorship on similar grounds as the old blasphemy laws. The problem arises when films like this pose as religious doctrine to Christians, but can be argued to contain anti-semitic sentiment - who's freedom of speech is being impinged? Why is it, for example, that directors as educated and accomplished as Mel Gibson, rely on somewhat dated stereotypes to portray Jesus' final hours: the grotesquely unattractive roman guards; the hunched-over, scheming Jews; the relatively Aryan Jesus?
Why is it that Jesus is always Aryan in films when we know he was an Arab Jew? Is this what people find offensive about films like 'The Passion'?
Once upon a time in the UK - laws against blasphemy in films were strictly upheld - now it could be argued they are a thing of the past - nurturing freedom of speech. However, new laws have been implemented which grant powers to prosecute those who 'incite religious hatred' and there is a great potential for films (which aren't as high profile as 'The Passion') to be considered for censorship on similar grounds as the old blasphemy laws. The problem arises when films like this pose as religious doctrine to Christians, but can be argued to contain anti-semitic sentiment - who's freedom of speech is being impinged? Why is it, for example, that directors as educated and accomplished as Mel Gibson, rely on somewhat dated stereotypes to portray Jesus' final hours: the grotesquely unattractive roman guards; the hunched-over, scheming Jews; the relatively Aryan Jesus?
Why is it that Jesus is always Aryan in films when we know he was an Arab Jew? Is this what people find offensive about films like 'The Passion'?