Before I try point-by-point, overall let me just say I think there's an inherent problem with saying that a *symbol* is inherently racist/antisemitic/whatever because symbols can be interpreted differently. A lot of what's going on here, admittedly, is that the symbols which to someone who's been more exposed to antisemitic stuff may be obvious, went over my head :-) But, if symbols go completely over the head of X% of the audience do you think X can ever reach a point where you can admit well heck maybe it's not intrinsically antisemitic after all? At what point do you start blaming not the film but the people who see all sorts of "symbols" therein? For example,

-You saw Satan walking "amongst the Jews" and thought that was an obvious symbol. I just saw Satan (we assume he's Satan/know this only from prior familiarity w/the story - he actually looked mostly like a Sith Lord to me ;-), who was a character in this film, therefore they had to put him somewhere. The story took place mostly in/around Jerusalem, amongst people who (mostly - we don't know actually but will assume) are Jews, so if you plop him in a scene in this film it follows he's gonna be amongst mostly Jews. Where exactly should he have been shown observing all these events from, Korea, amongst a bunch o'Koreans? In other words if Satan Standing Near Jews *was* a "symbol" for Jews=Evil, it went completely over my head; who the heck cares who Satan is walking "amongst"? He's Satan, he's like totally evil, so I blame him not them. If I see Satan glowering over a bunch of kids at a children's playground I don't start thinking "dude those kids must be like totally evil"; if there are people who *do* interpret it that way, that's their problem IMHO.

-As for the "stereotypical Jewish look" thing, it's simply true that as a general characteristic a lot of Jews (not all), have prominent noses, is it not? (Same seems true of other nationalities from/around the Levant.) So what? And some of them are actors. (BTW I didn't really notice anything especially out-of-the-ordinary "hook-nosed" about any of the actors...you did? Which ones?) But ok, if I hire such an actor to play the role of a character who's Jewish (and heck why wouldn't I?), and (historically correctly) plop a yarmulke on his head, you get to accuse me of using a "stereotypical Jewish look"? or I can't have that character holding money or whatever?

This is all reminding me of an old Onion piece (which I can't find) titled something like "Chinese Laundromat Owner Decried For Perpetuating Racial Stereotypes". What sort of actor should have played those roles, Jackie Chan? What sort of hat should he have worn, a foam-and-mesh that reads "Craftsman" on the front? Should we measure actors' noses and tell some of them "sorry I can't give you this part, you look JUST TOO STEREOTYPICALLY JEWISH"? I just don't know how it would be possible to make this film and survive this particular objection of yours. Apparently I'd have to (a) go out of my way to hire an actor who DOESN'T look "stereotypically Jewish", (b) dress him in clothing (Adidas sweatsuit perhaps) which doesn't in any way look like the sort of clothing a Jewish person of that time and place would have worn, and (c) make sure it's made clear he HATES MONEY. At some point can we acknowledge that it's possible to uh get a little INSANE, going too far with these objections?

-I don't know about (don't remember) the "bribed" characters you're talking about (I honestly thought the guys who were woken up in the middle of the night were simply all the other Sanhedrin members who had to get up to come to the full emergency "trial" or whatever it was; I interpreted much of what I saw as, say, "lobbying"/pressuring by the anti-Jesus faction to shore up support, but I don't remember any of them getting "bribed"...may have happened, just don't remember). But in the case of at least Judas we have a Hebrew character who (1) presumably looked like a Hebrew and not some other nationality, and (2) according to the story, took some money. By your rules it seems I simply can't portray both (1) and (2) and survive your antisemitism charge.

In other words, it gets back to this: maybe one just can't create a film based faithfully on the passion story without being antisemitic (a consensus does seem to be forming around that point, anyway, since Matthew & John are, themselves, "antisemitic in parts").

-I agreed totally that the character of Pilate is whitewashed but we are talking about whether the film is antisemitic not whether it is historically accurate. I agree that it's (almost certainly) not historically accurate. That doesn't make it antisemitic. If Pilate had sprouted wings and flown to the moon or whipped out a Nintendo Gameboy and started playing Tetris this would have been historically inaccurate but not antisemitic. In any event despite his whitewash I still did not have a favorable impression of Pilate in this film by any means. Seriously: I sympathized completely with the Sanhedrin. (Maybe I'm just weird ;-)

-Why did Gibson omit the subtitle? To lessen the controversy, of course: so people wouldn't complain as much about it. That doesn't make the complaints valid.

-You do what amounts to some scorecard analysis of how much time is devoted to good Jews vs. how much to bad Jews. I honestly don't know (don't care much either) how the ratio comes out but IMHO at some point this becomes hair-splitting. I hope that films don't need to engage in a kind of "affirmative action" regarding how screen-time is split amongst good/bad characters. Imagine applying this rule to the Godfather films for example - a large percentage of the Italian characters are murderous gangsters or associated with same. Anti-Italian! Should all those scenes have been "balanced" by showing some nice, law abiding Italians from time to time? Perish the thought.

-Simon of Cyrene "doesn't count" because Christians like him?? Ok gimme a break. Are you going to be here saying all the positive Jewish characters (Jesus, disciples, Mary Magdalene, Simon of Cyrene, girl who wiped his face..) "don't count"? If so well then I just can't win; yes of course all the Jews in this film are portrayed negatively *if all the positive ones "don't count"*. Talk about an absurd standard however. Again it just sounds like you're saying one can't tell this story without being antisemitic.

"Do you see the Devil walking among Roman soldiers or gurads? Why only among the Jews and behind the priests? Coincidence again?"

See here's the interesting thing. *I didn't notice that*, perhaps because I wasn't looking for it. Why, were you? I'm taking your word for it that in no scenes is Satan shown "amongst" any Romans. But to be honest I'm not sure that's even true. I wasn't mentally clocking Satan's screen time or cataloguing which people he was next to/behind. Didn't occur to me and I still don't even really see the relevance. What sort of person would? Well, in addition to you, an anti-semite would perhaps.

But I readily concede that this film could be interpreted in an antisemitic way by antisemites. Lots of things, rightly or not, are interpreted in antisemitic ways by antisemites, because antisemites are messed-up people.

"Depicting Jews in films sometimes doing bad things is not antisemtic. Depicting them, including their high priests, evil for being or remaing Jews or acting according to their beliefs is."

Interesting. But see, in the story I saw, "[they] including their high priests" were not "depicted as evil" in the first place. Like I said, I thought the priests acted understandably and rationally in the context of their society. I didn't see the general Jewish public, as presented in the film, as being or acting uniformly "evil" (some in the crowd were more bloodthirsty than others, but the same phenomenon exists on the streets of New York City :-). And I certainly didn't see any Jews who were depicted as "evil" "for being or remaining Jews".

Did you? Who? Which Jewish characters in The Passion did you find "evil"? Caiaphas? I'd disagree. And which did The Passion assert were "evil" "for being or remaining Jews"?

The one semi-exception seems to be Judas since his name is virtually treacherous by tradition, but even he is really more an object of pity than anything else. It's made clear that he was tricked, he really thought turning Jesus in was a way to keep him safe (I don't know how closely that hews to RC tradition BTW... it seems more consistent with e.g. how the Anthony Burgess "Man from Nazareth" novel presents it...). I guess the other "evil" characters are the kid-demons who chase after Judas but they're, like, not human. Did you think they were "Jews"? If so, why? :)

At some point IMHO antisemitism requires active participation on the part of the beholder. Maybe all I'm saying is I did not participate, and have a hard time understanding why anyone would.

-Re: whether Jews are a "race", I didn't "mean" anything by it, nor could I have since I don't really think "race" has a coherent definition. (Note I apparently also called "The Romans" a "race", equally wrongly I suppose, but that didn't seem to bother you. :-) Judaism is a religion, it's also a nationality, and/or a tribe (you belong to by virtue of your mother); yet not quite because people can convert, there's intermarriages and mixing, plus a while ago there was a split between what are called "Sepphardic" and "Ashkenazi" Jews, some point to certain tribes in Africa as being long lost Jews, some people may descend from e.g. Spanish crypto-Jews and not even know they're Jews so what are they?... whatever. It's a culture, a nationality, with, at the same time, at least some degree of genetic commonality... so I have no idea (and don't think it matters much) what to call it but if "race" offended you for some reason please just substitute whatever word you think is Correct, ok? Thanks,

--Blixa