I Agree w/Krauthammer—Please Kill Me!

[Torgo4]

’Course he waited over a week to sound off! Coward!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31980-2004Mar4?language=printer

...His Leni Riefenstahl defense -- I had other intentions -- does not wash. Of course he had other intentions: evangelical, devotional, commercial. When you retell a story in which the role of the Jews is central, and take care to give it the most invidious, pre-Vatican II treatment possible, you can hardly claim, "I didn't mean it."

His other defense is that he is just telling the Gospel story. Nonsense. There is no single Gospel story of the Passion; there are subtle differences among the four accounts. Moreover, every text lends itself to interpretation. There have been dozens of cinematic renditions of this story, from Griffith to Pasolini to Zeffirelli. Gibson contradicts his own literalist defense when he speaks of his right to present his artistic vision. Artistic vision means personal interpretation.

And Gibson's personal interpretation is spectacularly vicious. Three of the Gospels have but a one-line reference to Jesus's scourging. The fourth has no reference at all. In Gibson's movie this becomes 10 minutes of the most unremitting sadism in the history of film. Why 10? Why not five? Why not two? Why not zero, as in Luke? Gibson chose 10.

In none of the Gospels does the high priest Caiaphas stand there with his cruel, impassive fellow priests witnessing the scourging. In Gibson's movie they do. When it comes to the Jews, Gibson deviates from the Gospels -- glorying in his artistic vision -- time and again. He bends, he stretches, he makes stuff up. And these deviations point overwhelmingly in a single direction -- to the villainy and culpability of the Jews....

[PATRICK]

1. Riefenstahl is an excellent

comparison. her later, supposedly "redemptive" work among African tribesmen hearkens back to the same Nietzscheian style and emotion and ideality that mark all her work as as an actress or documentary maker. Even contrition couldn't change the Muse. If Riefenstahl had purer thoughts beyond her predisposition toward Germanic Aryan fantasy that mean nothing in light of what she knew was doing at the time, the actions resulting from her enthusiasms. The results.

Even if Gibson hadn't spouted ideology so loosely this consistent career would have led you to expect almost everything except latent anti-Semitism. They may be two different things but one recalls the other. The glorification of William Wallace is further tainted besides the whopping historical inaccuracies and whitewash.

Many many examples of inaccuracies and slant. Luke was slanted away from blaming Rome for political reasons of his own time. Yet that attitude is cherry picked to whitewash Rome in the same fashion for darker motivations. The other evangelists' slant is similar rewarped and rewrapped according to Gibson's highly personal expectations.
And serves the interest on no one for any good purpose.

[Maeve]

2. My sympathies--I felt the same way!

But then even a blind pig can find an acorn now and then (or, a stopped clock is right once or twice a day; take your pick!)