PASSION FRUIT
Published February 04, 2004
In Mel Gibson's new movie "The Passion", Justin Timberlake portrays a Roman Centurion who rips off Antonio Banderas' breechcloth in a climactic final moment during the crucifixion.
Meanwhile, Mary Magdalene, played by a tearful Anna Nicole-Smith, is consoled by Jesus' mother, Mary, played by Madonna (of course)---who plants a long French-kiss on her collagen-filled lips as the two mournful babes stare in horror.
Okay, that doesn't really happen, but it's hard to imagine that Mel Gibson could have ANY more free publicity for his soon-to-be-released film based on questionable accounts of the last day of Christ.
Ironically, the bulk of the publicity is coming from Jews and Jewish organizations who aren't thrilled with the film and its portrayal of their "race" as "The Guys Who Screwed God's Son". (Apparently, the New Testament was written BEFORE the Jews controlled all the media!)
But hey, let's be honest: being the whipping boys throughout Western History---and losing 6 million people during the 1940s does not necessarily justify irrational paranoia decades later, does it? I mean, it's time for these oversensitive Jews to chill out, buck-up, move on, get over it, and don't be so grumpy about a silly little movie portraying them as the killers of the Savior of Mankind. Sheesh.
Gibson has defended his portrayal of Jews cheering Christ's death sentence at the hands of a Yiddish Kangaroo Court as being HISTORICALLY ACCURATE because it was based on the writings of Matthew.
Basing anything on ANY PART OF THE BIBLE and calling it historically accurate is like saying the movie "The Santa Clause" is an accurate portrayal of the life of Santa based on the historical accuracy of the poem "The Night Before Christmas" by Clement Moore.
In other words, if you want to learn about Easter, just ask the Easter Bunny. (If you can find him...)
- PASSION FRUIT
- Published: February 04, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Video
- Filed Under: Culture: Humor and Satire
- Writer: Shark
- Shark's BC Writer page
- Shark's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Superman,
I...uh... just... don't know what to say....
After a few days spent on Blogcritics, I've learned that if you have to explain satire...
ah... nevermind.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/12364)
Umm, you seem to have strong opinions about this movie. What exactly makes you say the Bible is historically inaccurate? I've heard that, and I'm wondering what proof you have. If you don't believe in Christianity and don't want to watch some movie about a guy named Jesus, then you don't have to. Really. Oh yeah, for the violence in this movie, my personal opinion is that there's a difference between gratuitous violence and non-gratuitous violence. Both are equally disturbing, but like in "Saving Private Ryan" there's some non-gratuitous but still very violent violence. Really. A lot of Christians don't know what they are talking about, so take what I say (as one of them) with a grain of salt. Who knows, I might be right. But I might be wrong.
By the way, there's nothing wrong with making a movie based on a book, even if that book is fiction (as you claim the Bible is). Wouldn't that be Lord of the Ringsish? Well, a little different, because the Bible is religious and whatever, but if it's not true there's nothing wrong with a good, well-thought out story. Even if the Bible's not true the story must be decent if people have kept it around ~2000 years even when all the philosophers said "God is dead."