from indie boi:
"You seem to have misunderstood my post. Let me simplify it further -- A film about christ can never be considered truthful if you excise the involvement of Jews in any way whatsoever. The Pharisees are a jewish sect, for crying out loud!
People are getting riled up because Gibson, for this film, supposedly used language that was not widely used at the time. Would it have made the film more "sensitive" to the times if the jews have been replaced by generic far easterners?"
I've said before, some Jews have been shown in other films, the concern is that Jews as a people are accused (you don't seem to understand what I'm posting either). The Matthew quote is a crucial question--in some versions this was include, in some screenings, it wasn't.
Tthe answer to all the questions I asked is, I would do exactly the opposite of what Gibson did. I'd show select people of the Jewish community the film (something Gibson hasn't done), and listen to their concerns. If there's a way of accomodating their interests, I certainly would try do something about it.
And finally, it's not just a film, there's a real and valid concern about anti Semitism. Don't you read the papers? What's happening in the middle East? The anti Semitism on the rise all over the world? And around this film?
"Why don't we just wait for the movie before we decide if it's being anti-semitic or if Gibson is just being a pompous *ss along. "
Because it's Gibson and not the movie is acting like an anti-Semite (read his response to the NYT article questions), and it's he and not the movie that's acting like a pompous ass. You don't need to wait for the movie to disapprove of what Gibson is doing.