Mel Gibson Ignores Hollywood Rules on Jesus

NY Newsday ^ | September 29, 2003 | Thomas Doherty

[presidio9]

Cecil B. DeMille was smarter than Mel Gibson. In 1927, when DeMille filmed his version of the life of Christ, "The King of Kings," he covered all the theological bases by placing on the payroll a Protestant minister, a Catholic priest and a rabbi. Gibson, director and co-author of "The Passion," billed as the most authentic version of the life and death of Christ ever filmed, refused to have the high priests of official religion vet his vision and, the way things are going, they're going to crucify him.

Though "The Passion" won't be released until Ash Wednesday in April, it has already sparked a storm of controversy because of fears that Gibson will resurrect not the good word of the New Testament but the old libel of the Jews as "Christ killers."

Responding to Gibson's unrepentant defense of the film in last week's New Yorker, Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, accused the director of entertaining "views that can only be described as anti-Semitic."

[ClearCase_guy]

I have two points to make:

1) Mel Gibson didn't make this movie because he wanted to make enormous profits.
2) Mel Gibson is going to make enormous profits from this film.

I can't wait to see it.

[Bubba_Leroy]

Funny, I don't remember any of this controversy over The Last Temptation of Christ or Dogma. I guess movies that are offensive to Catholics fall under protected free speech.

[ex-snook]

God is the writer who are the editors?

A Pharisee Named Gamaliel

Acts 5:34
"Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;"

Acts 5:35
"And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men."

Acts 5:36
"For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.

Acts 5:37
"After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed."

Acts 5:38
"And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:"

Acts 5:39
"But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God."
 

[raybbr]

He could make it up by sacrificing a goat and having them spread the blood over the cans of film.

Who cares about what the major religions think of this film?

[Blue Scourge]

Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, accused the Liberals that are trying to hang Israel out to dry of "views that can only be described as anti-Semitic

How it should go and who he should really be watching his back for....oh wait, he's a liberal too....odd bedfellows.

[truthandlife]

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. Romans 8:28

[jjm2111]

This article wasn't too bad. But if the movie is in Aramaic with no subtitles I ain't seeing it.

[Dialup Llama]

Significantly, Hollywood's most successful translator of the Bible - DeMille - was at heart a pagan. His religious epics spring to life only when the sinners set up the golden calf and boogie down for a colorful orgy. By contrast, the auteur of "Braveheart" - another film in which the hero is tortured to death for his people - is a true believer, a devout Catholic who belongs to a conservative splinter sect that celebrates the Latin Mass and rejects the reforms of Vatican II.

Perhaps the real reason "The Passion" has stirred such interest and ire is that Gibson has produced a religious epic that is really about his religion.

The elites are going to realize their greatest horror in this movie- Jesus umambigiously shown as Savior in a widely seen film made to high techincal standards by a top director- and they will call it anti-Semetic in an attempt to taint the movie.

[Damocles]

Please, I'm beggin' you. Don't turn this into another subtitles v. non-subtitles thread...

[Stone Mountain]

1) Mel Gibson didn't make this movie because he wanted to make enormous profits.

How do we know this? He is marketing it like a genius - people who normally would never have heard of the film are interested in seeing it because of the incredible pre-publicity the picture is getting. Don't get me wrong - I don't think there's anything wrong with a profit motive - in fact, that's what our economy is based on and good for him if he can do it! But I think he is clearly interested in making a profit - his most recent gambit was to declare that subtitles would be added to the movie after getting a bunch of publicity for saying that he would refuse to do so. Pure marketing genius.

[Stone Mountain]

This article wasn't too bad. But if the movie is in Aramaic with no subtitles I ain't seeing it.

I believe Gibson recently declared that subtitles would be added to the movie...

[Stone Mountain]

Funny, I don't remember any of this controversy over The Last Temptation of Christ or Dogma.

Not sure about Dogma, but there was a huge protest over Last Temptation. I firmly believe that movie would have tanked - came and gone unnoticed without any of us ever hearing about it without all of those protests. Come to think of it, that's basically what happened to Dogma, wasn't it? Controversy can only add to the bottom line of a film, and we can see this with Gibson's film - it's getting a ton of free publicity and many people who never would have heard of the movie let alone going to see it are now interested in checking it out.

[ClearCase_guy]

All of your points are good. My basic thinking (which is truly mine, since I can't get into Gibson's head) is this:

Given a choice between making money from the film, OR having millions of people see the film (imagine he can't have both and must choose one of these), I'm pretty sure that Mel, who is already famous, successful, rich, and happy would choose to pass up the money and instead opt to just have people see the movie.

It's just my opinion, but I think Mel's faith is paramount here. But as you say, the man knows how to market the product and is likely to have it both ways (money and attendance). And good for him!

[jjm2111]

He must've gotten the hint.

[rabidralph]

Why, don't you know how it ends?

[Alberta's Child]

Cecil B. DeMille was smarter than Mel Gibson. In 1927, when DeMille filmed his version of the life of Christ, "The King of Kings," he covered all the theological bases by placing on the payroll a Protestant minister, a Catholic priest and a rabbi. Gibson, director and co-author of "The Passion," billed as the most authentic version of the life and death of Christ ever filmed, refused to have the high priests of official religion vet his vision . . .

There is a clear message in this paragraph, but I'll bet nobody at Newsday picked up on it.

The fact that Gibson "refused to have the high priests of official religion vet his vision" is precisely why this movie is being billed as "the most authentic version of the life and death of Christ ever filmed."

[jjm2111]

Something about an empty tomb, right? The spoilers in the reviews weren't too good. :)

Just because I know the story doesn't mean I have to pay ten bucks to listen to two and a half hours of gibberish. I can read the Bible for free.

[presidio9]

Ever been to the opera?

[jjm2111]

The opera even has subtitles.