Spike Lee Criticises Clint Eastwood And the Coen Brothers.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I'll probably regret this, but as it's about movies and I'm curious:

Where did Mel Gibson film a hideous lie at someone's expense in a historical movie?

Braveheart or Passion of the Christ? Or The Patriot or We Were Soldiers?

In regards to The Passion:

That bit about the Jews yelling like foam frothing rabid dogs preferring Barabus, a thief and murderer be spared instead of Jesus was most likely bullshit, yes, I know it was accurate according to the Bible, but from a logical standpoint, it's just nonsense.

Even if the Jew leaders indeed did make that choice, there is an EXTREMELY small chance that Pontius Pilot would have agreed. Barabus had killed Roman soldiers, in essence he was a rebel fighter against Roman rule. One thing we do know for certain about the Romans, they were not lenient on those who questioned their rule, as fact.

If Pilot had let Barabus go, he could have expected that either his very own men killed him for letting a killer of legionnaires walk or Rome itself would have sent orders to have him dispatched and replaced.

Originally posted by Robtard
(Sorry to interject Schecter)

In regards to The Passion:

That bit about the Jews yelling like foam frothing rabid dogs preferring Barabus, a thief and murderer be spared instead of Jesus was most likely bullshit, yes, I know it was accurate according to the Bible, but from a logical standpoint, it's just nonsense.

Even if the Jew leaders indeed did make that choice, there is an EXTREMELY small chance that Pontius Pilot would have agreed. Barabus had killed Roman soldiers, in essence he was a rebel fighter against Roman rule. One thing we do know for certain about the Romans, they were not lenient on those who questioned their rule, as fact.

If Pilot had let Barabus go, he could have expected that either his very own men killed him for letting a killer of legionnaires walk or Rome itself would have sent orders to have him dispatched and replaced.

But as you said, it's in the bible. And that's what's portrayed on screen.

Jesus was criticized, run out of temples, and nearly pushed off a cliff by a crowd in his hometown because of the things that he was teaching.

The Jewish leaders did in fact want his crucifixion over Barabbas, and as it's portrayed, the Roman governor Pilot was worried about a riot from all those who wanted Jesus killed if he didn't give in.

(that's why he tried to contrast Jesus with Barabbas, to dispel the crowd. But they surprised him by wanting the killer freed, and he knew then that he'd have a real problem on his hand if he let Jesus go. So he washes his hands of it, finding no guilt personally, and orders his men to carry out the wishes of the people.)

Now historically accurate or not, it's the account given in the Bible and what Gibson put on film. Moreover, other than assumptions about what Roman high command would or wouldn't do, are there any proofs that it didn't go down the way the bible says it did?

I don't see it as a slam on Jewish people. Jesus was a Jew, all his disciples and the founders of the early Christian church were Jewish. If it had happened in France, and Jesus were French and his disciples French, but the citizens in France called for his execution, would the movie be anti-Frenchitic? Or just history as it happened?

Well yes, but historically, it would be false, as in all probability wouldn't have happened that way. There are many stories that are based on real historically events, yet the author takes artistic freedom to add improbable fantasies to embelish it here and there.

It's not assumptions about the Romans, they weren't merciful to those who rebelled against them, AS FACT. How do you think they kept control for so long. There is documentation in how the Romans operated, and letting free rebels who murdered Roman soldiers isn't one of them.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well yes, but historically, it would be false, as in all probability wouldn't have happened that way. There are many stories that are based on real historically events, yet the author takes artistic freedom to add improbable fantasies to embelish it here and there.

It's not assumptions about the Romans, they weren't merciful to those who rebelled against them, [b]AS FACT. How do you think they kept control for so long. There is documentation in how the Romans operated, and letting free rebels who murdered Roman soldiers isn't one of them. [/B]

Yes, I know.

But is there any documentation that this PARTICULAR instance didn't happen? (in order to avoid a riot they let go one guy who they can just kill or catch again after?)

I mean, isn't even in Roman history that Jesus was crucified by Pilot's men?

Whether they reflect the Barrabas part of the story or not, the bible says it and Gibson showed it.

It hardly makes him a teller of "a hideous lie at someone else's expense" as Schecter put it. He's making a movie about Jesus crucifixion, for goodness sake. Of course he'll portray the bible's account of it.

Bringing around stories of faith are different than discussing stories of history (in this way, I mean factual and not having a bias that ties into religion) and understanding the way it describes a group of people.

I don't know the particulars but the movie 300 is a better example of what you are trying to get at, I think.

I wish I knew what thread those "300" comments were in.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yes, I know.

But is there any documentation that this PARTICULAR instance didn't happen? (in order to avoid a riot they let go one guy who they can just kill or catch again after?)

I mean, isn't even in Roman history that Jesus was crucified by Pilot's men?

Whether they reflect the Barrabas part of the story or not, the bible says it and Gibson showed it.

It hardly makes him a teller of "a hideous lie at someone else's expense" as Schecter put it. He's making a movie about Jesus crucifixion, for goodness sake. Of course he'll portray the bible's account of it.

You are correct. He was not telling a lie. It is the bible that is telling the lie. 😎

the passion is not a direct telling from the bible

Braveheart is massively historically incorrect.

Actually I found a good story from the BBC which states the historical side of things, including

a.) That there was such a thing as a Passover Amnesty once a year.

b.) Pilot had 6,000 troops in a city that had 2.5 million jews (he did have 30,000 more on standby in Syria)

c.) He was called to Rome to answer for the events of the crucifixion, but the Roman emporer Tiberius died before he got there. Pilot ends up committing suicide not long after the crucifixion.

Here's the link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/whokilledjesus_2.shtml

So it appears that The Passion (and the Bible) version of events is possible (and probable, as the article mentions how he tried to use the Barabbas trick to avoid a riot) and that there is no direct evidence against it.

Gibson's film is off the hook for what Schecter (and Rob?) said it was doing and any claims otherwise are just angry viewers trying to create anti-semitism where none exists.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Braveheart is massively historically incorrect.

not only that but the history behind william wallace is so vague its been rendered downright folklore. but hey, as long as mel gets to bash protestants and f@gs, its alright

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yes, I know.

But is there any documentation that this PARTICULAR instance didn't happen? (in order to avoid a riot they let go one guy who they can just kill or catch again after?)

I mean, isn't even in Roman history that Jesus was crucified by Pilot's men?

Whether they reflect the Barrabas part of the story or not, the bible says it and Gibson showed it.

It hardly makes him a teller of "a hideous lie at someone else's expense" as Schecter put it. He's making a movie about Jesus crucifixion, for goodness sake. Of course he'll portray the bible's account of it.

I highly doubt the Romans would keep documentation of murders they didn't let go, considering how many people they executed as a means to keep order.

As far as your riot, the Roman garrison would have been more than capable of keeping a riot in check, as not every Jew would have rioted. If the Jews had rioted and taken over, they could have expected with 100% certainty that the Romans would have returned with a legion and kicked Jewish ass from Jerusalem to Damascus. So they deciding to up-rise now over just little old Jesus and not the years of oppression is just a stupid illogical thought.

Again, the Roman's didn't necessarily keep records of everyone they killed, as that would have been a massive list.

Well yes, I'm not agreeing that Gibson was wrong in doing it, but to try and pass off illogical accounts as historical fact is insulting to intelligence. What's next, do a movie that shows dinosaurs and man living together as claim it's historically accurate?

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Braveheart is massively historically incorrect.

And? Who goes to the movies to study history? Last I heard you go to the movies to be entertain. You want historically correctness...go to a library.

On topic, this isn't the first time Spike has been critical of other directors. He also have a feud with Quentin Tarantino for his use of the N word.

Just keep making movies Spike.

He also tried to sue Spike TV for using the word 'Spike'.

The guy is a joke.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
And? Who goes to the movies to study history? Last I heard you go to the movies to be entertain. You want historically correctness...go to a library.

On topic, this isn't the first time Spike has been critical of other directors. He also have a feud with Quentin Tarantino for his use of the N word.

Just keep making movies Spike.

I wasn't fighting for a case that it should be so. I was joining in a debate that has been going for a few pages, concerning the historical validity of Gibson's films. Why not read back a bit? Down right presumptuous.

Originally posted by Robtard
I highly doubt the Romans would keep documentation of murders they didn't let go, considering how many people they executed as a means to keep order.

As far as your riot, the Roman garrison would have been more than capable of keeping a riot in check, as not every Jew would have rioted. If the Jews had rioted and taken over, they could have expected with 100% certainty that the Romans would have returned with a legion and kicked Jewish ass from Jerusalem to Damascus. So they deciding to up-rise now over just little old Jesus and not the years of oppression is just a stupid illogical thought.

Again, the Roman's didn't necessarily keep records of everyone they killed, as that would have been a massive list.

Well yes, I'm not agreeing that Gibson was wrong in doing it, but to try and pass off illogical accounts as historical fact is insulting to intelligence. What's next, do a movie that shows dinosaurs and man living together as claim it's historically accurate?

The Romans couldn't even stop large riots taking place in Rome and their possibility in foreign cities was huge, and definitely something Governors had a responsibility to avoid. Not to mention Governors were the type to die in such things.

Sorry, but the story is actually entirely plausible, though there is little direct evidence for it.

its not in the story but in the presentation. big nosed filthy ugly hissing jews, classic disney villains all of them. while jesus had a substantial following of jews (well technically not hebrews at that point, but still) in the passion he is depicted as alone and betrayed among nothing but monsters. except for pilot and the romans who were completely sympathetic and whom you would probably allow to babysit your kids.

:edit: its been over 20 years since i had to recite this so ill just copy and paste the apostles creed:

"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilot, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day He rose again. He ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right Hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the Living and the Dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the Body, and life everlasting. Amen."

:edit 2: ush, its also quite plausible that the romans whitewashed their own history with catholicism upon adopting their faith, as the passion depicts them in an innocent and sympathetic light. they had no choice. only trouble is that jesus declared himself king of Jerusalem and was crucified for treason. so i dont think it overly presumptuous to say that the romans wanted him dead as well.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The Romans couldn't even stop large riots taking place in Rome and their possibility in foreign cities was huge, and definitely something Governors had a responsibility to avoid. Not to mention Governors were the type to die in such things.

Sorry, but the story is actually entirely plausible, though there is little direct evidence for it.

The legions were not allowed to cross the Rubicon, let along go into Rome, per Roman law. The only military presence in Rome itself was the Emperor's Praetorian guards.

Are you really questioning the ability of the Roman military force's ability to keep control, especially during that era, when they were one serious mother****ing military force? Do you think they conquered and keep all that land because they couldn't keep control? Use your head.

By what we do factually know of Roman operation, the story is most likely just a story made to praise Jesus while condemning Jews.

To an added point that Shecter furthered, the Jews were shown as vicious blood-thristy animals, while poor old unwilling Pilot was forced (by people under his rule no less) to punish Jesus. Considering Gidson's known hate of Jews, this isn't surprising.

well, to be fair to gibson, the passion has always been a play designed to evoke antisematism and sympathy for the very people who ordered his death. its not like he rewrote anything. just 'sexed it up' so to speak and with great pleasure im sure.

Originally posted by Schecter
its not in the story but in the presentation. big nosed filthy ugly hissing jews, classic disney villains all of them. while jesus had a substantial following of jews (well technically not hebrews at that point, but still) in the passion he is depicted as alone and betrayed among nothing but monsters. except for pilot and the romans who were completely sympathetic and whom you would probably allow to babysit your kids.

:edit: its been over 20 years since i had to recite this so ill just copy and paste the apostles creed:

"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. [b]He suffered under Pontius Pilot, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day He rose again. He ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right Hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the Living and the Dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the Body, and life everlasting. Amen."

:edit 2: ush, its also quite plausible that the romans whitewashed their own history with catholicism upon adopting their faith, as the passion depicts them in an innocent and sympathetic light. they had no choice. only trouble is that jesus declared himself king of Jerusalem and was crucified for treason. so i dont think it overly presumptuous to say that the romans wanted him dead as well. [/B]

Good points

The Legions may not but the Praetorians and the Cohorts (plus whatever extea bodyguards were around at the time, as often happened) were huge- more than enough to act as an army.

Yes, I am really questioning their ability. Because the Romans always, ALWAYS knew they could not rule by force alone, they constantly ruled in co-operation with the local authorities and the possiblity of Jewish revolt taking away the entire east was very VERY real indeed. They never had enough troops to hold against a full revolt- in any of their provinces. Jewish authorites were given great power and relative deference. If Pilate promised an amnesty, he would have meant it, whatever the choice.

I AM using my head, that's the point. Your idea that it could not have happened as Romans would have massacred the population is you not using yours- that's a complete fantasy. If that was all Rome had to offer, they would never have held the Empire.

Gibson's Jewish hate aside, you put forward the idea that the Barabbas thing cannot possibly true. Well, sorry- it's entirely plausible, and I rather feel your commentary on it above was plucked out of thin air with no reference to the political reality at the time. Therefore Gibson should not be so criticised for filming a possiblity that is not absurd.