Mel Gibson gets RW Stars to Back his Anti-Semitic Movie

Mel Gibson (R-maybe hates Jews, maybe dislikes tham a lot, who knows) is gearing up to promote his movie on the Crucifixion which is based, NOT on the gospels, but on the "visions" of a 18th Century nun. Gibson, whose Dad is a a Holocaust Denier and "ultra-traditional" Catholic, allowed a group of Catholic AND Jewish scholars to read the script. The scholars were all horrified by the awful script which looked like it was made by, well, by a pre-modern Catholic anti-semitic, and suggested a lot of changes. Gibson responded by threatening to have the scholars arrested (!) for receiving a stolen (!!??!!) script.

Now Gibson arranged a screening by a whos-whoi of RW types in DC to defend his film. (There is a full story about the Scholars in The New Republic) Below is some of today's Washington Post article.

Movie star Mel Gibson -- under fire from Jewish groups and religious scholars for his still-unreleased film that graphically portrays the crucifixion of Jesus -- yesterday screened a two-hour rough cut of "The Passion" for a select group of Washington pundits, clergymen, cybergossip Matt Drudge and Hollywood lobbyist Jack Valenti, and at least one White House staffer.
....
Yesterday's secret screening at the Motion Picture Association of America included columnists Peggy Noonan, Cal Thomas and Kate O'Beirne; conservative essayist Michael Novak; President Bush's abortive nominee for labor secretary, Linda Chavez; staff director Mark Rodgers of the Senate Republican conference chaired by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.); former Republican House member Mark Siljander of Michigan; and White House staffer David Kuo, deputy director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.
....
Another invitee, right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham, flew here from San Francisco to see the film but arrived too late and missed it. "I'm so bummed," Ingraham told us. "I want to see any movie that drives the anti-Christian entertainment elite crazy."....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26264-2003Jul22.html


A yes, anti-Semitism. The RW falls back on one of its traditional bases............

its "anti-semitic"?
This is pure censorship. I don't give a crap about Gibson's political
viewpoints. I don't give a crap about the JDL's viewpoints either.
If a film is made...its meant to be watched.

CENSORSHIP belongs right up there with the Patriot Act.
No criticism permitted? :wtf:

Someone made a movie from "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and presented it as fact you wouldn't be offended?

And I'm not calling for censorship, just appalled that the RW would stoop to backing age-old libel.

Would you?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"watch your step...." humm, is that a call for CENSORSHIP? (teasing)

Care to read them?

I was trying to lighten up the discussion by teasing a little. I see it was misunderstood. My apologies.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

tends to be anti-Semitic; this one even more so. When I hear of one that says the Romans did it, then I'll know we're making progress.

Life of Brian blame the Romans? Oh wait, that's BRIAN, not Jesus...

Seriously, at least Jesus Christ Superstar makes it clear that the High Priests were acting out of fer of the Romans. Mel's Movie, from the descriptions I've read, make it look like the Romans were acting out of fear of the Jews! I don't think Pilate was afraid of anybody, except Caesar.

is because he and his Roman staff feared a riot among the people of Jerusalem. They could put down any kind of riot, of course, but it would look bad for Pilate politically. The Romans were real law and order sticklers. At the expense of empathetic and humane rule in Judea of course. We haven't learned much, have we?

BTW, this is not a defense of Gibson, his movie, or the reich-wingers who are creaming themselves over it.

If the Jews wanted him dead they could have had him stoned for blasmephy (see Stephen's fate in Acts). Since he was crucified, it shows that the Romans feared that he was a threat to their rule. The Jewish Church leaders feared that Jesus would start an anti-Roman revolt as well. He was killed as a political criminal by the Romans, not as a religious threat by the Jews.

APPARENTLY, Pat also had access to a special screening of the Passion and said he loved it yesterday on the 700 Club. When Pat Robertson endorses your movie, you might want to reexamine what your target audience is.

"I find this sad," said ADL National Director Abraham Foxman, who hasn't been permitted to see the movie. "Here's a man who appeals to the mass audience, but he feels he has to surround himself with a cordon sanitaire of people who back him theologically and maybe ideologically and will stand up and be supportive when the time comes. My request still stands: I would like to see the movie, and if it turns out I was wrong, I'll be the first to say so."

Yesterday when the lights came up, many in the audience -- who were required to sign a confidentiality agreement before being admitted to the screening room -- were in tears. Some were sobbing, we hear.

"Heartbreaking," Michael Novak told Gibson. "The Exorcist" author William Peter Blatty called the movie "a tremendous depiction of evil." MPAA President Valenti was perhaps the most enthusiastic. "I don't see what the controversy is all about," he told fellow audience members. "This is a compelling piece of art. I just called Kirk Douglas and told him that this is the movie to beat."

note, as quoted in the article, ADL's Foxman hasn't even seen the film.

and warm testaments from Novak, Blatty, and Valenti. (and Kirk Douglas is Jewish, no?)

i've never been a fan of Mel Gibson, but i will probably go to see this movie (unless the reviews are awful).

It repeats the old blood libel that the Jews (rather than the Romans) were responsible for Jesus' death. From TNR article..
...the mystical writings of Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774- 1824), one of the visionary nuns whose writings Gibson used for his script. Emmerich wrote in her diary that she had "seen" the high priest ordering the cross to be made in the courtyard of the Temple itself. The high priest's servants, in her visions, bribe Jerusalem's population to assemble in the Temple at night to demand Jesus's death; they even tip the Roman executioners. Emmerich's Pilate criticizes the high priests for their physical abuse of Jesus, but finally he consents to crucify him, because he fears that the high priest wants to start a revolt against Rome. And so on.

You can read the report by the Professors who reviewed the film's script (after the film was made BTW) at the Boston College Website..

http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/news/dramatizing_the_death_of_jesus.htm

From the report..

The Emmerich work contains such extra-biblical elements as:

Jesus' cross being constructed at the orders of the high priest in the courtyard of the Temple.
Servants of the high priest bribing fellow Jews to demand Jesus' death and even paying some of his crucifiers.
Violence far beyond what the gospels present during Jesus' hearing before Caiaphas and Annas.
Pontius Pilate criticizing the high priests for physically abusing Jesus and suggesting that they are thirsting for both his body and blood (cf. John 6:53).
Scenes of the brutalizing of Jesus not present in the gospels, such as Jewish figures dragging him around with a bag over his head so that it violently impacts against stone.
Pilate stating that he fears the high priest is planning a revolt against Rome.
Numerous other scenes not present in the New Testament could be cited from the Emmerich book, but those noted here all have the effect of increasing the guilt of Jewish characters for Jesus' sufferings. It would not be an exegetical theory to criticize any dramatic presentation of the death of Jesus that incorporated such non-biblical features.

interesting...

your intial posting said, "Gibson ... allowed a group of Catholic AND Jewish scholars to read the script. ... Gibson responded by threatening to have the scholars arrested (!) for receiving a stolen (!!??!!) script."

you ridiculed Gibson for referring to the script as "stolen" after he supposedly supplied it himself for review. yet, the authors of that critique state they were asked to review the script by "expert staff members of the USCCB and the ADL". they conspicuously do not say that Gibson or his company asked them to review the script, or provided the script.

We are Roman Catholic professors who were part of an ad hoc group of scholars recently called together by expert staff members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Anti-Defamation League to review a version of the screenplay of the Mel Gibson film, The Passion.

also interesting... the review states,

We were asked to evaluate whether that version of the screenplay would present problems in terms of Catholic teaching about Jews and the death of Jesus.

note the careful wording here. you had criticized the film for not being based on the gospels. but this quote from the reviewers states that their charter was not to review the script for historical accuracy nor for adherence to the gospels, but for "problems" in terms of "Catholic teaching". (hint: Catholic teachings are not all based on the gospels or on the bible.)

The scholars got the script from the professor who was translating Gibson's script into Latin and Aramaic. The translator acted as a go-between passing messages back and forth between Gibson and the reviewers. Since Gibson knew that the scholars had been given the script (by the translator), he did not ask for it back, and in fact he responded to the criticisms, it is silly to say the script was 'stolen.' That sounds to me (IMHO) like a laywer trying to silence critics.

As for your second point, I stand corrected. It must be the Protestant in me that when I think Biblical "sources" I think "gospels" and not Church doctrine beyond the Gospels. The script still violates Catholic doctrine and uses material that goes beyond accepted Catholic teachings.

From the report..

The Emmerich work contains such extra-biblical elements as:

...
Scenes of the brutalizing of Jesus not present in the gospels, such as Jewish figures dragging him around with a bag over his head so that it violently impacts against stone.

dude, Jesus was crucified. it doesn't get much more brutal than that.

you and the reviewers have bandied about the "anti-semitic" label, and cited as evidence the film's unfaithfulness to the gospels. but let me ask you this. wouldn't you say the same thing if the film DID adhere strictly to the gospels? in fact, the gospels DO unambiguously ascribe a large role in Jesus's death to (some) Jews. is that anti-semitic, and why?

if you're going cry anti-semitism whenever (some) Jews are depicted in a less-than-flattering light, then i would ask you to apply the same standard to every other religious and ethnic group. literature and the movies would be limited to colorless, featureless, bland and generic villains with no religion or country.

did you also get your panties in a bunch about the movie "battle of the bulge" being "anti-german", for example? or "tora tora tora" as being "anti-Japanese"?

And you have this on what authority?

Mel has said that he does not share his father's views and "some of his best friends are Jews." I think I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and retract my accusation. I still think given the movie's theme of the Jews as Christ-killers (NOT a phrase used in the movie BTW) that it is not an unreasonable assumption.

... however, i still have a problem with your methodology.

I think I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and retract my accusation. I still think given the movie's theme of the Jews as Christ-killers (NOT a phrase used in the movie BTW) that it is not an unreasonable assumption.

first you accuse someone of being a "Jew-hater". when challenged to provide specifics and documentation, you go back and edit it to say, "maybe hates Jews, maybe dislikes them a lot, who knows". later you "retract" your accusation but say it is "not an unreasonable assumption".

in my opinion, you should have your facts straight BEFORE making such a serious accusation. imho it's incidents like this that have caused many people to automatically apply an extra layer of skepticism to accusations of "anti-semitism". when the boy cried "wolf", that was not an unreasonable assumption either.

I'm what they call a "lapsed Catholic". I'm also a life long left-wing Democrat. I've spent quite a bit of time with Mel. I'm alternately amused and appalled by what I see written about him on the net.

If anyone cares - getting back to scholars, et al. reviewing movie scripts - years ago, before a deal was made -or a script was written-for "The Presbyterian Church Wager" - our office was flooded with protests. It was a virtual whirlwind of fury and condemnation.

Much later- during pre-production on location- and after much back and forth with the suits - the title was changed to "McCabe and Mrs. Miller". (for some unknown reason, the studio rejected my choice: "Mickey One meets Darling Petulia in The Only Game in Town." Too long for the marquee, I guess).
:)

what they say about "I Assume" I was impressed this time that the critics were working from the real script and that they did not seem to be making the familar knee-jerk reaction one sees by RW Christians to any movie about Christ.

Most have their final revision in the editing room. My impression is that these *scholars* were working off a pre-production script. Those are used to *sell* the project - rarely to shoot.

Anyway, I'll not belabor the point. You want to make a case for anti-semitism where none exists in a medium you appear to know nothing about by a person you've never met? Kewl. Tis your world - and you're welcome to it. Back in reality town, there's a real demon to fight. His name's Bush. TTFN.

that you reread the articles. The "scholars" (your quote marks) are all University Theologians, and from real universities, not fundy "Bible Schools", were working with the script they got from the translator from which the movie was actually made, not the prelim copy. Oh well, I guess the fact that both Stormfront and some Bushies liked it isn't significant. After all, why would Stormfront like something anti-semitic???

Mel Gibson (R-hates Jews) is gearing up to promote his movie on the Crucifixion which is based, NOT on the gospels, but on the "visions" of a 18th Century nun.

you claim that Mel Gibson "hates Jews". that's a serious charge - please provide some kind of documentation for it.

i for one am automatically skeptical that anyone who "hates Jews" could be come so phenomenally successful in the movie business. i still remember the huge flap when Marlon Brando (retired mega-star) was forced to back down after he made what many would consider to be an incontrovertible statement that "Jews control Hollywood". which was kind of ironic, because if anything, the fact that he was forced to apologize, seems to reinforce the statement he was forced to recant.

is it anti-semitic to say that "Jews control Hollywood"?

if jews actually do control hollywood
(and they might) it would be nothing more than a
factual statement

hollywood and the banks and the whitehouse and just about everything that is wrong is a jew`s fault- just ask anyone at stormfront..i`m sure mel`s film will appeal to them..

Join me in a rousing round of the Hanukkah Song?

making and promoting a movie that violates the teachings of his own church and that spreads hatred of a particular religion seems pretty good evidence that he has some dislike of that particular religion. If I made a movie portaying as truth the old anti-Catholic stories about nuns and abortions and orgys in Convents I might reasonably be labeled anti-Catholic. If I did a remake of "Birth of a Nation" using the same storyline of the KKK saving "White Womanhood" from rampaging former slaves and portrayed it as factual history, I might reasonably be accused of being racist. If I had say, a talkshow on MSNBC and used expressions like 'homo' I might reasonably be accused of being anti-Gay. Gibson wrote and made a movie that further spreads old hatefilled attacks on those of another religion and claims that it is fact. It is not unreasonbable to assume he does not like people who belong to the faith that he is attacking.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"i for one am automatically skeptical that anyone who "hates Jews" could be come so phenomenally successful in the movie business."

oh, I don't know. Hollywood is pretty liberal compared to much of the country (or so I'm told by the RW over and over) and RW movie stars like Arnold seem to be pretty successful.

the troopers over at stormfront will be lining up at the threaters to see this movie...who would have thought hollywood could make a film that they will love!!! give the people what they want ,right mel???/

like stormfront`s giving it two thumbs up...the moderator used barbara nicolosi`s review..barbara is a conserative catholic writer.she was elated over the beauty of the film...

at birth...They both are bony, blonde, and blue eyed...Both have hard, monotone voices that grate on your nerves...AND THEY'RE BOTH SO FULL OF HATE!.....Just an observation!

If he's this backwards then I really do not want to see or hear of him and his movies again!!!

And to think I actually enjoyed Signs...and him on the one episode of The Simpsons! Jeez...to hell with him! After all, I am a Jew.

There's a great book by the Jewish Scholar, Hyman Maccoby, called The Mythmaker that argues that most of the anti-Semitism of the New Testament was inspired by Saul (or Paul) of Tarsus, who wasn't the Jewish Pharisee that he claimed to be and caused even the Gospels to reflect his problems with the Jewish establishment, which were not shared by Jesus of Nazareth. A great book, which would enable Jews and Christians to mend their 2000 rift, while Mel Gibson tries to pump salt into the wounds of the Jews who survived the last attempt by supposedly Christian nations to exterminate them.

Part of our "Liberals Like Christ" web site is devoted to the shameful role of the Christian churches of Europe in the Holocaust :
http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/RCscandal
and another part answers the question "WHO killed Christ and WHY ?" (according to the Gospels) : http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/about/whokilledChrist.html.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

First of all, many of Mel's movies have been great.
Some have just been ok, but over all, his movies are great. I love how He's loved in Hollywood, and when he comes out with a movie about Jesus, all of a sudden he's hated...

some advice:

1. There are TONS out there who will hate the movie just becuase it's about Jesus... Keep in mind Ted Turner thinks all christians are "losers" so that kind of mentality will be spread. There will be people 'reviewing' it who havn't seen it and dont know sh*t

2. You look like a total moron when you point at all the negative press and say that Mel is anti-jewish. Here's an origional idea: SEE THE MOVIE FIRST!! ... iditos!!!

3. To be liberal (and NOT A FANATIC) you need to be open-minded.. see art and artists .. (which includes writers and directors) work open mindedly. If there had be NO open-minded-ness 90% of the artists and writers in the world would have been shot down and not allowed to publish their work AGES ago.

4. I'm going to see the movie without reading ONE REIVEW, becuase all-in-all many many many movies get horrid reviews that I end up liking... example: Bad Boys II... not exactly a 'spiratually or culturally educational' movie, but the critics BASHED it, the Yahoo! people loved it so I went.. and it was very enjoyable movie and very funny.

peace out.

Democrats (at least the SANE ones) in 04!!!!

I thought he was liberal. You CAN make a movie about the bible and not be a backwater bible thumper republican.

Wasn't Mel Gibson going to finance Michael Moore's next flick until people pressured him not to?

he's a religious conservative, and really really does hate Gays, so I'd say it's a safe bet he ain't no Liberal.

He not quite a Conservative as his father, who denies the Holocaust and believes that no pope since Pius XII has been legitimate (beginning with John XXIII) making the 2nd Vatican Council null & void.

Mel is a pre-Vatican II Catholic at best and NO LIBERAL.