no thread on The Passion yet???

[Son-of-a-Weizen]

Just saw O'Reilly talking about it on tv. Seemed to be implying that the Jews were out to get Mel. Actually that may be unfair. Perhaps I should say that I inferred from what he said that the Jews were out to get Mel.

Based on this New York Times piece....I think it's safe to say that you inferred correctly. Maybe they can cut a deal with Gibson? He'll drop his plans to produce Christ: The Sequel, Christ Dies Hard and Christ Takes Tel Aviv....and Hollywood can shelve plans to produce another planned miniseries set to broadcast on Easter and Christmas called Christian Holocaust Guilt Parts 303-370?

February 26, 2004

New Film May Harm Gibson's Career

By SHARON WAXMAN

The New york Times

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?"

But many non-Jews in Hollywood have also been unhappy about the religious divisions that the movie has exposed and could deepen. A public relations expert who usually works closely with Newmarket, which is distributing the film, said she declined to work on the film, though she is Roman Catholic. "This kind of thing tends to bring out the worst in people," she said, insisting that her name not be used.

The director David O. Russell, who described himself as areligious, said that although he had not seen the film, he was disturbed by the prospect that "The Passion" could feed anti-Semitism. "There are so many wonderfully provocative things about Jesus' life and death that challenge us to be better people," he said. "If it stirs anti-Semitism, then what a wasted opportunity."

Melisa Richter, a publicist who worked for one of the largest Christian movie production houses in the country, Cloud Ten Pictures, wrote in an e-mail message that the film "feeds into the culture of anti-Semitism that is out there, repeating it again and again in a popular format (the film medium), lacking vital historical context and background."

Several prominent people interviewed for this article said they were curious about the film but would not buy tickets to see it.

Still, some of Mr. Gibson's Jewish friends have been defending him and the movie. The producer Dean Devlin, who is Jewish, said, "It's a phenomenal movie about love and forgiveness, and I personally didn't find it anti-Semitic whatsoever."

Mr. Devlin said that he thought those in Hollywood who were angry would get over it. "I think it's a big issue today, as the movie is opening, but over time it will be seen as one of many beautiful renditions of the story," he said. "My hunch is this will pass, this film will be remembered as a beautiful film, and Mel will go back to making movies. That's my hope."

Alan Nierob, Mr. Gibson's publicist, is himself the child of Holocaust survivors. "I think Hollywood appreciates good art and will embrace the talent of a filmmaker," Mr. Nierob said. "I don't see a negative reaction."

[Alexander]

Is that not the bottom line designation to call oneself a Christian--the belief that Jesus was the Son of God, and that He died for our sins? So if that's really the case, then whomever was responsible for bringing about the crucifixtion was simply playing the role assigned to them by fate...

By fate?! Fate nothing! If, indeed, Jesus Christ was the Son of God sent to redeem our sins, then Judas Iscariot, the Jews, and the Romans - everybody who helped nail the sucker up, in other words - were playing a role that was assigned by no less a figure than God Himself! That's why I could never figure out the stuff about Judas' "betrayal" or the "murder" of Christ by the Jews...If Jesus was truly the Son of God (and could walk on water, heal the sick, etc.) then there's no WAY anybody could kill him unless he specifically WANTED to be killed. Wasn't that the point of the sacrifice? That Jesus LET himself be killed?

Can't have it both ways, guys. Either the big J died as a part of a larger plan, which absolves everybody involved (it was preordained, right? Didn't Jesus announce at the Last Supper that he would be betrayed to his death?), or he didn't, in which case he wasn't all-powerful. This is the great thing about religion. It doesn't make any sense when you try to work it out, so you're supposed to accept it - contradictions and all - on faith.

Edited February 27, 2004 by Alexander

[Alexander]

Report: Woman dies watching 'Passion'

Thursday, February 26, 2004 Posted: 10:55 AM EST (1555 GMT)

CHICAGO, Illinois (Reuters) -- A woman died of an apparent heart attack Wednesday while watching the climactic crucifixion scene in "The Passion of the Christ" at a morning showing in Wichita, Kansas, a television station reported.

The film was stopped and a nurse in attendance went to the woman's side, KAKE-TV in Wichita reported.

"It was the highest emotional part of the movie," a spokeswoman for the station said. A crew from the station was at the special showing, which was sponsored by the ClearChannel Radio chain.

The Wichita Eagle newspaper, on its Web site, identified the woman as Peggy Scott, 56, a sales manager for two local radio stations.

Employees at KAKE-TV said they knew the woman as Peggy Law, adding they did not think she had any pre-existing health problems.

The woman was pronounced dead at a nearby hospital, where a spokesman would only say she had been attending a movie. The county coroner's office said an autopsy would be performed.

Mel Gibson's film, which opened Wednesday, has been both criticized and praised for its violent, bloody portrayal of Christ's final hours.

Woman dies watching 'Passion' - this is total bullshit. I can't believe it. How do they know that the film caused the heart attack?! Unbelievable. It's great that they published this bullshit even before the autopsy.

Maybe they should start making those announcements they used to make at the beginning of all those cheesy seventies slasher flicks:

"ATTENTION!!! Will patrons with heart conditions please leave the theater now! The management cannot be responsible for any deaths that might result from this SHOCKING tale of MURDER and REVENGE!!!"

[DrJ]

Sorry, but I can't stomach Gibson's personal politics or religious views. He's fully entitled to 'em, of course, but that don't mean I want to be repeatedly assaulted by them in the form of a lengthy, over-the-top religious fanatic's vision. The graphic depiction of Jesus' torture/suffering isn't the issue for me - though I don't particularly want to watch that, either - but rather the not so subtle underlying messages that the movie (and the surrounding press hysteria, much of it stoked by Gibson himself) is sending us. Lon's interpretation is right on target here, I'm afraid.

Just to prove I'm fairhanded here as pertaining to Gibson the "artiste" - I actually love the LETHAL WEAPON movies, normally loathe "car chase/explosion" movies but will watch these over and over, a total guilty pleasure. Big, over the top, stupid, violent, you name it - but loads of fun. That's where someone with the lightweight talent Gibson has thrives. He was pretty good in the (totally implausible and equally inane) CONSPIRACY THEORY too, another guilty pleasure. But he's unbearable when he tries to get all "serious," laughably so.

[Simon Weil]

Gibson doesn't empathise with Jews at all. That's the message, to me, of his comments about the Holocaust recently. So then he's doing this subject which, over the centuries, has proved massively inflammatory of Jew-hate. No Jew in his right mind would not be concerned.

Whether it has any long-lasting effect on antisemitism, I doubt. It doesn't feel to me like that, though I can't put my finger on why exactly. The line about "His blood be upon us" is still in the movie (in Aramaic), it just doesn't get translated.

Like someone implied, the movie seems to be "Life of Brian" upside down. Instead of Life of Brian, Death of God.

I predict long-lasting boredom.

Simon Weil

Edited February 27, 2004 by Simon Weil

[connoisseur series500]

Can't have it both ways, guys. Either the big J died as a part of a larger plan, which absolves everybody involved (it was preordained, right? Didn't Jesus announce at the Last Supper that he would be betrayed to his death?), or he didn't, in which case he wasn't all-powerful. This is the great thing about religion. It doesn't make any sense when you try to work it out, so you're supposed to accept it - contradictions and all - on faith.

Well said, Alex.

It's the contradictions and the nonsense of it all that shied me away from my Catholic upbringing. Made absolutely no sense at all.

But then I realize that faith is beyond reason. I can grasp that as well; just not willing to embrace it personally.

[BruceH]

Pardon me if someone's already mentioned this, but here's something I don't get: Why "THE" Christ?? Is there some question as to which Christ the movie is referring to?

[Dr. Rat]

Pardon me if someone's already mentioned this, but here's something I don't get: Why "THE" Christ?? Is there some question as to which Christ the movie is referring to?

Well, Christ isn't a name, it's more like a soubriquet (sp?).

Sort of like asking why Mohammed Ali insisted on being "THE Greatest."

Unfortunately, we're no longer allowed to aspire to this soubriquet: NO one will ever be "The Carbondale Christ," for instance.

--eric

[jazzbo]

Well, "Christ" is really a title, basically "The Annointed One." One would say "The Passion of the Annointed One," or "The Passion of the King" wouldn't you? Jesus is THE CHRIST. He is NOT Christ. Technically speaking that is.

[BruceH]

Hmmmm.

I think I'll listen to the album of the Monk now.

Then some singles of the Bird.

[jazzbo]

Well fine, your point is taken BUT Christ is not his last name (or nickname)! (He probably was never called "Christ" in its real form during his lifetime). His last name, correct me if I'm wrong, would probably be "BarJoseph" or "Josephson" (anglicized a bit).

Edited February 27, 2004 by jazzbo

[Simon Weil]

Pardon me if someone's already mentioned this, but here's something I don't get: Why "THE" Christ??  Is there some question as to which Christ the movie is referring to?

I think "Christ" means Messiah, so The Christ means the actual real Messiah, waited for by the Jews for centuries rather than one of the numerous false ones.

Jesus is a variant on a common Jewish name, I think.

Simon Weil

Edited February 27, 2004 by Simon Weil

[jazzbo]

Yes, Jesus is the Greek version of Yeshua, which interestingly means "God Saves."

[JSngry]

Is that not the bottom line designation to call oneself a Christian--the belief that Jesus was the Son of God, and that He died for our sins?

For me, that's an totally irrelevant point if you're talking it in terms of "historical accuracy". It's as likely, historically, that Jesus moved to France or someplace w/Mary Magdaline, and raised a family as it is that he died and rose again. I think it's the lesson of the story that matters more than whether or not it's fact or fiction, and for me, the lesson is that the more selflessly you give of yourself, even unto the point of self-sacrifice, the closer you come to whatever it is that is called "God" - the "self" dies and is reborn into the "whole". That's a lesson that transcends trivial Earthly concerns such as "did it REALLY happen?", and it's one of many that I've gleaned from a lifetime of trying and failing (miserably) to become a non-Christian. The facts tell me one thing, but the truth comes along and convinces me that the facts ain't the object of the game, that the lessons are. I finally gave up trying to lose my faith, simply because the truth was always greater than the facts. The lessons are there to be learned, they just aren't dependent on "proof", if you know what I mean. "Proof" is for liquor, coins, literalism, and other earthbound pretensions (although, liquor properly applied DOES take on some rather divine attributes. ).

But I admit it - I'm probably not a typical Christian, to put it mildly...

[jazzbo]

My grandfather once told me that an obsession with facts was the lot of someone with lots to hide. . . .

I miss that guy!

[jazzbo]

Jim, I hear you about that struggle.

For me the biggest difficulty lies in the adherence to the fact that this man was specially chosen by God to be the vehicle for man's salvation, and if you don't go through him you don't get the salvation.

My heart just doesn't believe in such an exclusionary God. I can stand right smack dab behind Jesus' teachings and say HOT DARN THIS IS REALLY THE STUFF SO HARD TO FOLLOW IN THIS WORLD BUT THERE'S NO GOOD EXCUSE NOT TO (I'VE GOT A MILLION THOUGH).

But I can't stand behind that exclusive personal salvation thing.

Edited February 27, 2004 by jazzbo

[JSngry]

My grandfather once told me that an obsession with facts was the lot of someone with lots to hide. . .

...and noplace to put it...

[Dr. Rat]

It's as likely, historically, that Jesus moved to France or someplace w/Mary Magdaline, and raised a family as it is that he died and rose again.

And there he established the masons who have been in control of world history fro the past 2000 years? I knew it!

--eric

[Simon Weil]

For me the biggest difficulty lies in the adherence to the fact that this man was specially chosen by God to be the vehicle for man's salvation, and if you don't go through him you don't get the salvation.

You're making him sound like a precursor of Bill Gates. Kind of spiritual monopoly capitalism or something.

We need a law suit.

Simon Weil

[JSngry]

Jim, I hear you about that struggle.

For me the biggest difficulty lies in the adherence to the fact that this man was specially chosen by God to be the vehicle for man's salvation, and if you don't go through him you don't get the salvation.

My heart just doesn't believe in such an exclusionary God.  I can stand right smack dab behind Jesus' teachings and say HOT DARN THIS IS REALLY THE STUFF SO HARD TO FOLLOW IN THIS WORLD BUT THERE'S NO GOOD EXCUSE NOT TO (I'VE GOT A MILLION THOUGH). 

But I can't stand behind that exclusive personal salvation thing.

Works for me, Dude.

I finally resolved it by the "him" that we have to go through is not necessarily a HIM, if you know what I mean. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I wasn't there to say with any certainty, so why waste time worrying about it? Fiddling while Rome burns, that's what it is, and the fire could be used to fry some chicken instead of cooking a goose!

Edited February 27, 2004 by JSngry

[AfricaBrass]

Jim, I hear you about that struggle.

For me the biggest difficulty lies in the adherence to the fact that this man was specially chosen by God to be the vehicle for man's salvation, and if you don't go through him you don't get the salvation.

My heart just doesn't believe in such an exclusionary God. I can stand right smack dab behind Jesus' teachings and say HOT DARN THIS IS REALLY THE STUFF SO HARD TO FOLLOW IN THIS WORLD BUT THERE'S NO GOOD EXCUSE NOT TO (I'VE GOT A MILLION THOUGH).

But I can't stand behind that exclusive personal salvation thing.

I've been really struggling lately.

I keep obsessing on the thought that according to my faith, my son could end up in Hell.

If that happened, there is no way I could hold nothing but hatred towards God.

Maybe it's time to read some of the Nag Hammidi texts again...

[RDK]

I agree that it is a loathsome prospect to contribute to Gibson's deranged thinly veiled piece of pornography.

[Dr. Rat]

For me the biggest difficulty lies in the adherence to the fact that this man was specially chosen by God to be the vehicle for man's salvation, and if you don't go through him you don't get the salvation.

You're making him sound like a precursor of Bill Gates. Kind of spiritual monopoly capitalism or something.

We need a law suit.

Simon Weil

Alright, Bill Gates, too. Now we're getting somewhere.

--eric

[JSngry]

The Christ & The Antichrist!

For every action...

[jazzbo]

Honestly, I'm not making him sound like Gates. That is how it is, that exclusionary, in the writings of Paul, is it not?