Posted on 02/25/2004 3:29:59 PM PST by SauronOfMordor
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 he didn't die. He survived and spent months in the hospital where doctors had to reconstruct his entire face...
Guess who it was? Yep, Mel.
(Haven't seen this posted, sorry for a double if'n it was.)
I did a quick Google search to find out more about this incident and found The text copied below:
Expert:The Mel Gibson Fans Mailing List
Date:7/1/2001
Subject:injuries
Question
I was told that at a young age, Mel Gibson recieved injuries to his face and there was a reconstruction operation done. I would like to know if this is true and if so the details of the incident.
Thank you,
Bert
Answer
Bert,
Mel Gibson did suffer some injuries during a barroom brawl, but they did not require reconstructive surgery.
An internet rumor states that Mel was brutally beaten while working on the docks as a young man; that abeneficiary paid for surgery because the damage was so severe. The story was attributed to Paul Harvey, but Mr. Harvey has denied authoring the story. He did author a related story about the real injury, but like many internet rumors, it evolved to something totally foreign from the truth.
Hope this helps!
Lisa Hightower
Mel Gibson Fans Listowner/Webmaster
They would probably love to crucify him--nail him to a cross!
Besides films based on religion, he could make some movies based on the conflicts in Iran and Afghanistan, the heroism of September 11, the stories of everyday heroes in our country, historical dramas of great people, etc.
There is such a need for this. I think he could change the course of the entire industry.
I derive great pleasure of thinking of the media people having to trek to Indianapolis or Columbus. HA!
This kind of crap, the legislating courts, and the "gay marriage" thing may just be the last straws to energize and galvanize a dormant albeit fed-up middle America into purifying itself though the vote, the power of the purse, and the general repudiation of the liberal cancer by a society that hopefully still is One Nation Under God..........
That would truly be a miracle. The most lucrative movie of all time, "Titanic," only recently passed the billion dollar mark.
But we can hope.
This, from an article titled "New Film May Harm Gibson's Career?" Jewish people for ages have had to deal with the perception that they've conniving for their benefit behind the scenes. Now, the NY Times prints this article . . . which essentially says . . . "Jewish leaders in Hollywood are going to see to it that Mel Gibson 'won't work here again.'"
If I was Jewish, I'd be really pissed at these people (both the Geffens of the world and the NY Times for trash like this - which only enforces stereotypes).
Hey, that's a classic! But nobody can do it like Griffith did!
BTW, one of my all-time favorite films was an Icon production, "Immortal Beloved," a suspense/biography/romance/musical about Beethoven. It was glorious, and completely over-looked by Hollywood.
But we can hope.
Titanic, though, cost somewhere over $200 million-- this thing could blow it's cost-to-profit rationto shreds.
I just think that this film has the potential to not only invigorate Christianity but also chage the media, film in particular.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.