Frank Rich: The gospel according to Gibson

New York Times/International Herald Tribune ^ | 8/01/03 | Frank Rich

[Gritty]

There's a familiar refrain from history. "They bring it upon themselves".

I repeat; Rich is a slanderous, venomous little man as he proves once again in this little screed of his. He manufactures his own discredit and only reinforces unfortunate Jewish stereotypes through his bigotry. Why should he should be immune from criticism because of his ethnicity?

[Cachelot]

There's a familiar refrain from history. "They bring it upon themselves".

Yes, a familiar refrain indeed. Sung by Adolph himself and all his fellow travellers ever since. I'm sure you feel in good company ;).

[Hildy]

Gibson is so smart. He knows that Jews make up a large part of the media. ESPECIALLY the entertainment divisions. As long as he does exactly what he's doing, they're going to keep it in the news. By the time this thing hits the theaters, there's going to be so much curiousity about this film, which would have ordinarily been an art house movie, that it is going to be a HUGE hit, both dramatically and financially for Gibson. In my estimation, he's a genius.

[Cachelot]

The NYT started it. Abe, the ADL and TNR qickly piled on to create this mess.

Completely wrong, Sir Hiss.

According to Gibson himself, the start of all the unpleasantness was with the Catholics, after he consulted them about the manuscript - which subsequently turned up stolen.

Hmmmm....

[Starrgaizr]

I think that was Rich's point. He's a jerk, but he suggests that Gibson deliberately fanned the flames. I dunno, but it fits. Foxman's insufferable at times, too. Anyway, there's no sense getting nuts about this until people can see for themselves. But people really should cut Jews a little slack here -- we've been murdered in large numbers for centuries by mobs whipped up into a frenzy with taunts about our collective guilt for being Christ-killers. Maybe that creates just a wee bit of understandable sensitivity, no?

[Hildy]

Don't have to convince me, I'm one of the Chosen People myself!

[veronica]

Gibson is so smart. He knows that Jews make up a large part of the media. ESPECIALLY the entertainment divisions. As long as he does exactly what he's doing, they're going to keep it in the news. By the time this thing hits the theaters, there's going to be so much curiousity about this film, which would have ordinarily been an art house movie, that it is going to be a HUGE hit, both dramatically and financially for Gibson. In my estimation, he's a genius.

So you think all of this is just a marketing ploy by Mel Gibson, in other words? Could be, that is certainly a tried and true tactic to raise interest in a film.

[HISSKGB]

My sources for post#60 were WND, News Max and Medved.

[veronica]

Apparently David Horowitz has seen the film, and liked it. His column...

[Hildy]

Oh, I know. I read it. Gibson's smart, he knows who his friends are. Don't you agree with me, though, that this is a brilliant marketing ploy?

[Knight Templar]

I grew up Catholic, taught by Gestapo type nuns. Some of them anyway. But we were taught that we all were part of the group of Jews who cheered for the execution of Jesus. We were all culpable in some way. Which is true. Is this just the Catholic version? Were other Christians taught something else? If not, stupid Jews. Some of them anyway,

[DPB101]

On another thread, one person after the next related how they were never taught that Jews killed Christ.

I always thought Catholics believed that even though I never heard a Catholic say it. Appears I was skunked by liberal propaganda.

[sakic]

Why should he should be immune from criticism because of his ethnicity?

He shouldn't be immune from crticism. Why the need to say that what he says reinforces negative stereotypes of Jews?

Does Clinton reinforce negative stereotypes of Christians? Why the often appearing double standard?

[Longshanks]

Not even close.

Agreed. The falsified quote from Chomsky has no place in this discussion. Chomsky was talking about science not "The Passion".

[Gritty]

Why the need to say that what he says reinforces negative stereotypes of Jews?

Because it does. People, despite their veneer of sophistication and civilization, still tend to categorize and identify with people in a "tribal" way. Do you identify with Rich? And if so, why? Is it because he is Liberal, Jewish, or both?

Does Clinton reinforce negative stereotypes of Christians?

When he walks around with that prop of a Bible under his arm, certainly! But, my feeling is many Christians who know better are not fooled by his blarney. People who have followed the writings of Rich shouldn't be fooled by his, either.

Why the often appearing double standard?

I don't see a double standard at work here because of criticism of Rich. He has declared himself as a partisan for one particular point of view and is buttressing his argument through ethnic identification and stereotyping of the "other" side. He tars Gibson, his movie and his adherents and then claims (without having seen the movie) all these really mean to "bait Jews and sow religious conflict" - just because Frank Rich and Abe Foxman say so.

If anything, it is Rich who is operating a "double standard" by trying to bait people and sow religious conflict by hammering this is some sort of thinly disguised anti-Jewish pogrom dressed up as a movie, and because some people he thought should have been invited to see the preliminary screenings were not! Unfortunately, he has few facts but apparently a lot of prejudice and innuendo to try and make his weak case.

[sakic]

If something a Jew does can be ascribed to all Jews then when a Christian does something it should be ascribed to all Christians.

Like it or not, when you evaluate Jews because of what a Jew does you're acting anti-Semitic unless you act similarly with all groups which would be a different ball of wax.

[Gritty]

Like it or not, when you evaluate Jews because of what a Jew does you're acting anti-Semitic

Neither you nor Frank Rich can have it both ways.

Rich claims to be writing this piece from a mainstream Jewish perspective. Therefore, he has set his views up as the voice of mainstream Jews, except the very few oddballs such as "that famous Talmudic scholar, Matt Drudge".

Why should you, he or anybody else be surprised his article is perceived by others as reflecting The Jewish View when that is Rich's intention when he penned it?

There are a good many Jews who fortunately aren't as irrational on this subject as Rich. One can only hope they will add their saner voices to the fray!

[DPB101]

The falsified quote from Chomsky has no place in this discussion.

Ever hear of a "parody"? Very effective against left wing fanatics such as Frank Rich and Noam Chomsky. They want one to engage them in a marxist dialectic. Don't know about you, but I have no interest in playing their game. As I have mention, Gibson or anyone else should be allowed to write or make a film about their faith in peace. There is no grounds for a debate.

If my title enough wasn't absurd enough for you to know I had "falsified" nothing but was mocking liberals, the footnote link at the end would have made that clear.

[sakic]

Your declaring of Frank Rich representing anything more than himself is as silly as me saying that David Duke's opinion represents all Christians.

[DPB101]

There many be small nuances in opinion but I fear Frank Rich reflects the view of many. From an article this morning in the Sun Times:

"We believe this film in its present form has the potential to set Catholic-Jewish relations back decades with one brush stroke," said Richard Hirschhaut, Midwest director of the Anti-Defamation League. "It is clear that the characters who are the Jews are cast as . . . distrustful, scheming and evil."

Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center said on CNN:

Well, my objection, first of all, is the sources. In an interview with the "Wall Street Journal", Mel Gibson said his three principle sources were the New Testament and two 18th century nuns, Mary of Agreta (ph), and Catherine Hererui (ph). Mary of Agreta, subscribed collective guilt to all Jews in her writings. Catherine Hemerui believes that Jews, right into the 18th century, were strangling Christian children in order to practice their rituals from their blood. That is outright anti-Semitism and to have a script based on those two sources is an area of concern by itself.

On top of that, Mel Gibson has said he doesn't believe in the accomplishments of Vatican II. He belongs to a church that doesn't believe the accomplishments of Vatican II. And Vatican II to Jews is very important because it exonerated Jews from the charge of deside for which millions of Jews have been murdered through the ages.

Lewis Regenstein wrote in Jewsweek.com:

It is unfortunate that Gibson's movie will apparently fail to make it clear who really killed Jesus, and instead will repeat the ancient blood libels that actually contradict the New Testament's account of the murder, and which have been used since that time to stir up hatred for Jesus' own people.

From The Forward:

In its June 24 statement, the ADL praised an 18-page report prepared by an ad hoc group of nine Catholic and Jewish scholars who, the ADL said, "unanimously agreed that the screenplay reviewed was replete with objectionable elements that would promote anti-Semitism."

"I think we've already impacted [Gibson]," the ADL's national director, Abraham Foxman, told the Forward, citing Gibson's recent statement. "We still have a ways to go in the hope that he and whoever works with him will decide to reach out and engage in a dialogue.

Not uncommon for the leadership of civic and religious groups to be out of touch with the rank and file. Let's hope this is the case here.