As an artist myself, I think Gibson's detractors are way out of line...

[DemLikr]

To me, this is analogous to the following scenario: I'm working on a painting in my studio and a bunch of strangers show up demanding that I make changes prior to exhibiting the finished work.

They say they, you know, heard rumors and stories that I was an anti-Semite and that my work was, you know, not OK with them; someone got hold of an early rough sketch of my work and they didn't care for its "tone."

I would tell the whole group to fuck themselves and kick them out. I'll paint dead babies if I want to, none of their damn business. And if they're so damn hot on this issue, they can sell one of their church's real estate holdings or cash in some of its stock and use the proceeds to finance the production of their OWN painting which conveys whatever message they wish.

The idea that some numbnuts outside my artistic process take it upon themselves to dictate the development of my final product is just apalling to me.

They can simply wait, see the piece when it is complete, and commence bitching at that point.

Anyone here agree?

[salmonhorse]

1. "Gibson" who?

Mel Gibson?

:shrug:

Otherwise, as an artist myself, we shall discourse upon they who've wandered into our various studios to stand before this; these arts what arts what are in the process of becoming ~

[DemLikr]

8. Uhm...if you don't know, it doesn't really matter.

Have a nice day.

[Iris]

26. Many people come here to learn about things they don't know

Your response was rude.

[DemLikr]

35. I doubt salmonhorse's post was in earnest.

If you read it you may see why.

However if I'm wrong, I apologize.

And thank you for monitoring everyone's levels of politeness and rudeness here at DU. Where would we be without such a valuable service...provided free of charge, yet!

[gottaB]

48. dude,

salmonhorse's reply was earnestly in character dada--did you check out his website?

His question was the same one I had, except he sort of had a clue about this eminently forgetable Mel Gibson business. Your response wasn't just an insult, it was a turnoff.

And being called on it, this is your reply? You just killed this thread for me.

[DemLikr]

95. Your skin seems rather tender...

...and off the topic.

[salmonhorse]

99. Your skin seems rather...

...thin...

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[DemLikr]

96. I have no idea what you are talking about...but thank you for sharing.

and good night.:D ...beetch

[salmonhorse]

98. Do be do be do....

Do do be Dada
Strangers in the night...
Dada be Dada,
Do be do be do...
Do do be Dada,
BLUE BERRY PANCAKES!!!

http://www.hsuyun.org

[geomon]

106. Lets see....

you are 16 years old??

[edward]

110. rude.

another thread to skip.
try not insulting people.

[stanwyck]

2. But Mel intentionally started the furor

for publicity. He started talking about "attacks" on his movie before there were any attacks. Then, he held a private screening for carefully selected guests: the only Jew being Matt Drudge. The "anti-Semitism" charges originated from his camp. It's just promotion on his part, like Arnie trying to keep his name in the news. You're right that people shouldn't judge BEFORE they've personally viewed the art. But you're being manipulated by the Mel machine on this one: it's just Hollywood hype. He wants you to think he's a victim.

[DemLikr]

7. I totally agree he couldn't ask for better publicity, BUT

if it's ALL a result of master media manipulation by the Gibson camp, he couldn't ask for more willing dupes on the other side.

So are you alleging that Gibson's people provided the "stolen" script to his detractors?

[stanwyck]

27. I have no idea

whether Gibson's people "leaked" the script. However, I have read that Mel was openly lamenting how he was unfairly being vilified BEFORE there was any backlash. Maybe I'm too cynical, but to me, this reeks of good old fashioned hucksterism. He's beating the drums for his movie by portraying himself (martyring himself?) as a victim who is not being allowed his freedom of expression and his freedom of religion. There is also concern over his scholarship. His historical sources for the script have written very heinous diatribes against the Jewish people. Considering the history of Jews in this world, I believe they have a legitimate worry about the possible stirring up of hatred. Mel's been in Hollywood for years now. He knows how to sell a movie. And I don't think he's above using religious hostilities for his own purposes.

[DemLikr]

39. Good points. However, often the "anti-semite" charges seem so

predictable and gratuitous that they take on the character of a cheap shot and lose their impact. Over the years I've heard accusations of anti-semitism flung on the weakest imaginable pretext, that I usually roll my eyes when I hear it now.

In an argument it's easier to hurl loaded labels at the other side than to actually engage the content of their "statements."

"Anti-semite!" = "Shut up!"

[roughsatori]

49. It is rumored that it was leaked by his team

That one of them disliked the screenplays anti-semitism. Also, his spokesperson said that they had used the writings of a 19th century nun. When it was made know that Emmerich, in her writings, also wrote about Jews bathing in Christian infants blood--his spokesperson dropped that claim--but it worried some about what the movie might bring.

But I do agree with you. The idea of trying to prevent a movie from being shown that you have not seen is wrong. I once broke up a relationship over this issue. The person I was dating had formed a group to picket "Basic Instinct" before it had even been shown. I told him that those tactics seemed wing-nut to me--and we never dated again.

Here's a link to a Frank Rich article where he expresses his concerns: http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/generic.cgi?template=articleprint.tmplh&ArticleId=104828

[Township75]

3. I agree.*

*

[mopaul]

4. don't screw with jesus

i remember when scorsese's 'last temptation of christ' hit the scene.
before it even came out, thousands of pissed off bornagains and catholic radicals lined up in front of theaters, without even having seen the film, condeming it as blasphemy. this happens all the time.

when richard attenborough was making 'ghandi', radical hindus demanded that ghandi not be portrayed by a man or actor of flesh, but rather shown on screen only as a ball of ethereal light.

you don't wanna go around insulting religious groups by deviating from the official dogma. if you knock the pope, expect hell. if you say nasty things about the virgin mary, expect more hell.

my understanding is the gibson is being attacked by certain jewish anti-defamation types, who don't like the portrayal of the jews of jesus's time. there are still a lot of americans who feel that jews, having been the ones who ordered christ killed by romans, are still accursed as the ones who betrayed jesus. and other fundamentalists will surely come forward complaining about the portrayal of jesus.
you can't win with these people.

[DemLikr]

9. Love the casting of the "ethereal light."

I wonder who its agent is?

Loved "Last Temptation of Christ," by the way. It's the most moving life of Christ portrayal I've seen.

[J B]

5. A lot of people will say people like Gibson...

Shouldn't be free to propagate such heretical religious views.

But there's reasons why freedom of religion was made a constitutional right...

[J B]

6. A lot of people will say people like Gibson...

Sorry for accidental double post.

[charlie]

10. I'm hazy on the details

but I read an account from one of the historians in the imbroglio a while back -- from what I remember this has nothing to do with artistry, but with the historical accuracy Mel promised. Copies of the script were leaked and a few were forwarded to a number of biblical experts for their opinion. The movie's translator (for the conversion into Latin and Aramaic) contacted these experts and acted as their liason with Mel's production company. So it seems Mel's company was aware of how they came in possession of the script and was hoping for favorable opinions. It was only after they returned the documents with many innaccuracies annotated that the public vilification of these historians began.

[DemLikr]

12. it is impossible to render a "historically accurate" version of

any past event.

The representation will always be colored by the creator's personality, background, life view, etc. I think Gibson erred in pushing the "accuracy" angle. No matter how hard one tries, such events are by necessity impossible to reproduce exactly.

Without a time machine that is.

[charlie]

15. Of course

But the criticisms aren't just haggling over nits in the historical accounts, Gibson's screenplay is wildly divergent from what is known about Jesus. Supposedly the particulars of Christ's Passion are drawn not from the Gospels, but from a vision of a Catholic mystic who lived many centuries later. So Mel cannot claim that he's merely taken a bit of artistic license with the story.

[dfong63]

44. wildly divergent from "what is known", according to whom?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. You're Free To Paint Whatever You Want

but people are free to criticize it.

As I understand it, Mel Gibson belongs to a heterodox branch of Catholicism that rejects Vatican 2 which among other things promotes reconcilaition between Jews and Christians.

Why would any one oppose this reconciliation.

I think all people of good will would would be down with that.

From what I hear Mel Gibson's passion play will resurrect lots of old anti-semitic canards.

[DemLikr]

13. How about waiting to see the finished painting when I exhibit it?

Gibson's detractors are attempting to change his work while it is still in process...which is where I draw the line.

I recall the pre-release hysteria over "Last Temptation of Christ." When I finally saw it I was flabbergasted at how it had been misrepresented and flat-out lied about by its opponents.

I oppose anyone who attempts to proactively alter another person's creative product. Fuck em.

[NashVegas]

14. I Don't Think That's What DemLkr's Getting At

Of course people are free to criticize it *when it's done.*

The way the movie business is, you don't get to work on a film off in your own little universe. There's always gossip going out and about, and studio hacks to contend with. But Mel is putting up his own money, so who's to tell him what to put or not to put in the picture, unless he asks for their opinion?

I don't know if I'll see the movie or not, but that hardly matters. Gibson's not an elected representative, he's an artist (though some may disagree on the relative merits of his art). If you want someone to make the movie you want made, DIY or put the money up for someone else to do it for you.

[DemBones DemBones]

55. It seems that you are assuming Gibson opposes reconciliation

between Jews and Catholics. Do you have any facts to back that up?

A lot of Catholics object to some of the changes that have come about due to Vatican II. There's nothing anti-Semitic about preferring the traditional Latin Mass, insisting that only a priest should give Communion to worshippers, or thinking that Catholics should abstain from meat on Fridays.

You say "From what I hear Mel Gibson's passion play will resurrect lots of old anti-semitic canards." Where have you heard that? Who said it? Why are they believable?

I think the real problem is that Gibson is making a movie to promote Christianity and a lot of non-Christians object to that to the extent that they want to deny Gibson his right to free speech.

[Classical_Liberal]

64. He is a follower of Bishop Le Febra

and they are not RC anymore, as Le Febra and his followers were excommunicated over 15 yrs ago. They did leave because of Vatican II but people who object to Vatican II tend to do it over latin mass and so forth, not over jews, so this really is stupid. I don't believe for a second this is self promotion on Mel's part either. Being declared antisemitic is the kiss of Death even if it turns out not to be true. Look at Moran, and McKinney.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

16. i agree 100%

[whoYaCallinAlib]

17. If you don't agree with Gibson't work, DON'T GO SEE THE MOVIE.

It's a free country. Gibson can make any movie he wants . . . and if somebody doesn't want to see it, they can do something else. What's the point of bitching about it?

It's kinda like the Rush Limbaugh show. I hear people bitching about it on this board all the time. I don't understand, if they don't like it, why don't they stop listening to it? I absolutely refuse to listen to that self-loving, hate-filled, piece of garbage myself. But I do get a big chuckle everytime someone posts "today's Limbaugh sponsors" so they can be boycotted. Hey boycotters, how's the boycott working for you?

The first Amendment must be protected at all costs.

[pstokely]

18. the 1st amendment does not guarantee the right to be heard

or the right to a nationally syndicated hate radio show

[whoYaCallinAlib]

20. Great, if nobody listens to Rush, they'll take his show off the air.

That's how a free society works. If people listen, radio programs stay on the air. If they don't, they take them off. It's all about money. What might be more effective than boycotting Rush's sponsors (because I for one don't think it's working, but I could be wrong), is to convince the 20 million or so brain dead morons who listen to him daily to stop listening to him. I don't know how you do that either. We may just be stuck with the asshole for another 15 years.

[pstokely]

23. he could be on for another 50 for all I care

I'm not buying any products heard during on his

[whoYaCallinAlib]

24. Good for you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. The Ultimate Straw Man Argument

Mel Gibson can make a movie reviving the anti-semitic blood libel canard if he wants but the First Amendment gives us the right to call him on it.

[DemLikr]

30. So...just go see it when it comes out and THEN comment on it.

How is this pre-opening movie-trashing any different than denouncing a painting before one has seen it at the gallery opening, or at least seen a picture of it, or at LEAST talked to someone else who knows someone who thinks they heard of someone once whose sister saw it?

[DemBones DemBones]

57. Aren't you the one advancing a straw man? You assume that

Gibson IS making a movie "reviving the anti-semitic blood libel canard."

Why not wait until the movie is released and you see it to judge for yourself?

I've read the hysterical hype against the film and I must say it's unfair to hold Mel Gibson responsible for his elderly father's comments about the scope of the Holocaust being exaggerated. Would you want people to assume that you agree with everything your father says?

[Classical_Liberal]

65. All the reports of those who have seen the movie say this is not so

Oh you have a right to stupidly judge a movie antisemitic withou seeing, but I have a right to make my judgements about it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. He Refused To Let Members of the Jewish Community See It

The only member of the Jewish community to see it was Matt Drudge.

[Classical_Liberal]

83. He refused to let Foxman see it.

So what. Foxman has already made up his mind, and will smear the movie just for shits and grins.

[geomon]

107. Nice....

he did but he didn't.... wow thats quite a trick!

[UTUSN]

21. I Don't Agree with His Wingnut VIEWS and WILL See the Movie

I *like* his WORK while destesting his personal VIEWS and am confounded that somebody who presents so PERSONABLY can possibly have the wingnut beliefs he does. It's like the South Park dudes--------I feel that GIBSON and those dudes OUGHT to be on our side, I just don't understand.

As for not being a customer to opposing persons like LIMBOsevic, O'REILLY, and the like: I don't know myself what my demarcation is, why I DO "monitor" SOME and canNOT stand others (HANNITY, Gordon LIDDY, Oliver NORTH, or Faux&Friends).

As for "refusing" to watch/listen, it's frustrating to me when there's a LIMBO or Tweety or whomever thread and somebody IMMEDIATELY posts, "Why do you even listen/watch (Faux, or whomever). Out of 30,000 DU-ers, there are SOME handful who would grant their participation.

Yay for "The first Amendment must be protected at all costs." Also, his freedom of relgion.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Suppose that you as an artist make a film about RATS

and the narration compares the rats to Jews, as Nazi propaganda films used to do. Shouldn't we be concerned?

According to published reports, Gibson's film was based verbatim on the Gospels account of Jesus's arrest, trial and execution. That alone raises red flags for the Gospels are anti-semitic, and historically inaccurate!

The only historical fact is that a Jewish man referred to as Jesus (Greek for Son of Zeus) was executed by the Romans for opposing the Roman occupation of Israel.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

25. So what are you worried about?

If the movie is inaccurate, you'll have plenty of opportunities to set the record straight, right? Are you advocating censorship?

[DemLikr]

31. Please see my post # 12...and it still remains that you would be unable

to critique my movie about RATS until you had seen it.

There are also "published reports" that Elvis has been sighted recently in Hoboken. I'm sure you don't put much stock in those...none of the movie-trashers has SEEN the film. And Mel is certainly within reason to assume these same folks would only use such an opportunity to predictably trash the movie again.

All this said, let me add that I think Mel Gibson is a booooooooring actor in general, and don't consider myself a Mel fan at all.

I am tossing around this hypothesis in reference to any artist's work in any medium.

Of course these Mel-movie-trashers ought to reflect that their pre-opening tantrums are simply free publicity for the very film they say they object to, which of course they have not seen.

[IndianaGreen]

46. Gibson showed his film to a bunch of people, including Republicans

but he did not invite any Jewish representatives, including the Anti-Defamation League, to the screening.

Why?

[Classical_Liberal]

67. He invited Matt Drudge

who has the same neocon sensiblities as the ADL, and Matt wasn't offended.

[Classical_Liberal]

73. He also invited Democrat Jack Valenti

who said he didn't understand what he uproar was about.

[Classical_Liberal]

68. So what. God probably didn't write the 10 commandments

and nobody raises a big stink about the movie.

[dfong63]

28. i partially agree

to me, a film is more of a commercial product than a work of art, although it certainly has elements of both.

you could liken it to a new model of automobile made by (say) GM, or a new drug by Pfizer. suppose a serious safety defect was discovered during the testing phases (before the product was released). suppose a consumer watchdog group got wind of the problem. to me, it would make perfect sense for the consumer watchdog group to go public with that information, even though the product has not yet been released.

that said, i am skeptical of these charges of "anti-semitism" that have been leveled against Gibson and the film. in a previous thread about this subject, the person who started the thread referred to Gibson as "Gibson (R-hates Jews)". when i challenged him on the question of how he knew that Gibson "hates Jews", he edited his post to "Gibson (R-maybe hates Jews, maybe not, who knows)".

my response to this bullsh*t was deleted by the moderators as a "personal attack", even though all i did was apply the same wording used by the thread originator, to him rather than Mel Gibson.

i think there's a story here that's bigger than this film.

apparently, films are not allowed to portray Jewish characters in anything but a favorable role, lest the creators be branded as "anti-semites". it's fine to have Black villians or Italian villains, Chinese or Japanese, devil-worshippers or Christians; and of course Arab villains are a staple of cinema; but Jews may only be portrayed as heroes (or perhaps victims). why is it OK to have (say) Spielberg make a film like "Indiana Jones temple of doom" that is rife with denigrating racial stereotypes, yet not-OK for Mel Gibson to make a film portraying his interpretation of the story of the crucifixion?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Maybe Mel Gibson

can make a film based on The Protecols Of The Elders Of Zion.

[DemLikr]

33. hmmm...that post added a lot to the discussion.

Actually, such a film would be intriguing, and he would have every right to make it. Just as I reserve the right to stay away from it.

I've never read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but every time I hear of it referred to as this dark diabolical document, it makes me curiouser and curiouser...I think I may read it. Would that be OK with you?

Or do I get that cleared somewhere?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. You Can Read It

In fact you can shave your head, buy a pair of Doc Martens and get a swastika tatooed on your back like Ed Norton's character in American History X.

It's a free country.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. My Bad

I think the tatoo was on his chest.

[DemLikr]

42. Next time I shave my back, I'll do the head too, as well as

implement your other recommendations, before sitting down with a nice hot cup of cocoa to read TPOTEOZ. Thanks for turning me on to this.:eyes:

[dfong63]

40. maybe you could come up with some real evidence

against Gibson, instead of "guilt by speculation".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. I Have Read Articles In The New York Times and The New Republic

and have come to my conclusions about the movie.

New York Times, August 2, 2003 , pg 1

"...It began when several Roman Catholic scholars voiced concern about the project because of Mr. Gibson's affiliation with a splinter Catholic group that rejects the modern papacy and the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which in 1965 (repudiated) the charge of deicide against the Jews."


More from page 3

"A committe of Bible scholars who read a version of the script said it was not true to Scripture or Catholic teaching and that it badly twisted Jewish leaders' role in Jesus' death. The problem, the scholars said, is not that Mr. Gibson is anti-semitic, but this film could unintenionally incite anti-semitic violence."

"One scholar, Sister Mary C. Boyce, a professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York said "When we read the screenplay our sense was this wasn't really something you could fix. All the way through Jews are portrayed as bloodthirsty. We're really concerned that this could be one of the great crises in Christian-Jewish relations."

[IndianaGreen]

50. ADL Statement on Mel Gibson's 'The Passion'

ADL Statement on Mel Gibson's 'The Passion'

New York, NY, June 24, 2003 ... Throughout history Christian dramatizations of the passion, i.e. the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, have fomented anti-Semitic attitudes and violence against the Jewish people. During the past forty years the Roman Catholic and most Protestant churches have issued pastoral and scholarly documents that interpret the death and resurrection of Jesus in their historical and theological contexts. These churches repudiate the teachings that gave rise to Christian accusations that Jews were "Christ killers." They make clear that correct Christian readings and applications of the New Testament must avoid provoking or reinforcing anti-Semitic attitudes and behavior.

<snip>

Based upon the scholars' analysis of the screenplay, ADL has serious concerns regarding the Mr. Gibson's "The Passion" and asks:

• Will the final version of The Passion continue to portray Jews as blood-thirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of Jesus?
• Will it correct the unambiguous depiction of Jews as the ones responsible for the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus? Will it show the power of the rule of imperial Rome-including its frequent use of crucifixion-in first-century Palestine?
• Will the film reject exploiting New Testament passages selectively to weave a narrative that does injustice to the gospels, that oversimplifies history, and that is hostile to Jews and Judaism?
• Will it live up to its promise "to tell the truth?" To do so, the final product must rid itself of fictitious non-scriptural elements (e.g. the high priest's control of Pontius Pilate, the cross built in the Temple at the direction of Jewish religious officials, excessive violence, Jews physically abusing Jesus before the crucifixion, Jews paying "blood money" for the crucifixion), all of which form an inescapably negative picture of Jewish society and leadership.
• Will it portray Jews and the Temple as the locus of evil?

http://www.adl.org/presrele/mise_00/4275_00.asp

[DemBones DemBones]

60. ADL Letter Supporting Daniel Pipes

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Senate Health, Education Labor
and Pensions Committee
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Senator Kennedy:

We are writing to urge you to approve the nomination of Daniel Pipes to the board of the United States Institute of Peace.

Dr. Pipes is a world renowned expert on the Middle East and extremist Islam and provides an important approach and perspective to the challenges facing the United States in the post 9/11 world.

We hope that Dr. Pipes will be given the opportunity to share his expertise and viewpoint as a member of the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace.

Sincerely,

Abraham H. Foxman
National Director

From the ADL's own site:
http://www.adl.org/misc/wahsington_daniel_pipes.asp
*********************************************************************************

For those who may not know the "world-renowned" Daniel Pipes, a good introduction is an article in "Mother Jones"

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2003/22/we_420_01.html

"Daniel Pipes, Peacemaker?

Daniel Pipes says the only path to Middle East peace will come through a total Israeli military victory. So why has President Bush nominated him to the board of the government's leading peace think-tank?"

By Michael Scherer
May 26, 2003

"His solution is simple: The Israeli military must force what Pipes describes as a "change of heart" by the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza -- a sapping of the Palestinian will to fight which can lead to a complete surrender. "How is a change of heart achieved? It is achieved by an Israeli victory and a Palestinian defeat," Pipes continued. "The Palestinians need to be defeated even more than Israel needs to defeat them."

And he's been nominated to the board of the United States Institute of Peace??? Not surprisingly, liberal Jews and Muslims are not amused. The Christian Coalition supports Pipes, as does Frank Gaffney.

Speaking at a Zionist conference, Pipes referred to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, saying:

"My nomination is merely a stepping stone in their assertion of power to achieve a militant Islamic state," Pipes said. "To put it more graphically: the substitution of the Constitution by the Koran."

"Pipes frequently issues such warnings, declaring that militant American Muslims intend to mount a second American Revolution, and impose Islamic law. In this context, he has criticized Bush for suggesting in public that Islam is a peaceful religion. "All Muslims, unfortunately, are suspect," he wrote in a recent book, though he added that only "10 to 15 percent" of Muslims are militant. If Muslims have jobs in the military, law enforcement or diplomacy, Pipes states in another column, "they need to be watched for connections to terrorism." He also finds Muslim immigration problematic: "All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most."

"Pipes is also a founder of Campus Watch, a website that compiles public files on college professors who are critical of Israel or certain aspects of American Foreign policy. Several weeks ago he penned a column arguing that the Bush administration should install a "democratically-minded Iraqi strongman" in Iraq. In another column, he asserted that the U.S. had no "moral obligation" to rebuild countries like Iraq and Afghanistan after an invasion. "

***********************************************************************************

My point, of course, is that since the ADL supports a racist reactionary like Daniel Pipes, why should anyone put any credence in the ADL's criticism of Mel Gibson?

Maybe this will be a great movies, maybe it'll be terrible. Maybe it will even be anti-Semitic. But I'm not trusting the ADL on this.

[IndianaGreen]

62. Red herring. This thread is not about Pipes

And that was a group of scholars that the ADL cited.

[Classical_Liberal]

72. The ADL under Foxman would consider you antisemitic

for your criticism of Israel. They also helped to smear McKinney.

[DemBones DemBones]

97. YOU brought up the ADL so I addressed their lack of credibility.

There are other reasons to mistrust the ADL in addition to their support of the loathsome Daniel Pipes.

[Classical_Liberal]

69. So the New Testement is the same as "Protocols of Elders of Zion?"

?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. Fucked Up Half Baked Straw Man Argument

A group of eminment Catholic scholars have criticized Mel Gibson's interpetation of Christ's crucifixion as ahistorical.

They have said that Gibson's depiction of Jews as Christ killers will harm relations betwen Christians and Jews and subject Jews to new prejudice.

That's Catholic scholars not me.

[Classical_Liberal]

75. The Bible isn't historical, and if those scholars claim it is

I don't think much of their scholarship. You are the one who made the strawman arguments, you are arguing that a movie you haven't seen. Who knows if they were really looking at the script. He is and excommunicated CAtholics, so the frankly the Catholics would have an incentive to nitpick as well.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

109. actually, now that you mention it...

they have both been utilized against Jews...

[DemLikr]

32. U R clearly an anti-semite. How dare you make valid points such as

you just did!!!!!

;) :D

[jagguy]

34. right on

Mel is free to make any film he wishes. So far they've been pretty good.

[gulliver]

36. History vs. story.

My main problem with the Gibson movie is that he appears not to have done his historical homework. Rather, he apparently didn't budget for history experts for a film that he claims is historically accurate.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030728&s=fredriksen072803

[berry]

37. Here's a link to The New Republic article by one of the scholars.

http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030728&s=fredriksen072803

It's pretty clear that the script was not stolen--you may have views about interference in the work of an artist, but it looks like Gibson let the script go out in the hopes of getting rave reviews. And when he instead got criticism, he (or his agents) smeared the critics, or tried to. Anyway, you might want to read the article (I admit that TNR is quick to jump on any hint of anti-Semitism, but the author is an independent academic.) I excerpted only 5 paragraphs (as per DU rules) of this long and very informative article. I don't know if you can access it without a subscription--the current issue is free, but this is from last week. Any, try it--the link is to the "print this" page and may bypass any blocks...

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO GIBSON.
Mad Mel
by Paula Fredriksen

Post date: 07.25.03
Issue date: 07.28.03

<<Mel Gibson's newest historical drama, on the death of Jesus Christ, is not anti-Semitic. So complete is his commitment to historical authenticity that he has eschewed subtitles, and will tell his story entirely in its original ancient languages, Aramaic and Latin. Gibson bankrolled the entirety of his forthcoming film, and he co-wrote the script; but the Holy Spirit directed it. "The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film," Gibson has recounted when asked about The Passion. "I was just directing traffic." Unfortunately, a group of Catholic and Jewish scholars, alert to Gibson's effort, engaged the services of a mole, ... illegally obtained a copy of the script, and then began to pressure Gibson to revise his story to conform to their own ideas about history and theology. Gibson's lawyers quashed their attempted extortion, however. The scholars withdrew their criticisms. And Mel's movie, in various private screenings, has already begun to move hearts and minds.

All the sentences above are culled from recent articles in assorted media--The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, NewsMax.com, Zenit, Religion News Service, the New York Daily News, Australia's Sun-Herald. Some of the statements are true. Gibson did co-write the script. His company, Icon, did produce it. His attorney did accuse critics of attempting extortion. And at least one viewer at a private screening in June, moved to tears and prayer, has called the film "a miracle." Whether the Holy Ghost helped out during the shoot I cannot say. All the other statements, I do know, are false.
....

You do not have to be Jewish to find anti-Semitism alarming and morally repulsive. Plenty of non-Jews--Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist--repudiate anti-Semitism and condemn it. But it is worth remembering that Catholics have an additional reason to combat anti-Semitism. It is that popes and bishops, in plenum councils, have issued official ("magisterial") teachings against it. Anti-Semitism violates magisterial instruction touching on biblical interpretation, on the theological significance of Christ's sacrifice, and on Catholic-Jewish relations.

And so, within two weeks of the appearance of these articles, Icon was contacted by Eugene Fisher, associate director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Fisher's counterpart at the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Eugene Korn, also weighed in. They assembled an ad hoc group of professors-- four Catholics, two Jews, all scholars of the New Testament--to review the script together with Fisher and Korn, who themselves hold doctorates. Shortly thereafter, at their invitation, I also joined the group.
....
The script, when we got it, shocked us. Nothing of Gibson's published remarks, or of Fulco's and Gibson's private assurances, had prepared us for what we saw. Each scholar, independent of the others, wrote his or her own comments on the document. We then boiled them down, bulleted our points, and made the whole discussion easy to digest. The first section of our report explained the historical connection between passion plays and the slaughter of European Jews, the dress rehearsals for the Shoah. Then we summarized our responses to the script. We pinpointed its historical errors and--again, since Gibson has so trumpeted his own Catholicism--its deviations from magisterial principles of biblical interpretation. We concluded with general recommendations for certain changes in the script. Four short appendices--two historical, two directly script-related--traversed this same terrain from different directions. A final appendix provided excerpts from official Catholic teaching.Receiving criticism is never easy. As teachers and as scholars, who regularly give and get criticism, we knew this. We also knew that we were asking Gibson to revise his script substantially. We knew that we were working against his enthusiasm, his utter lack of knowledge, and his investment of time and money. We pinned our hopes on his avowed interest in historicity, on his evident willingness to hear what we had to say, and on his decency. In retrospect, we also functioned with a naïveté that is peculiar to educators: the belief that, once an error is made plain, a person will prefer the truth.>>

[DemLikr]

43. thanks for the link, berry. I'll read it!

:*

[dfong63]

45. full article requires subscription

i could not read the whole article, because the full version requires a subscription. however, i note that the parts posted by berry (beyond what is visible with no subscription) do not contain any concrete examples of this despicable "anti-semitism" that is so luridly proclaimed in the first section of the article. it's mostly rambling fulminations and generalities.

and it doesn't address the question of "how" these scholars got hold of the draft script.

[charlie]

52. Non-subscription link

http://www.moviecitynews.com/notepad/2003/030722b_tue.html

[berry]

56. Thanks, charlie! Wish I'd seen this before posting below. Oh, well.

n/t

[IndianaGreen]

81. This article points out the objection I was raising to Gibson's film

According to published reports, Gibson's film was based verbatim on the Gospels account of Jesus's arrest, trial and execution. That alone raises red flags for the Gospels are anti-semitic, and historically inaccurate!

The only historical fact is that a Jewish man referred to as Jesus (Greek for Son of Zeus) was executed by the Romans for opposing the Roman occupation of Israel.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=117372&mesg_id=117372#117661

The article that you graciously provided the free link for has the following:

The fact that Jesus was publicly executed by the method of crucifixion can only mean that Rome wanted him dead: Rome alone had the sovereign authority to crucify. Moreover, the point of a public execution, as opposed to a private murder, was to communicate a message. Crucifixion itself implies that Pilate was concerned about sedition. Jesus's death on the cross was Pilate's way of telling Jerusalem's Jews, who had gathered in the holy city for the paschal holiday, to desist from any thought of rebellion. The Gospel writers, each in his own way, introduce priestly initiative to apologize for Roman fiat, and the evidence suggests that the priests must have been somehow involved. But the historical fact behind the Passion narratives--Jesus's death on a cross--points to a primarily Roman agenda.

http://www.moviecitynews.com/notepad/2003/030722b_tue.html

[w4rma]

103. A possible scenario

The Roman government and the Jewish high priests could have been working together to quell a potential rebelion by the Jewish followers.

Jesus was definitely a politically dangerous person at that time, and back then the folks who became priests were usually of the aristocratcy for the power that the church had over folks.

I'm sure that money and power worked back then alot like they work now.

Note, I'm not putting blame on the Jewish people, I'm pointing out the potential for manipulation by the Roman government working with the (maybe?) aristocratic Jewish high priests to manipulate enough folks to get the politically dangerous Jesus out of the way.

I also, of course, have no idea if Mel Gibson wrote his movie in this way.

[w4rma]

105. On second thought, after reading this article I think something is fishy

http://www.moviecitynews.com/notepad/2003/030722b_tue.html

[berry]

54. OK I'll try to explain--

The self-appointed group of critics wrote to Icon (the production company, I think) and got in touch with the Jesuit priest who oversaw the script (he's called "libretist" at one point). He's also doing the translations to English from the Aramaic and Latin. Anyway, he sent the script to the group with the knowledge of Gibson. Mind you, this is what the article alleges--I have no proof, and I do not side with the critics against artistic freedom. I just thought the article should be on the table as part of the discussion. It's a loooong article, but I'll go now and see if I can pick up a few paras with some specifics (wish I'd known that the first few paras were available--I'd not have wasted my limit on them--sorry).

Well, I've re-skimmed the article, and it doesn't give too many specifics. When they received the script they signed a confidentiality agreement (which tends to disprove allegations of theft), and I think that's why the author is careful. Mostly the article is about the dust-up, and who is involved. A lot is between different factions of the Catholic church.

Fredriksen makes 3 main points--1) the Gospels disagree about the details, and so for Gibson to claim that his version is "factual" is hard for scholars to swallow. Her examples: "In Mark, Jesus's last meal is a Passover seder; in John, Jesus is dead before the seder begins. Mark and Matthew feature two night "trials" before a full Jewish court, and a dramatic charge of "blasphemy" from the high priest. Luke has only a single trial, early in the morning, and no high priest. John lacks this Jewish trial scene entirely. The release of Barabbas is a "Roman custom" in Mark, a "Jewish custom" in John. Between the four evangelists, Jesus speaks three different last lines from the cross. And the resurrection stories vary even more."

2) The Gospels also aren't clear about why Jesus was crucified at all. If Jewish leaders wanted him dead, they could have arranged it, and even if they asked Rome to do it, Rome could have used other methods. "The fact that Jesus was publicly executed by the method of crucifixion can only mean that Rome wanted him dead: Rome alone had the sovereign authority to crucify. Moreover, the point of a public execution, as opposed to a private murder, was to communicate a message. Crucifixion itself implies that Pilate was concerned about sedition. Jesus's death on the cross was Pilate's way of telling Jerusalem's Jews, who had gathered in the holy city for the paschal holiday, to desist from any thought of rebellion. The Gospel writers, each in his own way, introduce priestly initiative to apologize for Roman fiat, and the evidence suggests that the priests must have been somehow involved. But the historical fact behind the Passion narratives--Jesus's death on a cross--points to a primarily Roman agenda."

3) "as The Wall Street Journal, the film's unofficial website, and numerous news articles since have all mentioned--Gibson used Emmerich's fantasies for his supposedly "historical" script. Since the Boston College posting has brought this piece of the story forward, Paul Lauer, Icon's director of marketing, has denied that Gibson used Emmerich's writings. But he had: the nun's lurid images figured prominently in the version of the screenplay that we read and that Gibson was concerned about as recently as April 24." Here is a description of "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."
4) Here is the only other detail mentioned: "Satan inciting the executioners at their task; "a vicious riot of frenzied hatred between Romans and Jews with the Savior on the ground in the middle of it getting it from both sides"; the post-crucifixion Mary-and-Jesus pietà--no such scenes exist in the Gospels. But they are all in the screenplay that we saw."

So, this article doesn't really answer your need for detail. But Fredriksen mentions that she and some others have put up a webpage on Emmerich on the Boston College website, so you may find more there. I'm too tired to do that now. (I don't have a lot of emotion on this topic--and I do agree with other posters that free speech is good. But the closing para of this article worries about the results of this movie being shown not only in the US but in parts of Europe where anti-Semitism is on the rise. A dispute where both sides have a point--but this article tries to show that Gibson et al. are trying smear and scare (legal threats) tactics to shut the critics up. Hardly upholding free speech. Oh well. I'm outta here.)

[Classical_Liberal]

70. He isn't a Catholic

but even if he were I doubt he church would endorce the view that the bible is antisemitic.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. Let Me Quote Mike Tyson Quoting Mao

"Before you speak. Investigate."

Nobody is saying the Bible is anti-semitic.

Hell, the Jews wrote most of it.

Please read

A group of eminent Catholic scholars have criticized Mel Gibson's interpetation of the final days of Christ.

And, please Matt Druge no more speaks for the Jewish community than he does speak for the gay community which he is also a part of.

[Classical_Liberal]

79. Post 22 clearly says the Gospels are antisemitic

and that this movie is antisemitic because it is based on the Gospels.I wouldn't have invited Foxman either. He would say it was even if it wasn't like he did to McKinney. Foxman clearly believes if your dad is an antisemite you inherit he condition. Atleast if Foxman doesn't see it, the movie will get a reputation from objective people first. Jack Valenti a good Democrat said the uproar was stupid.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

82. Why Wouldn't You Invite Foxman

if you have nothing to hide.

[Classical_Liberal]

84. Because Foxman believes Mel is an antisemite because his father is

and will say the movie is even if it isn't. He has already smeared McKinney as an antisemite just because of her dad. He is a proven liar.

[IndianaGreen]

85. The Gospels are anti-Semitic, and it is not just me ranting...

The evangelists wrote some forty to seventy years after Jesus's execution. Their literary problems are compounded by historical ones: it is difficult to reconstruct, from their stories, why Jesus was crucified at all. If the priests in Jerusalem had wanted him dead, Jesus could have been privately murdered or killed offstage. If the priests had wanted him killed but were constrained from arranging this themselves, they could have asked Pilate to do the job. If the Roman prefect had simply been doing a favor for the priests, he could easily have arranged Jesus's death by any of the considerable means at his disposal (assassination, murder in prison, and so on).

The fact that Jesus was publicly executed by the method of crucifixion can only mean that Rome wanted him dead: Rome alone had the sovereign authority to crucify. Moreover, the point of a public execution, as opposed to a private murder, was to communicate a message. Crucifixion itself implies that Pilate was concerned about sedition. Jesus's death on the cross was Pilate's way of telling Jerusalem's Jews, who had gathered in the holy city for the paschal holiday, to desist from any thought of rebellion. The Gospel writers, each in his own way, introduce priestly initiative to apologize for Roman fiat, and the evidence suggests that the priests must have been somehow involved. But the historical fact behind the Passion narratives--Jesus's death on a cross--points to a primarily Roman agenda.

http://www.moviecitynews.com/notepad/2003/030722b_tue.html

[Classical_Liberal]

88. Nobody interprets the gospels that way but the Aryan Nations

The bible says Jesus died for the sins of humanity. We are all responsible, not just he Jews. It also said he died under Pilot, who was a roman, and a Roman crucified him and a Roman stuck a sword in his side to make sure he was dead. It is the interpretations that can be antisemitic. None of the bible is historical, and that doesn't make it antisemitic. Is the old testement antisemitic, because it depicts jews as being so sinful that God had to give them the 10 commandments? Let's not forget what happened to Midianites, and the Canaanites. The old testement could be used to demonize the Jewish people more than anything in the New Testement, and you don't demand Jews abondone it. None of that is historical either.

[DemBones DemBones]

104. Who else is ranting that the Gospels are anti-Semitic? I read the

article you cited and can't find any place where the author says the Gospels are anti-Semitic. I had never in my life heard this accusation of the Gospels being anti-Semitic until you made the charge in another thread. It does not fit in with anything I was ever taught and I've studied the Bible with Southern Baptists, Quakers, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Catholics (not in mixed groups, either, but within the faith structures of each of those churches.)

I was astounded at the way your source, Paula Fredriksen, chose to end her article. She wrote:

"When violence breaks out, Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to."

Is she hoping that there will be violence to prove her point? Are people who keep talking up the movie's alleged anti-Semitism hoping this will spark massive religious conflict? Or do they merely want censorship in this country?

[Dob Bole]

53. Gibson's movie is Anti-Whitey! Censor it!!

Give me a break. THe movie also shows that some Romans were cruel 2000 years ago. Is this movie anti-whitey? Should we imply that since a few Romans made irresponsible decisions, that all white people are the same?

The ADL are shooting themselves in the foot with this one.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. If You Read The Entire Thread And Links

you would see much of the criticism comes from Catholic theologians not Jews.

[DemLikr]

91. Oh boy...now THERE'S a group of credible folks.

The Catholic church protects itself first and foremost as a financial and political power. While I don't believe a theologian's position is completely compromised simply because of his status as a Catholic, I hardly think it's an indication of objectivity and authority.

Besides, the Catholics who want to interfere haven't seen the fucking film EITHER.

[w4rma]

102. Acutally, the Catholic historians read a leaked script (n/t)

[robbedvoter]

58. Oh? Gibson is an artist now? I guess that's why he pre-screened

the movie to all the wingnut pundits in advance - I must've missed the artistic purpose there. Just in case the gay marriage does not do enough to detract from war, recession and 9.11 treason, blaming the Jews for killing Christ ought to add some spice to the debate here. I don't even dare to click "view all"

[DemLikr]

59. Of course he is. Artists can make "bad" art too, can't they?

"Mad Max 2- Beyond Thunderdome" is in many ways the celluloid version of the Mona Lisa, didn't you know?;-)

[DemBones DemBones]

61. You're spot on about this -- it's about freedom,

artistic freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of religion.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. That's A Red Herring

Nobody said he can't make the movie.

Mel Gibson is perfectly entitled to make a movie that depicts Jews as Christ-killers.

And people of good will are entitled to criticize it. No, it is incumbent for people of good will to criticize it.

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

-Edmund Burke

[Classical_Liberal]

77. Those who have seen the movie said he didn't

so you are criticizing him for something that hasn't transpired. I don't trust he New Republicans for my news either. They are on the record for using the race card.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

78. Documentation Please

When did TNR play the race card?

It was in the New York Times also

Can they be trusted

After all the Times is owned by J-e-w-s.

[Classical_Liberal]

80. I have to prove to Al Copone, that Moran is a gangster.

. I guess you think McKinney should be punished for her dad spelling out Jews as well. Not to mention you are obviously implying I am an antisemite.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

86. We

are not responsible for our father's actions.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. I'm Tired Of This Debate

If I want to argue Mel Gibson's credentials or lack there of as a theologian I'll go lucianne.com


OUT

[DemLikr]

93. bye bye

thanks for taking part

[DemLikr]

92. Why do you insist that because some Jews played a part in that

killing 2,000 years ago, it somehow marks all Jews everywhere, forever as "Christ killers?"

The Aryan nation and the KKK no more speak for me than does the Catholic church.

I am of German heritage, born in Kansas in 1957 to parents who were also both born in the U.S. By your logic I am a "Jew-killer" because of what took place in Germany during the Nazi era 12 years before my conception. It's just nuts.

Why do you put such credence in the "blood guilt" bullshit of fringe, REAL jew-haters?

[IndianaGreen]

89. What sort of freedom is there in inciting hatred of Jews?

Not even the Catholic Church endorses this twisted view of history, one in which Jews are once again the victims of the blood libel of Christ killing:

Those four of us have posted a review of these events on the Boston College website. We have also posted there an analysis of 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.

Emmerich was not writing history. She was having visions. But--as The Wall Street Journal, the film's unofficial website, and numerous news articles since have all mentioned--Gibson used Emmerich's fantasies for his supposedly "historical" script. Since the Boston College posting has brought this piece of the story forward, Paul Lauer, Icon's director of marketing, has denied that Gibson used Emmerich's writings. But he had: the nun's lurid images figured prominently in the version of the screenplay that we read and that Gibson was concerned about as recently as April 24.

http://www.moviecitynews.com/notepad/2003/030722b_tue.html

[Classical_Liberal]

90. We won't know for sure until the movie comes out!

This is abut innocent until proven guilty actually, and no I don't trust Foxman or the media.

[DemLikr]

94. But then the detractors would miss out on all the fun of outrage and

self-righteousness, and appearances on all the talk shows, and fund-raising etc.

Faux controversies like Gibson's allegedly "anti-semitic" movie are great material for hysterical direct mail pieces carrying urgent appeals to "stop Jew hating."

It's always about money.

In the end, I'd still kick all the fuckers out of my painting studio.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[salmonhorse]

101. Otherwise check out Gibson in...

Gallipoli ~ you'll be gaur-en-teed to go limp for a month ~

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/Gallipoli-1008074/

[salmonhorse]

108. Only seems fair after an evening out with my gay friends...@ Faces,

in The Lavender Dist of Sacto, Pyramid Brewery, K St Mall, and dirty Martini' back at their place until 1:45am watching gay porn & Queer as Folk with Pixie. Clearly a, "You had to be there" kind of a post to say the very least shall we say...

"Judge a book not by it's cover" is the way that I was raised ~

Without mentioning here, 'Keep your powder dry' & 'Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes...'

[Rex]

111. Stay tuned for Mel's next movie

The Last Temptations of Mad Max. Staring Robin Williams as Jesus Christ, who comes back to a post-apocalyptic world where oil is more precious than the 10 commandments.