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

[Jim H]

Why does it matter if the Jews killed Jesus?  According to the bible, he knew he was going to die, and he could of prevented it, but it was his function to die for the sins of humanity.  The fact that people would get mad about it shows their total ignorance of their own religion.

[Chris K.]

Jim H wrote:

> BTW, Mel Gibson didn't write Braveheart - so I fail to see how
> him doing history studies would be relevant.

Actually, as a director if you are very motivated by what you are making and take interest to it, then the director should be more involved with the film. Mel didn't write BRAVEHEART, but then he and writer Randall Walace should have at least looked things over. Just saying.

As for TORA! TORA! TORA!, well to each is own. I guess.

[Chris K.]

Grumpy Guy wrote:

> You want to change the name of this thread?  This is just a
> suggestion, but I think a more appropriate title for the
> thread, based on your (Chris K.'s) comments might be as
> follows:
>
> I hate Mel Gibson, and think all his work is worthless.
>
> I'm not going to say the guy's an acting genius, here, but it
> seems to me that you're giving the guy a hard time as much
> because you don't like him as becasue of any offense you might
> have taken at what he said.

Okay now, Grumpy. Let's set the record straight here: I DO NOT HATE Mel Gibson. I just don't like him. Their is a difference between "hate" and "dislike" (believe me , their is). As I see it, Mel comes across as a man without common sense and thus shoots off his mouth off without thinking and, in turn, acts as if he is the victim. Case in point, Mel's threatening comments towards Frank Rich. Now, offhand those comments might be, they were still nasty and threatening. And coming from the mouth of a well-known religious actor, I was quite shocked by it. And yet, does Mel apologize to Rich? No, he doesn't. Just shows that a big, overpaid actor can get away with anything he wants, no matter what he says. So much for Mel and his religious beliefs. Sorry Grumpy, but this is how I see it.

And yes, I was offended by Mel's "If you are not part of the Catholic Church, then you are not saved" comment. Look, we are all human here. I'm not offended by many things. But when Mel goes about on a televised interview or a newspaper interview making such a claim, it does burn me up. It's his belief, that's fine. But it's a comment that should be made in a more private manner. It's as if he is saying that I'm a sinner while coming across as if he is "holier than thou". Well, he isn't and he shouldn't be shooting off his mouth like that. It's because of his comments that I don't like him. Sorry that I am offended by Mel's comments, but that hardly makes it clear that I "hate" him. It's because of his comments that I don't like him.

And I'm sorry, but I think Mel is a terrible actor and terrible director. Sorry, but that is just what I think about him and his films. He is not talented and not worth my time to watch on film. Now, maybe with his THE PASSION OF CHRIST film I might take back my thoughts about Mel being a talentless director. But I have to see it before I take it back.And I am not going to give judgement on his film, that is until I see it.

 
> My opinion of Mel as a person -
> I've never met the man.  I think he tends to let his tongue get
> away from him, and his religious ferver makes me a tad
> uncomfotable.  But he seems like a pretty resonable guy.  But
> what the hell do I know - I've never met him.
>
> And, I am willing to bet, neither have you.

Yeah, you're right Grumpy Guy. I never even met Mel in my life, and neither have you. However, I cannot give an opinion on what I think about the guy? I'm just judging Mel on how I see him. And you are doing the same. And if you don't like what I say about Mel, well you are entitled to what you have to say about him too. That is fine by me, I'm open to other differing opinions. But please, don't quickly say that I hate Mel. Just for the record, I have said earlier that if Mel recieved some harsh backlash if his film fails, or succeeds for that matter, then I would feel sorry for him. So, I still have some compassion for those I don't like and Mel Gibson is one of them. I would really like to see the man succeed, but it's really his arrogant attitude and his loose tounge that is getting him in a lot of trouble. And don't forget Grumpy, you yourself said, and I quote: "I think he tends to let his tongue get away from him, and his religious ferver makes me a tad
uncomfotable". So we are on the same page with that one.

Look, I don't want to bring any harsh judgement on you here, Grumpy. I liked what you said in your earlier post, before you decided to accuse me of being, dare I say it, a "Mel Gibson hater." I don't like the guy: he really gives me some, to use the phrase, bad vibes. I guess you have to be in my shoes to understand what I mean.

But look, I would at least like to keep this conversation here in a non-argument/non-hateful format here. So let's just keep the converstation in first gear, okay Grumpy.

So what do you say, truce?

[Chris K.]

The Burgomaster wrote:

> I totally agree.  And I believe that artistic works should
> concentrate more on being entertaining than being historically
> accurate.  If you want a history lesson, read history books.
> Don't go to a movie in search of a two hour education.

True Burgo, but you wouldn't believe how many times I have been to theatres to see a film taking place in a part of history like THE PATRIOT and see audience members walk out saying "That was a damn fine accurate film of so and so." Talk about your two hour education, and yet I don't expect them to pass a history test either! I too believe in artistic works and I concentrate on a film being entertaining. But looking at THE PATRIOT, BRAVEHEART, or PEARL HARBOR, in my opinion, it's just all wrong, historically and entertainment-wise. But then, I guess I'm the only one here who thinks that. Oh well. If somebody thinks differently, I have no problem with it. And if you can distinguish between fact and film fiction then I am not alone.

I don't expect Hollywood to educate us, but at least do some of the homework on it. It might not all be right, but show some effort. And their are some good films out there that at least try to remain faithful towards history. I remember GETTYSBURG being one, if I may say so for what my faint memory serves. And GETTYSBURG was entertaining, too.

[Eirik]

Regarding historical inaccuracies in his films:  Mel saw it coming with Braveheart and covered his rear in the opening scene of the movie with some throw-away narrator line to the effect of "Some will say this story didn't happen...  That's 'cause they wrote history the way they wanted to...  But here's the real scoop."  I have worked professionally as an archivist and an historian, and I despise films that change history to glamorize and to enflame.  Gibson seems to have something against the English and he has lied to push that agenda in both Braveheart and the Patriot.  The battle scene at the end of "Glory" (1989 US Civil War film) was changed to make it more entertaining (i.e. more easily depicted on film).  Gibson's historical tinkering is generally done to push an agenda or glorify his protagonist (wow, a spear wall at Sterling Bridge! (um, where's the bridge???)  That Braveheart sure is a tactical genius!!!).

Regarding Mel's religious quote:"If anybody who is not part of the Church, then they are not saved."   Mel hasn't been paying very much attention, has he?  I am a Catholic and while I don't agree with every dictate of the Church, I sure as heck keep tabs on what they are.  One dictate that I was particularly happy to hear was when our current pope stated that other religions and sects had something to offer toward a greater understanding of God and non-Catholics could certainly be saved.  If Mel wants to call himself a Catholic, he should pay better attention to the tenets of the faith.  The statement shows a mean spirit, as Chris K points out, and it also shows ignorance about the religion he claims is so important to him.

Regarding Mel's comments on the critic:  His intestines on a stick?  Maybe Mel Gibson really is that crazy, but that just sounds like something he said jokingly that may have been taken out of context.  I hope I'm right about that.

Though I am religious, I do not like religious films.  And judging from the lack of success of religious films (and films that make light of religion such as that unwatchable Schwartzeneggar vs Satan movie), I think I stand in the majority there.  I have a feeling his little vanity-project will come and go fast enough to make your head spin.  Gibson is a lot like Kevin Kostner in terms of his swelling ego and acting talent...  but he seems more savvy in his choice of films until now.  Maybe this is the beginning of the end, but it's more likely a bump in the road.

[Eirik]

I think I can shed some light here:  First off, the Jewish authorities in Israel put Jesus to death, so they'll obviously be the "bad guys" of the movie.  Of course Jesus and his disciples were ALSO Jewish so that's kind of a dumb reason to attack the movie.

What I think actually has Jewish folks so torqued up is that apparently Gibson's father has been making public anti-semitic statements and Mel has defended him (him, not the statements - as far as I've heard).  It's a case of Gibson's crazy old man shooting his mouth off, some rabbis somewhere being oversensitive, and Gibson making a film in which Jews will be bad guys all coinciding into one nonsensical "controversy."

[Eirik]

"The natural result of that is that if you do not recieve the sacraments of the church, you cannot be saved. "

That's IF you are a Catholic.  Catholics believe that once you are baptized Catholic, you must receive the sacraments to be saved.  We dropped the must-be-a-catholic-to-be-saved a while ago.

[wickednick]

First of all before I start I want to say I am not racist in anyway.I feel I need to say this because what I may have to say I do not want to be taken out of context.
I have been going through various news articles about this movie. It seems that those who have a problem have only read the script and have not seen any part of the movie it self.Now as many of us on this forum surely knows the script and the movie can often be diffrent.The movie can change alot from the script, as during the filming process things are changed for various reasons.Also the script does not give true justice to the actual scenes in the movie.Most scripts give briefs discriptions, but do not give any kind of vivid visual or emotional look to the actual scene.This is often done while story bording or on the set when the director i communicating with the actors.
Now as for the relgious aspects of this movie, the truth would be that it was the Jewish and Roman Leaders of the day that were calling for Jesus's head.Many Jewish commoners also saw Jesus as a heretic and blasphemer.Although not all.Jesus's diciples and parents were Jewish and most of his followers were also.
To have the Jewish leaders and many Jewish commoners condemming Jesus is not anti-semetic but historically acurate.It was though the Romans who actually carried out Jesus's death and from what I have seen of the trailer this will be acurate.
I do not believe that this movie will cause any animosity between Cristians and Jews, most of which have thicker skin than those so called religous leaders who stir up a contreversy any time a movie comes along which tries to shed some light on peoples faith.
As for Mel's and his fans comments I would have to say they should grow some thicker skin as well, and take this critisism in stride.Lets wait to see what the final cut is like and not relie on some script which some how found its way into the hands of zealots.
And one more thing you can see the trailer for this movie at Movies.com.All you have to do, is do a search for The Passion and you will be directed to a mage with details about the movie.On one of the links on that page you can view the trailer.It looks interesting but very dark.

[Eirik]

"Now as for the relgious aspects of this movie, the truth would be that it was the Jewish and Roman Leaders of the day that were calling for Jesus's head."

Actually, wyckednick, the Romans were not calling for Jesus's head.  When Pontius Pilate offered the Jews a chance to release either Jesus or the murderer Barabus, he thought surely they'd pick Jesus to be spared.  Christ was not an anti-Roman revolutionary, or zealot, and he advised people to pay their taxes to Rome (render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's).  The Romans - a (relatively) religiously tolerant polytheistic society at that time - did not have much of a problem with him, according to the Bible.  The Jewish heirarchy did have a problem with him because he called into question their way of doing things.  The anti-Roman zealots (Judas was one) turned on Jesus when they realized he wasn't going to lead an armed rebellion against Rome.

"I do not believe that this movie will cause any animosity between Cristians and Jews, most of which have thicker skin than those so called religous leaders who stir up a contreversy any time a movie comes along which tries to shed some light on peoples faith."

I think you're absolutely right about that.  But as always, the squeaky wheel gets the sound byte.

[wickednick]

Hmmm thanks for straightining some of that out Eirik.Im 22 and its been awhile sense Bible class.So forgive any errors in what I have said.

[FearlessFreep]

Erik nails it pretty well.

Another aspect is that Jesus said and did things that earned him the death penalty under Jewish law, but because of Roman occupation, they could not execute people, which is why the Jewish religious leaders tried to trump up charges against him to get the Roman authorities involved.

However, from a Christian theological point of view, it really doesn't matter.  Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of God to pay for all sins so in a very reall sense,  Jesus was killed by everyone, and it was required.  Froma Christian perspective, the Jews are not guilty of killing Jesus, just of not recognizing their own Messiah.

That being said, the "Jews Killed Jesus" accusation has long been used as an excuse for violence against Jews, so I can understand them being a little touchy when the subject comes up

[Eirik]

I don't think one should dismiss the effects of warping history in entertainment so lightly.  I don't live in Scotland, but I know people who do and they really believe that Braveheart the movie helped whip up support for Scottish home rule (the timing was perfect).  I'm not passing any judgement on whether that end is good or bad, but it is a real political movement and "entertainment" at least seems to have had a real impact on it.  To say the entertainment factor is paramount is to ignore the importance of history.

Now of course there is a statute of limitations to it all and I think King Lear fits into that category.  No, there were no Germans b***hing about the first 20 minutes of Gladiator...  (but plenty b***hed about Saving Private Ryan, and now you have a pretty strong movement toward Germany-as-the-victim revisionism in that country.  Not saying it was all ignited by one movie, but I'd hate to see where that leads).

[thommy]

For this matter My comments is

The movie is runnning every were even in GCC countires very well ,Where ever this film runs it is breaking the record of the country.

According to me theis movie is supported by  GOD

Because u read the Mathew Chapter 24:14 This is for the gospel to spread every where. THEN COMES THE REAL KING OF THE WORLD IN THE CLOUDS

[Chris K.]

thommy wrote:
 
> The movie is runnning every were even in GCC countires very
> well ,Where ever this film runs it is breaking the record of
> the country.
>
> According to me this movie is supported by  GOD
>
> Because you read the Mathew Chapter 24:14 This is for the gospel
> to spread every where. THEN COMES THE REAL KING OF THE WORLD IN
> THE CLOUDS

Well, as much as I am a Christian, I sorry but I HAVE to doubt your "this movie is supported by God" claim (i.e., How about James Clavezel being struck by lightning twice during the film's prinincipal shooting? That could have been a message from God saying, "Mel, don't do this." You never know?).

Not to knock you or anything thommy, but to say that Mel's film is "The Real King of the World in the Clouds" is about as off-beat as saying Armageddon is heading straight our way. To an individual like myself, it's just a MOVIE, plain and simple. Now, if somebody get's something out of it, I have no problem with that at all. But the movie is making money because of both controversey and hype, not to mention it's back on Number 1 for Box Office due to being the Easter Holiday (wink, wink). That and, considering the film is pulling in record numbers, many theatres that have not screened it are demanding for a print of the film. So act of God this is not, just popularity and dollars to be made. Sorry.

Also, I must say I am quite suprised that this older post has been brought back. It started on 10-30-03! However, I do believe this is the last message that will be placed on this particular discussion at this time. And now, to sum this up to a close: Happy Easter to everybody ad God Bless.

[Megan]

As far as historacal accuracy goes with The Patriot, the movie was fictional to begin with.  If you really want to know what happened, read a book.  The Patriot was only produced to give the viewer a sense of what war in the 1700s could have felt like for colonial americans.  As far as The Passion of the Christ goes (get the title right), it was an excellent dipiction of the sufferings Jesus endured in the process of the crucifiction.  What more do you expect from movies these days?