Speaking of threadlocking.

[CJ01]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Don\'t Russian men have bigger noses anyway, or

am I wrong about this?


<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\"> I guess some have big noses but I´ve seen

russians (and polish) with `ordinary´ ones [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
I´ve seen russian

men with red noses too, they´re vodkaians [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[bjf]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
A tad bit of history. I have to run out now, but

if anyone wants more I can provide them with an endless supply

</font><blockquote><font

class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
The Bible introduces three rudiments of healthful existence: rest,

cleanliness, and prophylaxis. The weekly rest-day was unique to Judaic precepts. Cecil Roth quotes \"the great

medical historian, Karl Sudhoff: ‘Had Judaism given nothing more to mankind than the establishment of a weekly day

of rest, we should still be forced to proclaim her one of the greatest benefactors of humanity.’\"1

Physical

purity (cleanliness) is placed on a par with spiritual purity. David’s supplication to God, \"Wash me thoroughly

from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin (Ps. 51:4), is one of a myriad of references to the concept of washing

to achieve purity. An admonition to the sinner is a Divine imperative. \"For though thou wash thee with nitre, and

take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me\" (Jer. 2:22). A Jew could not enter the temple without

bathing if he had done anything to render him impure. A bath had to be taken daily before reading the Law (Torah);

both of which were prescribed for every Jew.

Cleanliness was but part of ancient Judaic prophylactic practices.

The concept of contagion was likewise integral to biblical medical intelligence. Hygienic laws of impurity after

touching a corpse, or of those affected with diseases like gonorrhea or leprosy, required a thorough washing with

nitre or other caustic soaps.



<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

<hr /></blockquote><font

class=\"post\">

If you do not believe this, just watch the toothbrush episode of Seinfeld!!

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Rakesh]

The

article doesn\'t really contradict anything I said. I did state that the Jews had better hygiene than most, but I

do believe the romans had more

How often did regular baths take place? This particular question is a real

ordinary question without any traps waiting around it, so please answer

BTW washing with nitre....I know only a

few ways to obtain nitre naturally, and all of them contain either urine or manure The easiest is to scrape

salpeter off stable walls.

[Elana]

You are in

a corner. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Rakesh]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Did you even read my original post? That is what

Kari and I said that Mel did to the Jewish character, to which you gave your reply

<hr /></blockquote><font

class=\"post\"> But the post in which you used those words was a reaction to my post about history books. You are

confusing me with the movie.

[Elana]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font

class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Did you even read my original post? That is what Kari and I said that Mel did

to the Jewish character, to which you gave your reply

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\"> But the post

in which you used those words was a reaction to my post about history books. You are confusing me with the movie.



<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

You defended Mel\'s characterization of the Jews. What am I

missing here? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[Rakesh]

Certainly

not.
You negate things I never said. Jewish hygiene wasn\'t BAD. But the romans, well, their hygiene was a

completely different league.

[Rakesh]

\"You

defended Mel\'s characterization of the Jews. What am I missing here?\"
The thing you are missing is that I was

not defending Mel\'s characterisation of the jews

[Rakesh]

A friend

of mine who is not a registered user here but was notified about the discussion asked me to post his two cents, so

here goes:
\"In this time period there was a very small elite involving for the most part priests and former kings

who would have wealth in israel and were also jews. Compare this to the tens of thousands of peasantry in the area,

it would be difficult to accurately portray a society around 2000 years before crest and economized soap as being

clean cut with a nice set of pearly whites.
Compare this of course with the Romans over there They were either


a)rulers who would have massive amounts of wealth at their hands
b) merchants again possessing considerable

wealth
or lastly
c) soldiers who are being most likely provided with many amenities as well as having a hefty

paycheck which would permit them to be clean cut and have good hygeine

further more romans were very concerned

about physical appearance, similar to the egyptians, they were generally clean cut or had trimmed beards and hair.

Jews on the other hand traditionally grew beards long, and it would be unreasonable to think that a poor farmer

would spend his entire wages upon some method of beard control. So quite simply, you are wrong\"

Then he already

has some remarks to the \"Unfortunately it has already flared up quite a bit of hate. One Baptist church put up a

huge sign that read \"The Jews killed our Lord.\" There have been several incidences already of blatant

anti-Semitism. On a brighter note, many Jewish and Christian groups have got together to discuss the issue and bring

the truth to the table.\" thing.
\"Southern Baptist, not Baptist genius. And seeing as these are the same

people who ban disney movies and barbies and the like because they are tools of satan, I\'d say that the movie is

not the cause of that.\"

Not only devil\'s advocate, spokesman of the nine hells too. Yay.

[CJ01]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
further more romans were very concerned about

physical appearance, similar to the egyptians, they were generally clean cut or had trimmed beards and hair. Jews on

the other hand traditionally grew beards long, and it would be unreasonable to think that a poor farmer would spend

his entire wages upon some method of beard control. So quite simply, you are wrong\"



<hr

/></blockquote><font class=\"post\"> thanks for posting your mates opinion btw he could register and post himself

too [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I have something to add to this tho. Not all romans very

wealthy and many were poor. So the statement says that the jews who were poor could not afford the personal hygene

like the romans did. But what about the poorer romans?

As I understand it the comparison is very much focused

between the poorer jews and the wealthier of the romans. Which is not fair if you will as there were pleanty of

roman peasants who didn´t have the same means as the rich ones.

The main problem with this statement is that it

speaks more of grooming rather than actual personal hygene which are not always the same thing

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

CJ

[Rakesh]

Speaking

for myself, I\'m pretty sure he meant the romans in israel, not romans in the entire empire. Gives sense that the

occupants don\'t plow the fields [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Speaking for my friend

: \"generally lazy or rather lazy enough that I\'m not going to become a member of another forum for this

topic\"

[EXIT63]

WOO-HOO

We\'re back in business.

Did anyone hear the interview with Mels father. They\'ve been

playing it a lot on the Stern Show.

Anyway, the father is a complete nut-job. Even going as far as saying

the holocaust didn\'t happen and that holocaust museums are only in business to make money.

Pretty scary

huh.

[Elana]

Rakesh...I

have read many of your posts in the past and consider you to be a bright guy. In this case you seem to have put your

foot in your mouth and said something that was not only wrong, it was beyond wrong. If you care to continue trying

to tell me how Jews may have been clean but just not as clean as the Roman\'s, or all Roman\'s were rich and all

Jews were poor so the rich Roman\'s had more baths than the Jews and the Jews had less than the Roman\'s and

blah, blah, blah....I will tell you again....you are wrong. Jews had to bathe before the entered the temple. They

did that everyday. Many, many Jewish traditions which started from the beginning of Judaism where based on

cleanliness. That is why Kosher eating was starting. Now we continue eating this way because of tradition.

I

do not think that you are prejudice in the slightest. I do feel that you are falling for the typical stereotype of

the Jewish person.

[CJ01]

Just want to

point out that many jewish women still like a big sausage nonetheless

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Elana]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Just want to point out that many jewish women still

like a big sausage nonetheless [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

<hr

/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
I LOVE a big sausage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[EXIT63]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font

class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Just want to point out that many jewish women still like a big sausage

nonetheless [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
I LOVE a big

sausage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

<hr

/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

As long as it\'s kosher.

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Elana]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font

class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Just want to

point out that many jewish women still like a big sausage nonetheless

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
I LOVE a big

sausage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

<hr

/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

As long as it\'s kosher.

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

Nah...as long

as it is juicy [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[EXIT63]

and lean

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[bjf]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
and lean

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

I thought it was

all about girth?? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Holmes]

Wayne was

cooler.



Holmes

[Kari]

MEL: I

FORGIVE THEM


Feb 28 2004


For the critics know not what they do, says Mel


From Anthony Harwood Us

Editor In New York


Â


MEL GIBSON said yesterday he \"forgives\" critics of his controversial film

about the crucifixion.


The Passion of the Christ has been slammed as too bloody and violent and conmemned as

anti-Semitic.


But Gibson said: \"I forgive them and I try to act in a way of love, even to those who

persecute you. Very much like the film.\"


He admitted it includes scenes of unspeakable cruelty but said:

\"The Bible is R-rated. I mean, look at that book ... that\'s a hot book.\"


The Lethal Weapon star said

the violence was not \"gratuitous\", adding: \"Why am I being picked on for this? There\'s far more violent

movies\" - such as Quentin Tarantino\'s Kill Bill. Gibson, who got a standing ovation on Jay Leno\'s TV chat

show, said he was shocked by the \"prejudgment and condemnation\" that began a year ago when the script was

leaked.


\"For a year it\'s been nothing but nasty editorials and name calling,\" he said.


Of the

anti-Semitism allegations he said: \"It\'s wrong, it\'s unconscionable ... that\'s not what the film\'s

about. It\'s about tolerance. The film is true to the gospels and it\'s not anti-Semitic.\"


The film,

which opened across America this week, took more than £40million on its first day and could become one of the

biggest hits ever.


The controversy is fast becoming the butt of jokes on American TV.


One pundit on CNN

quipped: \"Mel Gibson has denied charges of anti-Semitism over his new movie Lethal Rabbi.\"


Leno joined in

when Gibson said he had poured £15million of his own money into it because Hollywood was not interested.


The

chat host said: \"The studios said they would have paid for it but they wanted a more upbeat ending.\"


And

he joked that it was doing so well \"there\'s talk of turning it into a book\".




Â

[Elana]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
MEL: I FORGIVE THEM


<hr /></blockquote><font

class=\"post\">

Phew...I\'ll sleep so much better tonight. Mel\'s forgiveness means the world to me.

[Holmes]

Mel need da

weed, mon. I an\' I say, get da mon a fahtwun. G\'wan now.


Holmes

[Kari]

The gospel

according to Mel

By Mac VerStandig, ArtsEtc. Writer
February 27, 2004



For a

film about a man who preached messages of love, it is astounding just how hateful \"The Passion of the Christ\"

truly is. Unrelentingly anti-Semitic, excessively grotesque and overly narrow in its scope, Mel Gibson\'s

controversial film is full of all the wrong sorts of passion.

The movie concerns itself only with the final 12

hours of Jesus\' (James Caviezel) life, depicting Judas\' (Luca Lionello) betrayal in the opening moments of the

picture and wasting little time before commencing to depict the bloodying of Jesus.

Therein lies one of the

movie\'s principal flaws: Gibson selects such a narrow time frame that he is ultimately unable to balance the

atrocities committed against the protagonist with any meaningful inclusion of his teachings. The film does offer a

handful of flashbacks, but they are too few and too short to offer any sort of relief from the film\'s main

objective -- apparently the overly graphic portrayal of Jesus\' suffering.

Indeed, the violence is so brutal

in nature that it not only ranks \"The Passion of the Christ\" as the most grotesque film ever made, but also

shows the errors of the Motion Picture Association of America in not tagging the film with an NC-17 rating.

\"Saving Private Ryan,\" \"Hamburger Hill\" and even Gibson\'s \"Braveheart\" are all graphic in their

nature, but none are near the level of \"The Passion of the Christ.\"

Not only does the film depict Jesus

being rather severely manhandled by the Jews (part of a larger anti-Semitic undertone that will be discussed later),

but the picture also takes care to depict all 39 floggings, counted aloud one at a time. Moreover, the scourging

becomes a bloodbath of nauseating proportions. Jesus\' flesh is violently ripped away as the faces of his beaters

are sprayed with red and the ground around his fallen body slowly becomes a pool.

Although Gibson clearly

wants to be faithful to the sheer brutality that is described in the book of Isaiah, the whippings become so

hyperbolic in nature that the film loses credibility early on. The New Testament is clear that Jesus, although the

Son of Man, was a mortal until his death. Indeed, this theme is central to \"The Passion of the Christ\" as the

film seeks to show the toll of the infamous 12 hours on Jesus\' human body. But the reality is that the scourging

is so brutal that no one could have survived; if the film were concerned with the realities of Jesus\' humanity,

he never would have lived to carry his cross.

Of course, if the lashings are excessively violent, then the

crucifixion itself is pornographic. The film takes great care to slowly depict the driving of the stakes through

Jesus -- never hesitating to show the gushing of his blood in contrast to the carnage of his thorny crown. In

combination with the still-recent lash marks, these images are too much for children or the weak-stomached to handle

and another persuasive argument that the film\'s rating be more restrictive.

It is the totality of this

violence that, in part, lends the film its horrifically anti-Semitic message. Not only does Gibson care to place the

blame almost exclusively on the Jews, but by depicting the torture in such fantastical detail, he also fosters a

growing hatred toward those who would dare subject a man to such brutality.

The contrast is remarkable: Pontius

Pilate (Hristo Shopov) is depicted as a man torn about how to handle Jesus. The film, in a rare scene excluding the

protagonist, shows Pilate\'s careful meditation in great detail, ultimately explaining that he is only willing to

condemn Jesus to death for the greater good of his people, as he fears the uprising that might ensue if he does not

order the crucifixion. Conversely, the Jews are never shown to give their actions any thought whatsoever and are

depicted as controlling Rome and acting with a mob mentality that thirsts for blood alone.

Granted, the Romans

who carry out Pilate\'s fatal order do seem to relish the task, but the message is clear: only the lowliest of

Romans are culpable in Jesus\' death, but even the highest of the Jews shoulder responsibility.

By the time

Barabbas is spared at Jesus\' expense, the anti-Semitic message is already clear. The Jews are emotionless,

bloodthirsty and conniving. The Romans - who, even Gibson must acknowledge, ultimately are the ones to crack a whip

39 times and drive the actual stakes into Jesus - come across as a civilized, compassionate people. As a result,

almost all of the blame is assigned to the Jews, who are shown finding stoic pleasure in these final 12 hours.



Gibson should have reduced the violence, expanded the flashbacks and steered clear of making a film so obsessed

with anti-Semitism that even Simon (Jarreth Merz) ultimately looks bad. Technically, he has the skill to do just

this - the cinematography is already picturesque, the makeup is horrifically realistic and the acting, with the

exception of a scene where Caviezel makes it appear as though Jesus is nodding off in front of Pilate, is stellar.



Moreover, credit should be given where due, and Gibson\'s decision to make the entire movie in Aramaic (with

Romans speaking Street Latin) significantly helps establish the time setting and build intensity.

But not even

these small accomplishments can overshadow the fact that \"The Passion of the Christ\" is a bitter film that uses

excessive violence to foster hatred that this religiously divided world simply doesn\'t need.

Â

[Kari]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font

class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
MEL: I FORGIVE THEM


<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">



Phew...I\'ll sleep so much better tonight. Mel\'s forgiveness means the world to me.

<hr

/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

It should.. you\'re a Jew. According to Mel, you need it more.

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[Kari]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Mel need da weed, mon. I an\' I say, get da mon a

fahtwun. G\'wan now.


Holmes

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

BTW-- the flick is still

running \"rotten,\" on rottentomatoes.

[Elana]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
The gospel according to Mel

By Mac

VerStandig, ArtsEtc. Writer
February 27, 2004



For a film about a man who preached messages

of love, it is astounding just how hateful \"The Passion of the Christ\" truly is. Unrelentingly anti-Semitic,

excessively grotesque and overly narrow in its scope, Mel Gibson\'s controversial film is full of all the wrong

sorts of passion.

The movie concerns itself only with the final 12 hours of Jesus\' (James Caviezel) life,

depicting Judas\' (Luca Lionello) betrayal in the opening moments of the picture and wasting little time before

commencing to depict the bloodying of Jesus.

Therein lies one of the movie\'s principal flaws: Gibson

selects such a narrow time frame that he is ultimately unable to balance the atrocities committed against the

protagonist with any meaningful inclusion of his teachings. The film does offer a handful of flashbacks, but they

are too few and too short to offer any sort of relief from the film\'s main objective -- apparently the overly

graphic portrayal of Jesus\' suffering.

Indeed, the violence is so brutal in nature that it not only ranks

\"The Passion of the Christ\" as the most grotesque film ever made, but also shows the errors of the Motion

Picture Association of America in not tagging the film with an NC-17 rating. \"Saving Private Ryan,\" \"Hamburger

Hill\" and even Gibson\'s \"Braveheart\" are all graphic in their nature, but none are near the level of \"The

Passion of the Christ.\"

Not only does the film depict Jesus being rather severely manhandled by the Jews

(part of a larger anti-Semitic undertone that will be discussed later), but the picture also takes care to depict

all 39 floggings, counted aloud one at a time. Moreover, the scourging becomes a bloodbath of nauseating

proportions. Jesus\' flesh is violently ripped away as the faces of his beaters are sprayed with red and the

ground around his fallen body slowly becomes a pool.

Although Gibson clearly wants to be faithful to the sheer

brutality that is described in the book of Isaiah, the whippings become so hyperbolic in nature that the film loses

credibility early on. The New Testament is clear that Jesus, although the Son of Man, was a mortal until his death.

Indeed, this theme is central to \"The Passion of the Christ\" as the film seeks to show the toll of the infamous

12 hours on Jesus\' human body. But the reality is that the scourging is so brutal that no one could have

survived; if the film were concerned with the realities of Jesus\' humanity, he never would have lived to carry

his cross.

Of course, if the lashings are excessively violent, then the crucifixion itself is pornographic.

The film takes great care to slowly depict the driving of the stakes through Jesus -- never hesitating to show the

gushing of his blood in contrast to the carnage of his thorny crown. In combination with the still-recent lash

marks, these images are too much for children or the weak-stomached to handle and another persuasive argument that

the film\'s rating be more restrictive.

It is the totality of this violence that, in part, lends the film

its horrifically anti-Semitic message. Not only does Gibson care to place the blame almost exclusively on the Jews,

but by depicting the torture in such fantastical detail, he also fosters a growing hatred toward those who would

dare subject a man to such brutality.

The contrast is remarkable: Pontius Pilate (Hristo Shopov) is depicted as

a man torn about how to handle Jesus. The film, in a rare scene excluding the protagonist, shows Pilate\'s careful

meditation in great detail, ultimately explaining that he is only willing to condemn Jesus to death for the greater

good of his people, as he fears the uprising that might ensue if he does not order the crucifixion. Conversely, the

Jews are never shown to give their actions any thought whatsoever and are depicted as controlling Rome and acting

with a mob mentality that thirsts for blood alone.

Granted, the Romans who carry out Pilate\'s fatal order

do seem to relish the task, but the message is clear: only the lowliest of Romans are culpable in Jesus\' death,

but even the highest of the Jews shoulder responsibility.

By the time Barabbas is spared at Jesus\' expense,

the anti-Semitic message is already clear. The Jews are emotionless, bloodthirsty and conniving. The Romans - who,

even Gibson must acknowledge, ultimately are the ones to crack a whip 39 times and drive the actual stakes into

Jesus - come across as a civilized, compassionate people. As a result, almost all of the blame is assigned to the

Jews, who are shown finding stoic pleasure in these final 12 hours.

Gibson should have reduced the violence,

expanded the flashbacks and steered clear of making a film so obsessed with anti-Semitism that even Simon (Jarreth

Merz) ultimately looks bad. Technically, he has the skill to do just this - the cinematography is already

picturesque, the makeup is horrifically realistic and the acting, with the exception of a scene where Caviezel makes

it appear as though Jesus is nodding off in front of Pilate, is stellar.

Moreover, credit should be given where

due, and Gibson\'s decision to make the entire movie in Aramaic (with Romans speaking Street Latin) significantly

helps establish the time setting and build intensity.

But not even these small accomplishments can overshadow

the fact that \"The Passion of the Christ\" is a bitter film that uses excessive violence to foster hatred that

this religiously divided world simply doesn\'t need.

Â


<hr

/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
I have read several reviews similar to this one and most are not from Jewish

reviewers.

[Holmes]

Get da mon

a blunt I say! He den put love inna movie. Israela yakirati, mon. One love.


Holmes

[Kari]

Â




<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
I have read several reviews

similar to this one and most are not from Jewish reviewers.

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

Yes.



I think that after the hysteria passes, people are going to become aware of the fanaticism of the movie.

To

be fair, I don\'t think Mel intended any harm. He says he went from addictions and potential suicide to the 12

stations of the cross (\"they were MY 12 steps\").

I think he may have traded one addiction for another.



But... it\'s apparently still a very nasty piece (I haven\'t seen it, nor will I, nor will my friends--

which are many).

[Holmes]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font

class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
The gospel according to Mel

By Mac VerStandig, ArtsEtc.

Writer
February 27, 2004



For a film about a man who preached messages of love, it is

astounding just how hateful \"The Passion of the Christ\" truly is. Unrelentingly anti-Semitic, excessively

grotesque and overly narrow in its scope, Mel Gibson\'s controversial film is full of all the wrong sorts of

passion.

The movie concerns itself only with the final 12 hours of Jesus\' (James Caviezel) life, depicting

Judas\' (Luca Lionello) betrayal in the opening moments of the picture and wasting little time before commencing

to depict the bloodying of Jesus.

Therein lies one of the movie\'s principal flaws: Gibson selects such a

narrow time frame that he is ultimately unable to balance the atrocities committed against the protagonist with any

meaningful inclusion of his teachings. The film does offer a handful of flashbacks, but they are too few and too

short to offer any sort of relief from the film\'s main objective -- apparently the overly graphic portrayal of

Jesus\' suffering.

Indeed, the violence is so brutal in nature that it not only ranks \"The Passion of the

Christ\" as the most grotesque film ever made, but also shows the errors of the Motion Picture Association of

America in not tagging the film with an NC-17 rating. \"Saving Private Ryan,\" \"Hamburger Hill\" and even

Gibson\'s \"Braveheart\" are all graphic in their nature, but none are near the level of \"The Passion of the

Christ.\"

Not only does the film depict Jesus being rather severely manhandled by the Jews (part of a larger

anti-Semitic undertone that will be discussed later), but the picture also takes care to depict all 39 floggings,

counted aloud one at a time. Moreover, the scourging becomes a bloodbath of nauseating proportions. Jesus\' flesh

is violently ripped away as the faces of his beaters are sprayed with red and the ground around his fallen body

slowly becomes a pool.

Although Gibson clearly wants to be faithful to the sheer brutality that is described

in the book of Isaiah, the whippings become so hyperbolic in nature that the film loses credibility early on. The

New Testament is clear that Jesus, although the Son of Man, was a mortal until his death. Indeed, this theme is

central to \"The Passion of the Christ\" as the film seeks to show the toll of the infamous 12 hours on Jesus\'

human body. But the reality is that the scourging is so brutal that no one could have survived; if the film were

concerned with the realities of Jesus\' humanity, he never would have lived to carry his cross.

Of course,

if the lashings are excessively violent, then the crucifixion itself is pornographic. The film takes great care to

slowly depict the driving of the stakes through Jesus -- never hesitating to show the gushing of his blood in

contrast to the carnage of his thorny crown. In combination with the still-recent lash marks, these images are too

much for children or the weak-stomached to handle and another persuasive argument that the film\'s rating be more

restrictive.

It is the totality of this violence that, in part, lends the film its horrifically anti-Semitic

message. Not only does Gibson care to place the blame almost exclusively on the Jews, but by depicting the torture

in such fantastical detail, he also fosters a growing hatred toward those who would dare subject a man to such

brutality.

The contrast is remarkable: Pontius Pilate (Hristo Shopov) is depicted as a man torn about how to

handle Jesus. The film, in a rare scene excluding the protagonist, shows Pilate\'s careful meditation in great

detail, ultimately explaining that he is only willing to condemn Jesus to death for the greater good of his people,

as he fears the uprising that might ensue if he does not order the crucifixion. Conversely, the Jews are never shown

to give their actions any thought whatsoever and are depicted as controlling Rome and acting with a mob mentality

that thirsts for blood alone.

Granted, the Romans who carry out Pilate\'s fatal order do seem to relish the

task, but the message is clear: only the lowliest of Romans are culpable in Jesus\' death, but even the highest of

the Jews shoulder responsibility.

By the time Barabbas is spared at Jesus\' expense, the anti-Semitic message

is already clear. The Jews are emotionless, bloodthirsty and conniving. The Romans - who, even Gibson must

acknowledge, ultimately are the ones to crack a whip 39 times and drive the actual stakes into Jesus - come across

as a civilized, compassionate people. As a result, almost all of the blame is assigned to the Jews, who are shown

finding stoic pleasure in these final 12 hours.

Gibson should have reduced the violence, expanded the

flashbacks and steered clear of making a film so obsessed with anti-Semitism that even Simon (Jarreth Merz)

ultimately looks bad. Technically, he has the skill to do just this - the cinematography is already picturesque, the

makeup is horrifically realistic and the acting, with the exception of a scene where Caviezel makes it appear as

though Jesus is nodding off in front of Pilate, is stellar.

Moreover, credit should be given where due, and

Gibson\'s decision to make the entire movie in Aramaic (with Romans speaking Street Latin) significantly helps

establish the time setting and build intensity.

But not even these small accomplishments can overshadow the

fact that \"The Passion of the Christ\" is a bitter film that uses excessive violence to foster hatred that this

religiously divided world simply doesn\'t need.

Â


<hr

/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
I have read several reviews similar to this one and most are not from Jewish

reviewers.

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

Gene Shallot\'s review:

\"IIIIIII loved

it!\"


Holmes