Interesting New York Times article. You can read it here.

That's okay, Luigi, to me it's not worth registering and giving away my age, email address, and line of work. :-)

Lie. The NYT thinks I'm a 70 year old woman, living in Afghanistan, who is the CEO of her own company, and making less than $20K per year. I believe they think my email is "no.spam@here.dude"

That's nothing. Yahoo thinks I'm Jimi Hendrix.

Snick, here's the article:
(May the copyright gods forgive me.)

New Film May Harm Gibson's Career
By SHARON WAXMAN

Published: February 26, 2004

LOS ANGELES, Feb. 25 — Mel Gibson's provocative new film, "The Passion of the Christ," is making some of Hollywood's most prominent executives uncomfortable in ways that may damage Mr. Gibson's career.

Hollywood is a close-knit world, and friendships and social contact are critical in the making of deals and the casting of movies. Many of Hollywood's most prominent figures are also Jewish. So with a furor arising around the film, along with Mr. Gibson's reluctance to distance himself from his father, who calls the Holocaust mostly fiction, it is no surprise that Hollywood — Jewish and non-Jewish — has been talking about little else, at least when it's not talking about the Oscars.

Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen, the principals of DreamWorks, have privately expressed anger over the film, said an executive close to the two men.

The chairmen of two other major studios said they would avoid working with Mr. Gibson because of "The Passion of the Christ" and the star's remarks surrounding its release.

Neither of the chairmen would speak for attribution, but as one explained: "It doesn't matter what I say. It'll matter what I do. I will do something. I won't hire him. I won't support anything he's part of. Personally that's all I can do."

The chairman said he was angry not just because of what he had read about the film and its portrayal of Jews in relation to the death of Jesus, but because of Mr. Gibson's remarks defending his father, Hutton Gibson. Last week in a radio interview the elder Mr. Gibson repeated his contention that the Holocaust was "all — maybe not all fiction — but most of it is." Asked about his father's Holocaust denial in an interview with Diane Sawyer on ABC, the movie star told her to "leave it alone."

The other studio chairman, whose family fled European anti-Semitism before the Holocaust, was less emphatic but said, "I think I can live without him." But others said there would be no lasting backlash against Mel Gibson. "If the movie works, I don't think it will hurt him," said John Lesher, an agent with Endeavor. "People here will work with the anti-Christ if he'll put butts in seats." Mr. Lesher added, "He put his own money where his mouth is. He invested in himself."

As Mr. Lesher implied, Hollywood is also a place of businesspeople, and Mr. Gibson is a proven movie star, popular with audiences. There are few actors with that kind of bankability, no matter their personal views. Mr. Gibson is also a capable director. So some of the initial reactions to his film may fade over time.

Mr. Gibson not only directed and helped write the $30 million film, but he also paid for it, including production and marketing costs, out of his own pocket, which Hollywood has filled.

As an actor and successful director, from "Mad Max" (1979) through "Lethal Weapon" (1987) and its sequels to the Oscar-winning "Braveheart" (1995), Mr. Gibson has long been a Hollywood pet. But he has also been known as a prankster and a self-confessed abuser of various substances. Many in the relentlessly secular movie industry see his recent religious conversion — he practices a traditionalist version of Roman Catholicism — as another form of addiction.

Last Friday the media billionaire Haim Saban, former owner of the Fox Family Channel, sent a concerned e-mail message to friends about Mr. Gibson and his father.

The message forwarded an article by the journalist Mitch Albom calling on Mr. Gibson to repudiate his father's denial of the Holocaust. Mr. Saban sent the article to, among others, Roger Ailes, who heads Fox News; Norman Pattiz, who runs the Westwood One radio network; and Michael R. Milken, the securities felon turned philanthropist.

Amid the daily dealings of Hollywood, the film and the star have been fodder for unfavorable gossip. Dustin Hoffman has talked to friends about what he called Mr. Gibson's "strangeness" during the ABC interview. The producer Mike Medavoy said Mr. Gibson's religious zealotry made him feel uncomfortable. Mr. Hoffman is Jewish; Mr. Medavoy is the child of Holocaust survivors.

"One question is, `What propelled him to make the movie about the passion of Christ?' " Mr. Medavoy said. "It makes me a little squeamish. What makes me squeamish about religion in general is that people think they have the answer: `I think my God is the right God.' How do you argue against that?"

To give some perspective, one may also want to read the Gibson interview in the March 2004 Reader's Digest.

Showing signs of traditional religion is the new blacklistable offense? On the other hand, drug abuse, merry-go-round marriages, trips to Baghdad on behalf of evil dictators... those all enhance your star power?

Gibson need not worry though. His self-financed movie is a blockbuster: how many other hollywood stars can say the same?

Point of interest: Sean Penn went for the CIVILIANS of Iraq. Only warfloging right wing jerks throw out the pro-Saddam lie.

On topic: Even though I'm an Atheist who knows next to zip about the New Testament, wasn't Pontius Pilate a sadist? That was my understanding of the passages I skimmed through at the library. So why does the movie portray him as a decent man who caves in to the mob mentality of the Jews in the movie? And my own personal observation, from clips I've seen, don't the Jews in this moive, with the exception of the actress who plays Jesus' mother look like Old Hollywood style villains, with crooked noses and the like? Seems borderline anti-Semitic to me, and I'm not even Jewish!

Having just seen the movie a few hours ago, I have to say that the only way someone could take it as anti-Semetic is if they already decided it was before they started watching.

For the record, there's nothing anywhere about Pilate being a sadist; he just didn't care. This whole "evil Pilate" thing is a rather recent invention. And what's this about noses? That just happens to be a prominent feature of a number of people of jewish desent. Would it have been more appropriate for them to cast a bunch of Anglo-Saxon actors for those rolls? (one could even suggest that assuming such a feature MUST imply villany is being a tad anit-Semitic, but I'm pretty sure that you didn't mean it that way).

Frankly, Gibson doesn't have to worry about a thing, because the simple truth is that The Passion of Christ is a very well made movie, and the moviegoing public will forgive anybody for anything as long as they can deliver well made movies (just ask Roman Polanski)

So why does the movie portray him as a decent man who caves in to the mob mentality of the Jews in the movie?

Because that, in essence, is precisely what he was and what he did. When he realised that there was no evidence against Jesus he tried to have him released, even going so far as to ask the Jewish mob 'Shall I, then, impale your king?' not out of belief but from sheer desperation over an innocent man going free.

Exactly, Kerrie.

And I really have a problem with the outrage over the percieved anti-Semitism in the film. I haven't personally seen it, but everything I've read seems to follow the scriptural account of the Jews' responsibility in Jesus' death fairly accurately. Why are people outraged about this now?

The Jews who called for Jesus' death have been dead and gone for thousands of years. Whether they were bloodguilty or not, this does not mean by any means that Jews today should be held accountable or persecuted.

I guess the Jews of today forgot that the Jews in Christ's time said to Pilate: "His blood be on us, and on our children!" (Matt. 27:25)

But mob mentality often doesn't follow logic, and that's exactly what people are worried about today. Seeing a movie in which Jews are portrayed as being responsible for the death of Jesus could easily produce waves of anti-Semitism. Of course, it could just as easily not have said effect.

it all depends, really, on who sees it and how they interpret it.

-JM

They may have said that, John, but his blood should be on the entire Jewish race, forever?

And you do have a good point, Justin. It's just sad we live in a world where we have to protect people from themselves.

[Sorry, JD this isn't intended to continue a religious debate, simply clear up a factual misconception.-KM]

I guess the Jews of today forgot that the Jews in Christ's time said to Pilate: "His blood be on us, and on our children!" (Matt. 27:25)

Yes, the Jews said that. God didn't say that to them. There are many recorded instances in which Jewish custom at this point differed markedly from the original Law, and this seems to have been one of them.

Jesus' words - if you so believe, by extension his Father's - expressed quite a different POV: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem...how often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks together under her wings! But you people did not want it. Look! Your house is abandoned to you." - Matt.23:37

In other words (again, if you so believe) the Jews refused to acknowledge the fulfilment of the Law, their Messiah, and thus lost their privileges as God's 'special people', the cornerstone of His purpose.
What they were not - beyond the specific individuals that actually committed the murder - was somehow cursed, cast out from His presence entirely. They had simply failed to live up to their end of this bargain, and would now have to live with the consequences.
The fact that converted Jews for many years afterwards formed the bulk of the Christian congregations should be proof enough for Christians today that God did not condemn the Jews as a whole, for all time.

I agree, Kerriem. My thoughts exactly.

Showing signs of traditional religion is the new blacklistable offense?

It's not just signs of traditional religion. If you would read the whole artical it said

The chairman said he was angry not just because of what he had read about the film and its portrayal of Jews in relation to the death of Jesus, but because of Mr. Gibson's remarks defending his father, Hutton Gibson. Last week in a radio interview the elder Mr. Gibson repeated his contention that the Holocaust was "all — maybe not all fiction — but most of it is." Asked about his father's Holocaust denial in an interview with Diane Sawyer on ABC, the movie star told her to "leave it alone."

While I don't agree with blacklisting him for such a thing. The truth is that Hollywood is in many ways a jewish town and jews are alittle bit touchey about that whole holocaust thing.

I should also think the Jews would be touchy about holding children responsible for their fathers' misdeeds.

Yes I agree but if Gibson would just say something like "I'm not my father and we don't see eye to eye one everything" it would go a long way.

...jews are alittle bit touchey about that whole holocaust thing.

Mm. Kind of the way New Yorkers are 'a little bit touchy' about that whole WTC thing.

I can in a way sympathise with the younger Gibson; no matter how tactfully he tries to handle it his public image is currently stuck firmly between 'Yeah, agreed, Dad's a senile ol'hatemonger' and Holocaust denial.

here is an article about who really was responsible for the death of christ and why the New testament tried to apologize the romans.

And from what I've read about Mel Gibson he doesn't show signs of traditional, but fundamentalist religion, which is always worrisome. (But then, I can't relate to a large portion of the fundamentalist christians in america, which take the bible way to literally, without understanding it). And as woman, I certainly don't cheer for sentiments along the line of "woman should be barefoot and pregnant". If that is the direction Mel Gibson has taken, then I don't like it. (and I think its interesting that all of the characters he has portrayed are violent, aggressive man - this does not seem to interfere with his christian views.)

I think a lot of people have misconceptions about so-called fundamentalist Christianity. "Barefoot and pregnant" seems to be more anachronistic than what most fundamental churches would advocate.

Gibson takes the Gospels for what they are: Eyewitness acounts of the life of Christ. It should seem obvious to anyone that New Testament manuscripts should have the same historical value as secular ones, but there is a prejudice that the gospels must be biased and inaccurate.

Back to the topic though, Gibson does not deny the Holocaust. Because of his father, he has been asked to clarify his position more than once. Each time he answers that he believes it did occur. I have yet to see it, but the movie purports to be a basically accurate representation of the gospels. There is nothing 'anti-semitic' added. This would indicate that Gibson's views, whatever they may be, had little bearing on what is seen onscreen. I put forth that the critics who cry 'anti-semite' are more disturbed that someone dared make a literal representation of the gospels, and are too... politically correct? diplomatic? ... to come out against the Christian gospels.

Another example I failed to mention is Roman Polanski. He essentially raped a thirteen year old girl, then fled the country to avoid prosecution, yet he is still adored in Hollywood, making movies and receiving awards. Is rape more palatable to Hollywood than conservative Christianity?

Brian,

Gibson takes the Gospels for what they are: Eyewitness acounts of the life of Christ. It should seem obvious to anyone that New Testament manuscripts should have the same historical value as secular ones, but there is a prejudice that the gospels must be biased and inaccurate.

Although this belongs probably on PM, the gospels are not eyewitness accounts of Christ. The first gospel was written around 70 AD. At this time, its extremely unlikely that eyewitnesses were still living. (The last gospel was written around 150 AD.) And the gospels aren't treated with "prejudice". They are treated in their proper context by historian and real theologicans. That is, the gospels weren't written as historical accounts or intendend as history (like Josephus' history, and even that is known to be biased and therefore, treated accordingly by historians), but were written to convert people to Christ. Today, a newspaper editorial isn't the same as a report by a reporter, so why should they be treated the same?

Actually, it belongs in RM. And as I discussed in my review of the film in RM, the film...is...not...anti-Semitic. I am mind-boggled how anyone could think that.

Nor are the gospels historoically accurate like Constanze said its all propaganda.

I am mind-boggled how anyone could think that.

In spite of the various explanations why? There are a lot of things that boggle my mind (probably too many things but I digress), but this ain't one of 'em.

BrianA: Gibson takes the Gospels for what they are: Eyewitness acounts of the life of Christ. It should seem obvious to anyone that New Testament manuscripts should have the same historical value as secular ones, but there is a prejudice that the gospels must be biased and inaccurate.
Luigi Novi: The New Testament does not have value as a reliable historical document because many of the central events, characters and claims therein cannot be independently substantiated. It is not because it “isn’t secular.” Secularism vs. Religiosity is entirely beside the point. There is no independent evidence, for example, that a Messiah named Jesus of Nazareth lived and was executed, or that there even was a place called Nazareth at the time alleged in the Bible. I wonder if Gibson, like most people, is even aware of this.

So have you seen it yet Luigi? Did you like it?

Not yet. But I'm extremely curious to do so. I hope I can endure the graphic violence I've heard of.

One of the things Roger Ebert mentioned in his review of the movie bears mention on this topic:

Pilate is seen going through his well-known doubts before finally washing his hands of the matter and turning Jesus over to the priests, but Caiaphas, who also had doubts, is not seen as sympathetically. The critic Steven D. Greydanus, in a useful analysis of the film, writes: "The film omits the canonical line from John's gospel in which Caiaphas argues that it is better for one man to die for the people [so] that the nation be saved.

"Had Gibson retained this line, perhaps giving Caiaphas a measure of the inner conflict he gave to Pilate, it could have underscored the similarities between Caiaphas and Pilate and helped defuse the issue of anti-Semitism."

Well, I've seen the movie. And after seeing the movie, a lot of the explanations just don't hold water. I agree with Richard Roeper--if you leave the movie with anti-Semitic views, you probably already had them when you walked in. It's like blaming video games for violence.

Since we're doing screenings of Kevin Smith's Jersey Girl on Friday and Saturday at the AMC on W42nd ST, I'm going to sneak....er, I mean, go to one of the auditoriums playing Passion of the Christ there.

Ebert and Roeper were on Jay Leno the other night, and it was opined that Passion would not get nominated for any major Oscars next year because of the controversey. Leno said he would write that down and hold them to that a year later.

We'll see.

If the film does not get a nomination for Best Cinematography or Best Score, there is something seriously wrong. Best Director--maybe, but the year is still young.

It should be eligible for Foreign Language Film.

OK, I just saw this with some friends, and I have to say, I agree wtih South Park character Stan Marsh's take on it. It's a beautifully shot, wonderfully moody, SNUFF FILM! Honestly, I've seen S&M pornos with more taste!

I do so wish I could've asked for my money back. I did not pay $8.50 to watch a really nice guy get tortured for the amount of time it takes for me to stock the shelves in the Young Adults section (i.e. it seems longer than it is). For a supposed follower of Christ's teachings, Mel's a bit of a sadist isn't he? Would it have ben too hard to do a movie about the GOOD things in Jesus' life?

No, but that's not the aspect of his life he wanted to focus on. And I don't see how depicting it makes him a "sadist." He's merely depicting what he thinks occurred.

The way he filmed it Luigi suggests that he liked what he was seeing. Note how I said "suggests" before anyone starts throwing a typically pious temper tantrum. That says sadist to me. And I agree with Sax. This is a snuff film. If it weren't for the fact that the director is an Oscar winner this movie would be available only as an illegal bootleg making the rounds at "sick perverts with a death fetish" party.

Personally, Dude, I think that's an extreme reaction. First of all, as I've already noted, it isn't that Mel Gibson is an Oscar winning director that gives this film its saving grace. It's that it's about Jesus. That is the one element, that if you took it away, that would cause the public to be in an uproar about it. Keep in mind, that this is an extremely well made film. No doubt about it. But it is also brutal. It would be deemed pointlessly brutal were it not - again (and I'm getting tired of emphasizing this) - for the fact that it is about the crucifixion of Jesus.

But do I agree with the label of "sadistic"? Kinda. It is sadistic in how Gibson dwells on the punishment dealt to Jesus. We're shown every stroke of the whip. We're shown arms being pulled out of socket and/or broken. We're shown nails being driven into hands. There is little to no cutting away from these images. It is because Gibson chose to dwell on these images that I can agree with the label of "sadistic".

I haven't seen the film... but I fail to see how the depiction of brutality makes the picture (or the director) sadistic. It doesn't sound to me like the intent is to invoke any pleasurable feelings. Was Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan also sadistic?

No. For starters, those films had moments of non-violence in them as well. And also some humour, albeit dark humour. Putting anything funny in a moive about Christians or Catholicism is a good way to get yourself lynched in effigy (just ask Martin Scorcese and Kevin Smith).

Dark humour in Schindler's List?

Schindler's List was a momentous movie, reminding a forgetful people how brutal and horrible the Holocaust truly was, and what sacrifices were made for others.

Saving Private Ryan was a momentous movie, reminding a forgetful nation how brutal and horrible World War II was, and what sacrifices were made for this country.

The Passion of the Christ is a momentios movie, reminding a forgetful church how brutal and horrible the Crucifiction was, and what sacrifice the Lord made for his people.


Sure, if you do not believe the story anyhow you are not going to find any meaning to it, just senseless violence. Could you not say the same about someone who does not believe in World War II or the Holocaust? My only point is that one's appreciation for the story, for the imagery, is tempered by one's belief or disbelief.

I agree with Brian Webber on the humor in Schindler's List... I often tell people (and truthfully) that I laughed more times in Schindler's List than The Flintstones and Ace Ventura: pet Detective combined.

I haven't seen Schindler's List in a few years, so I may not remember all the instances but a few humorous scenes/moments come immediately to mind:

When Schindler intimidates the unhelpful Nazi soldier at the train station (writing the soldier's name in his notebook) when he's looking for Ben Kingsley's character, and then there's a quick cut to the soldier looking for Kingsley with Schindler.

A sequence in which Schindler is interviewing secretaries, who dissolve from one shot to the next. In each dissolve, the woman becomes prettier and Schindler gets closer and closer... that is until a more homely woman is in front of him and he's suddenly far back.

A doorman who mistakes Mrs. Schindler for one of his mistresses.

A woman wants to see Schindler (who appears at the top of the stairs) and is rejected. She comes back all made up and is brought in to see him.

So the film is vile because it didn't make you laugh?

Uh, no. That wasn't what I was saying. I was just making a point about how many Catholics get offended at the implication the Christ had a sense of humor. Just to pyss them off I'd like to write and direct a movie that's about nothing BUT the sense of humor Jesus. I'd bet he liked the Bob Newhart deadpan styte of humor. And to really irk them, I'd add a laugh track. I'd borrow the canned-laughter mahcine from Dharma & Greg, but I don't think ther'd be anything left in it (OUCH!). And I'll title it The Laughter, and I'd use the same font Mel Gibson used for his snuff fi- uh, I mean movie. A laughing Christ. That'd make a hell of a poster, pardon the pun.

OHHH You're going straight to Hell for that one!

I recall a line in Kevin Smith's Dogma. I think it's Salma Hayek (as a muse) who tells Linda Fiorentino that Catholics don't celebrate their faith... they mourn it. As a recovering Catholic myself, I find that description very apt.

Tammy Faye always used to sing "Jesus loves the little children". Maybe The Passion could be turned into a musical. It might diffuse some people's anger with it.

Well, 'The Passion's (how's that for confused punctuation?) coming out on DVD, Mel Gibson movies are being re-released by the truckload, the dough is flying in, and I've heard stirrings about 'The Passion' coming out in theaters again.


I'd say Mel Gibson's career is realy hurting right now. The man may never recover. :-)


(As for his personal life, however, reports seem to indicate that he's been deeply hurt by all of the anti-semitic accusations and controversy, and has become a virtual recluse. However, the accuracy of these reports are unconfirmed.)

I just gone done watching "The Passion of the Christ" on DVD and found it to be outstanding!

The best part was Satan screaming after Christ's death. I laughed out loud.
Christ sure kicked Satan's butt.

Possible nits:

When Jesus is brought unto Herod, Herod rushes into the room & adjusts his wig because it nearly fell off. Or was that supposed to happen?

Earthquake scene:
From my understanding, only the veil (curtain) of the temple was torn in two. Not the entire temple building. Or did I miss hearing about that in history class? It sure isn't in the Bible.

Also, there has been much debate over the existence of Veronica & the event of her wiping the face of Jesus. I'm not saying it didn't happen. But there's been no Biblical nor historical proof that it did happen either.

I just gone done watching "The Passion of the Christ" on DVD and found it to be outstanding!

The best part was Satan screaming after Christ's death. I laughed out loud.
Christ sure kicked Satan's butt.

You mean he dies at the end? Thanks for the spoiler!!
;)

No, He rises again at the end. Whoops...another spoiler.

I just hate knowing when a movie is going to have a "special, surprise, twist ending".

Now imagine if M Night Shamalamadingdong does this movie?

TV Guide had a recent story about the DVD release of Passion, but Mel Gibson wouldn't consent to be interviewed.
The DVD is outsanding, with a crystal clear picture and great sound. However, I wish Gibson et al had done a commentary track; I think that with all the controversy, one is called for. The disc is devoid of features. Oddly enough, there is a track, where a man describes what's on screen (even the "Icon Productions" logo.) I also read somewhere that Gibson gets half the DVD revenue.
I read on IMBD yesterday that the producers of the next Superman movie are interested in Jim Caviezel to play Superman.

Caviezel is a great actor... I loved him in "The Count of Monte Cristo." ("You didn't think I'd make it that easy, did you?")

As for the DVD, the general idea was that special features would distract from the message, and knowing how everything was done, or listening to a commentary track would take away from the power and the impact. So, no special features. Hopefully someday...

As for the guy describing everything, that's probably a descriptive video service track for the blind. (Though I doubt the movie would have as much impact that way.)

I wouldn't be surprised if Gibson gets have of the revenue from the DVD sales. He financed it himself as an independent film (a $25 million indi film, must be nice to have that kind of capital) and than made a distribution deal after it was compleated.

Yeah, but no one would touch it, including Twentieth Century-Fox, who eventually bought the home video rights (only when it achieved blockbuster status, though.) Eventually, Gibson struck a deal with Newmarket Films, who also distributed Monster.

It is doubtful this film will have a negative effect on Mel Gibson's position in the film industry.

Historical accuracy doesn't matter, history is a narrative. If you want facts, go to Dr. Jones's archelogy class.

"Barefoot and pregant" was a feminist straw man argument. No one ever said it.

This film is being re-edited for re-release on March 11. Will it be a toned down version? If it is, I'm glad I have the DVD of the original cut.
Also, has a pay-cable deal been struck yet?

How toned down is toned down? Is it going to be a short subject, rather than a feature film? LOL

You mean they're cutting out all the scenes with Jar Jar Binks?! Cool!

Gibson's changed it so Judas shoots first.

There was a commercial for it on last night. The new version is called "The Passion Recut" and they said it was unrated (note, not "not yet rated").

Somehow that brings to mind a Jewish ritual performed on babies -- perhaps why it will be "unrated"?

Hey, it shows how optimistic we are... we cut off a little bit before we even know how big it's going to get!

D'oh!

Y'know what? I think the film was pretty good for Mel. Call me crazy, but it's just a hunch.


(Sorry for referring to this so late, but I only heard about this now.)

Passion will premiere on Showtime April 16, 2006 (Easter Sunday.) Twenty-six months after it debuted in theaters.

Too bad they didn't wait another six months for a good 33.