Posted on 07/31/2006 12:29:38 PM PDT by veronica
Edited on 07/31/2006 1:43:28 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
I was just in the middle of writing a long and tedious essay, about how to tell a real anti-Semite from a person who too-loudly rejects the charge of anti-Semitism, when a near-perfect real-life example came to hand. That bad actor and worse director Mel Gibson, pulled over for the alleged offense of speeding and the further alleged offense of speeding under the influence, decided that he needed to demand of the arresting officer whether he was or was not Jewish and that he furthermore needed to impart the information that all the world's wars are begun by those of Semitic extraction.
Call me thin-skinned if you must, but I think that this qualifies. I also think that the difference between the blood-alcohol levels—and indeed the speed limits—that occasioned the booking are insufficient to explain the expletives (as Gibson has since claimed in a typically self-pitying and verbose statement put out by his publicist). One does not abruptly decide, between the first and second vodka, or the ticks of the indicator of velocity, that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are valid after all.
There's a lot to dislike about Gibson. He is given to furious tirades against homosexuals of the sort that make one wonder if he has some kind of subliminal or "unaddressed" problem. His vulgar and nasty movies, which also feature this prejudice, are additionally replete with the cheapest caricatures of the English.
I personally have said very bad things while in an extremely enebriated state which were not contained in my heart. For that reason I can forgive Mel Gibson......
Go to hell!
Supposedly, they also taped him.
In what way do you mean?
I can forgive him as well...
Gibson showed clearly that he is an anti-Semite and that he has no moral credibility at all. I don't believe for a minute that it was the alcohol. Just a wild guess, was he seething with rage over the situation with Israel, much like Mr. Haq up in Seattle?
"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies" (Mat 15:18-19).
I saw Braveheart and The Passion. Both were excellent.
You tell me .............. why (in your opinion) have the Jews been persecuted for "2000 years"?
What would cause that lousy treatment?
Hmmmm?
It's the Jews fault, eh BS?
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I am well aware of his support for the WOT, but I'm also well aware of his incessant Israel-bashing, and can't fathom how anyone familiar with his writing could say he supports Israel.
I really don't mind Hitchens' comments about Opus Dei
I don't think I mentioned Opus Dei, but I suspect his thoughts on that group reflect my own.
What would cause that lousy treatment?
Anti-semitism. The Catholic Church was guilty of it, Protestants were guilty of it, Muslims were guilty of it.
Blood libel, the blaming of Jews for the death of the Son of God.
Lots of ignorant knuckle-draggers still harbor their Jew hatred, and they do it in the name of some god that they worship.
Hence the ancient proverb, "in vino, veritas."
Tarleton was not averse to the odd atrocity, but nothing like that is recorded, which it would have been."
That certainly was a memorable scene. I think your point is right, if indeed there was no record of such an atrocity. But it did make the point about what the "no holds barred" person would actually be capable of. That and the execution of the young son of the Gibson character. Cinematically the point was profound. I dont know about the historical one. I do imagine that when you are trying to maintain an empire that is slipping from your hands, the truly ruthless men are called forth to do their worst. I liked the way Gibson imaged for us the British General who was actually responsible forhte horrors even while keeping his hands clean by use of the Tarleton type.---Indeed, is Cornwallis a Pontius Pilate figure? And is this the real hidden truth of the film concerning those whose skepticism has poisoned them and disabled their moral sense? This is why I did not feel that Gibson's film was merely blaming the Jews for the crime of the Passion.
Why does Hitchens get so lurid over this skilled filmcraft? There is a truth in it and Hitchens professes deep hurt and scandal about the Patriot. Yeah, Gibson may hold a colonist's disdain for the British, so what? Is that the worst sin imaginable?
I think Hitchens is on stronger ground regarding Hitchens' anti-semitism. At the time, I had thought the Frank Rich crowd were just indulging their favorite whipping boy to smear a powerful Christian portrayal. I did not see the Passsion as so over the top, though my female companion felt compelled to go to the lobby due to the merciless flogging of Jesus. The scene jarred me to the core, but I still felt that it was truth [about the capacity of human evil] and about suffering, that is passion-- truth that today's culture does not want to face.
I think that the blather about "homoerotic" and "spank" film, says more about the one using such characterizations than about Gibson. What mental universes these people must inhabit!
However, if the reports about Gibson's Jew comments to the cops are true, then Hitchens is right and Gibson does have a Jewish problem. It reveals a very small mind to feel and say things like the Jews cause all the wars ... or all the anything. I guess it is another reminder of that other very old truth: the artist's genius does not indicate his soul. Hitchens is simply unbalanced in his megolmania in condemning everything about Mel Gibson's life and work. Jumping on such an incident to shout "hey, this proves everything bad about my foe" is very poor form, indeed.
I think Hitchens is on stronger ground regarding Hitchens' anti-semitism.
"Should be "Gibson's anti-semitism". Sorry about that.
A fine hatchet job by Chris Hitchens, everyone's favorite Marxist drunk and the author of Hell's Angel (Mother Theresa).
This is from an earlier post here from the Catholic spokesman Bill Donohue. I think it speaks to the truth that the Passion is NOT anti-semetic even if its director is.
"But Mel's enemies will never cut him a break. Their real goal is to discredit 'The Passion of the Christ,' and that is why their propaganda machine is in full gear. Never mind that Mel has said that 'Anti-Semitism is not only contrary to my personal beliefs, it is also contrary to the core message of my movie.' How ironic it is to note that the core message of his film—forgiveness—is sorely lacking in his critics. "
Why did admin moderator delete the headline of this article? As you can see if you follow the link to the article, the full title of Slate's article is, in fact, "Mel Gibson's Meltdown
He is sick to his empty core with Jew-hatred." That second part wasn't the poster's editorial -- it was Christopher Hitchen's sub-title.
I'm a Hitchens fan, but he's lost me here. Neither Braveheart nor The Patriot are "laughable" when it comes to Hollywood history.
They are different because they don't give the usual "Dickens Treatment" to the English. It must be a shock to see the likes of Edward Longshanks and Tarleton portrayed on screen, when it's so much more conventional to just portray the English as arbiters of sensibility and Americans as the ruthless and vile.
Gibson did the world a favor by making these films.
I don't enjoy total ones. Only partial ones. Michael Moore would be an example of a total one. Gibson and Hitchens would fall into the partial category (in my book anyway).
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.