Mel's Triumph or Folly: A news article on Gibson's religous hokum

[Chris K.]

Well what do you know, it only takes an idiot like Mel Gibson to stir some controversy and as luck would have it it's his film THE PASSION, or should I say THE PASSION OF CHRIST as it is now called. Apparently, producer Dean Devlin liked the picture, but then this is coming from the producer of such crap like GODZILLA (1998) and THE PATRIOT (2000). Apparently, the Jewish community seems threatened by the film and call it Anti-Semetic. While I really can't say if it is or not, I do know that some reports are saying that Mel, the hard-core Catholic that he is, is not following some of the Bible's written history. Gee, coming from an star who has been in two histrocally inaccurate films BRAVEHEART and THE PATRIOT, I wouldn't be suprised. Here it is:

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20031030110809990001


Also, would you like to read a quote of Mel Gibson making a theatening comment towards New York Times columnist Frank Rich. Mel, have you ever heard of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? Here it is:

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20031030131309990015

Okay, while I am sounding like I am releasing a few fumes here, let's at least focus on the main point. Do you all think Mel is going a bit too far? Is he in it deep? And even so, what do you think about his comments towards Frank Rich?

[Chris K.]

When I say "Gibsons religious hokum" on the heading, I meant his film and NOT the Catholic religion. Just to clarify on that before the comments start rolling in.

[The Burgomaster]

With all the controversy about this film (and it hasn't even been released yet) I hope that it does not become the new LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. By that, I mean I hope that it doesn't suffer an outrageous amount of criticism, negative publicity, protests, etc., from a bunch of idiots who don't even bother to SEE the damned movie before they start complaining about it.

It's like saying that you don't like spinach, when you've never even TASTED spinach.

[StatCat]

What's the big deal? It's a movie for crying out loud. People take things way too seriously. It hasn't even been released yet so whose to say if it's so "anti-semetic" which I can't see it really being in the first place to begin with.

[Chris K.]

I agree with you, Burgo. If their are those who are going to criticize it, at least see it. But then, those who have seen the workprint and test footage either say good or bad things about it. But who really knows? Right now, I would like to focus on the real discussion: Mel Gibson. Keep in mind that this is about Gibson and not a critical review of his film.

Mel Gibson is apparently liked by all. Called a great actor and a great director, I really have to doubt those claims. But underneath his stardom and fame, Mel has a problem with being naive and not knowing when to keep his damn mouth shut. Lacking common sense is something that one will have trouble with when working in the Hollywood system, and Mel is the perfect case.

Case in point, the movie BRAVEHEART. When compleated and released, Mel revealed to the press that he did change most of the films history, including the Battle of Sterling Bridge. And when the historians jumped in, now Mel, whenever he is interviewed or asked about the film, always uses the "I was just trying to make an entertaining film" excuse. And because of this, Mel pulled one hell of a bonner and definately shows how naive he can be. He revealed to the press about what he had done and should have known FULL WELL what would have happened. It would have been better if Mel would have used that grape-brain of his and not say a word about the film's historical inaccuracy, he then wouldn't have gotten much backlash from the historians. But Mel sure likes to make it look as if he is the victim when those historians get on his back, even though it was Mel himself that REVEALED IT ALL in the first place!

And let's not forget Mel's religious agendas. He had the nerve to say that "If anybody who is not part of the Church, then they are not saved." He said this remark in an interview while THE PASSION OF CHRIST was being finished! Not only is that a self-destructive attempt to ruin his film, but that just shows what kind of an uptight pompus ass that he is. If he is going to be making comments like that, then he should give up all of his Hollywood wealth and become a priest. Otherwise, what he just said is one of the most low-down horrid comments I have ever heard. Why does it upset me? Even though I am a Christian, I am not part of ANY religion whatsoever. And this overpaid actor has the gaul to say that if I, or anybody else for that matter, am not part of the Church then I am damned! Again, just shows what happens when a jerk like Mel is able to make such a comment, and yet he is not critisized for it. Mel is neither charming or inteligent when he says something like that, nor is he challenged. But if somebody like Susan Sarandon made the comment, all of a sudden it's "Boycott her next film" and all that crap. The society we live in.

And now, it's Frank Rich. Rich, a New York Times collumist, had some negative things to say about Mel and his film. Now let's keep in mind, a critic is a critic. And whatever a critic has to say, you can't take it too personally and if so, take it with a grain of salt. But not Mel. And because of Rich's constructive criticisim, Mel apparently felt that it would befitting to say: "I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick… I want to kill his dog." Gee Mel, whatever happened to 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'? Mel should know this, he's a hard-core Catholic for God's sake! Once again, Mel has pulled another bonner, but this time he might get away with it. The various Internet websites make Rich look like the bad guy. Of course, these Internet news sites are only giving us half of the story. And in retrospect, it would be Mel who is the bad guy (for now, at least). You might ask why? Well, read the comment again. Mel said "I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick...I want to kill his dog." This coming from a religious man!Wow, that's some threat Mel has made. And yes, it is a threat, no questions asked. What a hypocrite! Unfortunatelty, Mel is a Hollywood star and will obviously get away with it while Rich will suffer the backlash for only giving an opinion, right or wrong. Kind of sad isn't it.

Of course, Mel has his supporters. Dean Devlin says it's a great film. Keep in mind that Devlin was responsible for producing GODZILLA in 1998, a film that is not exactly liked by many, and the ultra-crappy THE PATRIOT. Yeah, I really should take Devlin's word for it. If only he didn't produce such crappy films. Devlin's opinion, of course. Just don't expect me to buy it.

Yeah, Mel might not be the sharpest tool in the shack or the brightest bulb in the lamp either, but his usage of being nothing but nonsense and lacking common sense shows why I really don't like the guy. And he is in the business! His overly pushy religious views (which he seems to have no problem making it all in public), his ultra-big egomaniac self and his dimwitted attitude shows why I have more respect George Romero, Lucio Fulci, Dario Argento, Mario Bava, and the late Gregory Peck. These guys have class, talent, and intelligence; Mel lacks these and he needs to start grasping them quickly. His comment towards Frank Rich shows what he really is in my eyes and what he lacks, but everybody will overlook that no matter how threatening or cruel Mel made it. He's a big-shot actor and everybody loves to kiss his ass. Well, this is one audience member who isn't going to pucker-up the lips and place them on his left or right cheek of his posterior! I can see and read between the lines of what Mel Gibson is, and from what is taking place it is not a prety sight.

As for THE PASSION OF CHRIST, I might go see it. But coming from Mel Gibson, I might just laugh my ass off watching it! Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be negative here. The film might be good, or it might be bad. Just envisioning Mel making a good film, let alone a Jesus picture, is like wondering if a cow can be trained to run a 35mm camera: not believable or feasable in the long run. And even so, if THE PASSION OF CHRIST becomes a monumental failure for Mel, he will be heartbroken. But still, Mel should have known what he has gotten into and therefore must answer to it. If he looses money, it probably won't hurt him. But still, if the picture fails with devistating reviews, then it will be Mel's nuts roasting on an open fire and the smell of the burn won't be very pleasent to the nose. And I'll probably end up feeling sorry for Mel, unfortunately for me.

[Chris K.]

StatCat wrote:

> What's the big deal? It's a movie for crying out loud. People
> take things way too seriously. It hasn't even been released yet
> so whose to say if it's so "anti-semetic" which I can't see it
> really being in the first place to begin with.

I agree with you as well, what is the big deal? Who really knows if the film is Anti-Semetic, and it's hard to believe it is. But then, you have these various Jewish rabbi's claim it is. So now, it's become an issue to either believe Gibson or the Jewish rabbi's. And personally, I'm not really going to take sides. I need to see the film first before making judgement.

[JohnL]

Does anyone have a copy of those articles they can post? When I go to the links, it wants me to sign in with an AOL screen name.

[FearlessFreep]

He had the nerve to say that "If anybody who is not part of the Church, then they are not saved."

What's wrong with that?  

I happen to not agree with him, but that's standard Roman Cathloic doctrine.  That's the basic split between Protestants and Catholics; the issue of Sola Fide Catholocs, or at least the teaching of the Catholic church, is that salvation is sacramental; that is it accomplished through the sacraments executed by the church.  The natural result of that is that if you do not recieve the sacraments of the church, you cannot be saved.  

Personally, I disagree on theological grounds.  However I don't have any problem with Mel Gibson saying it because, well, he is Roman Catholic and such a belief is consistant with RC doctrine.  It's not individual pompusness or arrogance on his part to say it, he's just echoing basic teaching of his church and I can at least respect him for being willing to say it , knowing it would not be a popular thing to say.

But my understanding of tolerance has been that it's a willingness to accept a person, even if you disagree with their ideas

[Flangepart]

I agree, Freep.
I do have my beliefs. They are long held and i have my reasons for them, but that would take a long time to explain, so i'll just leave it.
Do i think my doctrins are right? Of course, or i'd not bother. Do i think some people are doing wrong things? Sure.
Do i think they answer to me for that? No.
Each individual has to answer for their own life. They don't answer to me, or i to them. We are free individuals, and we do ourselves the most harm, and the most good, in the long run. We have choices to make, and others can only state their beliefs. After that, we are on our own.
I believe all answer to God for their own lives. And thats how it must be. As individual creatures, thats how it works.

How Gibson responded. in detail, to Frank Rich, i don't know, as i've not seen the "Debate" at issue. Perhaps it was a matter of attitude, that caused the riff. I don't know.
As for the film, well....we'll see.

Chill, bros. Its only a movie....

[Chris K.]

FearlessFreep wrote:

> I happen to not agree with him, but that's standard Roman
> Cathloic doctrine.  That's the basic split between Protestants
> and Catholics; the issue of Sola Fide Catholics, or at
> least the teaching of the Catholic church, is that salvation is
> sacramental; that is it accomplished through the sacraments
> executed by the church.  The natural result of that is that if
> you do not recieve the sacraments of the church, you cannot be
> saved.  
>
> Personally, I disagree on theological grounds.  However I don't
> have any problem with Mel Gibson saying it because, well, he is
> Roman Catholic and such a belief is consistant with RC
> doctrine.  It's not individual pompusness or arrogance on his
> part to say it, he's just echoing basic teaching of his church
> and I can at least respect him for being willing to say it ,
> knowing it would not be a popular thing to say.

> But my understanding of tolerance has been that it's a
> willingness to accept a person, even if you disagree with their
> ideas

Understandably so, Fearless. However, their is a fine line between that as well. Mel can say whatever he wants for all I care. It's just that when he makes a comment like that via written or televised interview, either one, it comes across as an arrogant comment. Let's imagine if somebody made a crude tasteless joke about 9/11 on television or in a written interview: would you put up with that? Of course you can always change the channel or not read what has been printed, but still their is a fine line between it all.

Yeah, Mel was raised in the Roman Catholic doctrine and what he believes is what he believes, I have no problem with it. But to go out there and make a comment in like that in the wide public, and especially if their are those out there that are not Roman Catholic, is just the wrong move. It's somewhat of a snide comment on his behalf. And what if some of his viewers are not Roman Catholic, then imagine that! He can be respected as an actor, but most of the majority out there looks upon a man like Mel for his personality and his lifestyle.

And in a way, it does offend me. It offends me that Mel can say such a thing and not be challenged for it, and it offends me because Mel acts like he is right, regardless if it's an opinion or not and is the wrong time to say so (don't forget, he's got the movie on his back as well). The comments makes it sound as if only Roman Catholics are allowed to see the film, nobody else. Again, wrong time or place to say such a comment. Plus, is this man challenged for saying such a thing? Certainly not. Apparently Bill O'Riley didn't after he had Mel on his show, but then again Mel's company Icon Productions is said to have bought the rights of O'Riley's book to make into a film so that seems to be some ironc element to think about. But then, let's go back to when the War in Iraq startedand people like Tim Robbins said they do not support the war. And lo and behold, people TOOK THAT PERSONALLY and thus resulted in the boycotts and such. And why was he being attacked? Simple: he was just saying what he thought was right, just like Mel and his comments. Even though I do not agree with the likes of Tim Robbins and he can say whatever he wants, the whole thing was just a silly affair. And Mel is entitled to what he has to say, but like with Robbins he said the things he said at the wrong time. And the same goes to Mel Gibson.

I really don't want to take it personally, but if Mel wants to go out there and make THOSE KIND of comments and claims, regardless if he was raised to believe so or not, then Mel should drop all of his stardom and become an old school Catholic priest. Otherwise, don't say such a thing when your million dollar movie is at risk!

[peter johnson]

Mel is known for his dramatic, rowdy, Austrailia outbursts. So is Russell Crowe. They are entertainers & entertainers HATE critics. It's nothing new at all, the war between those who can act & those can only criticize.

[trekgeezer]

You guys do know that Mel and his father belong to a traditionalist sect within the Catholic Church which believes everything should still be the way it was before Vatican II. Mass should be in Latin, fish on Friday and so on.  I have my own issues with the Catholic Church which I don't care to express here, but hold no animosity toward Catholic Church members.  I was never a Catholic, but my wife and her whole family were and we were married in a Catholic Church.

If you read your Gospels you have to agree that the Hebrews were responsible for Christ's crucifixion. They didn't, however, carry out the act because they weren't allowed to pronounce death sentences. Only the Roman Government could do that.  It was presented this way in Franco Zeffirelli's mini-series which is shown just about every year at Easter and I don't hear a big stink being raised about it.

I think Mel has portrayed it rather graphically and has been his own worst enemy by going around shooting his mouth off. I believe in freedom of religion, but please don't be hitting me on the head with yours and I will treat you the same way. Nobody knows who is saved but God the Almighty. I can't see in to your heart so it is not might right or privilege to be telling you if you are or aren't going up above or down below.

As far as Mel's movie, judgment should be reserved until the actual act of viewing it has occurred.

[Chris K.]

peter johnson wrote:

> Mel is known for his dramatic, rowdy, Austrailia outbursts. So
> is Russell Crowe. They are entertainers & entertainers HATE
> critics. It's nothing new at all, the war between those who can
> act & those can only criticize.

Exactly, Peter! Both Mel and Russell are entertainers and entertainers really detest critics. Problem is, they need to understand that a critic is a critic, and the same can be applied to the audience as well. When it comes to critical reviews, sometimes they need to be taken with a grain of salt. If you read Roger Ebert's poorly written review for Lucio Fulci's THE BEYOND, you would see what I mean.

But then, Mel's "I want to kill him" comments towards Frank Rich do show how he hates critics. Now, will Mel be able to answer his attitudes towards his actions, or will he just turn the other way and go back to saying he is a peaceful guy and such. If so, I will declare "hypocrite".

As for Mel's "acting", I believe Russell tops Mel any day of the week. But that's just my opinion.

[Dunners]

Well Chris I think Mel just wants to get his film out there for people to see and enjoy.

But the problem is that his film is coming out  in a time when religion is a very touchy issue. if this had come out about 3 years ago it wouldn't be getting all the flames its been getting now.

Religion is politics, and politics is a double edged sword as always but now that religion is really becoming an issue this is a more controversial film than it should be.

I think the only way for people to judge the film is to see it by themselves and not rely on the words of crappy crabby critics or religious communites that are really oversensative now(not just the jews).

[Foywonder]

I think this whole thing is getting blown way out of proportion myself.

However, the Dean Devlin Seal of Approval isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Hell, if he'd made it we'd have gotten the "sleeker, faster, holier Jesus that can run at 200 mph."