Replies

Look, that's the story. None of the story is "provable fact" but why should that matter.

Is Gibson going to put up a disclaimer on the screen, "None of these events are meant to portray any person living or dead?"

He should, but I don't think he will. He is accusing real people of doing things that he cannot prove.

Is Gibson going to put up a disclaimer on the screen, "None of these events are meant to portray any person living or dead?" He should, but I don't think he will. He is accusing real people of doing things that he cannot prove.

1. Did Ridley Scott put this disclaimer in the film Gladiator? (I honestly don't know. Nor do I think it matters. I wasn't offended by Ridley Scott's vile charages against the Roman emperor "Commodus".)

2. Along these lines, exactly which "real people" do you think Mel Gibson is accusing of having done something? And what is he accusing these "real people" of having done?

Let's take an example. Presumably in the film there will be a Roman guard portrayed hammering nails into Jesus' hand. Maybe that Roman guard's name (in the movie) will be, oh, Joey.

What you seem to be saying is that Mel Gibson is accusing Joey the year-0 Roman guard of having hammered that nail. Poor Joey!

Another example: presumably in the crowd of people asked to choose between Jesus and Barabbas, there will be scenes of people saying "we want Barabbas!!" One of the guys saying it, perhaps his name in the film is Third Jew From The Left.

What you seem to be saying is that Mel Gibson is accusing Third Jew From The Left of having preferred Barabbas.

Question: are these actually "real people"? In what sense?

Who exactly should be offended by the charges being levelled against them by Mel Gibson? The descendents of Third Jew From The Left? Kindly point them out, if you will.

Do you even know what you're talking about? You haven't even seen the film. Right?

P.S. It is implicitly clear that the source book for Mel Gibson's movie The Passion is contained within the pages of that thing called "The Bible". That is his documentation for the events he portrays.

By a similar token, films have been made about Greek Gods, Mohammed, Adam & Eve, Hercules, King Arthur, etc etc etc, all based on source materials which are of no greater reliability than this "Bible" thing.

If I make a film version of Beowulf I required to say "any resemblance to any persons living or dead" etc etc at the beginning of it? What about Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? Did Ang Lee "accuse" the lesbian-witch villain of that film (a "real person") of having done bad stuff? Can he "prove" she really did that stuff?

It seems to me that you're desperately seeking a reason to complain about this film. And, miraculously, finding one. To me the only real question is why?

P.P.S. Even more ironically, you're complaining that Mel Gibson "can't prove" the events of the book of John and (therefore) is accusing "real people" of having done things. Question: what makes you think any of those people whose activities are described in John, and thus filmed by Gibson, were "real"?

The book of John?