LA Rabbi Asks Mel Gibson to Reconsider Jesus Film

An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood Neal Gabler
Doubleday. 503pp. 0-385-26557-3
The major Hollywood movie studios were founded by Jews. This much is known. Gabler treats us to a beautiful history of Hollywood - and of the Jews who created it. With a level of social analysis that is just right, and a level of detail that can be a bit too much, Gabler tells how a bunch of outsiders, tied together more by a common family background in which the failure of the father was significant than by anything else, traveled west and made a fortune. Along the way, Gabler tells us, their relationships to America and to Judaism were all different but all illuminating.

Carl Laemmle with Universal Pictures, Adolph Zukor with Paramount Pictures, William Fox with the eponymous Fox Film Corporation, Louis Mayer with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), Harry and Jack Warner with Warner Brothers, and Harry Cohn with Columbus did as much as any men to build the modern Hollywood film industry. Chapter by chapter Gabler builds a picture of each man, how they did things and what their studio was like. This book is fascinating for anybody interested in the history of cinema, as it is for those with an interest in the impact of Jews on the world. Jews really did play a huge part in the making of so many of cinema's classics - and Gabler does much to recount every little anecdote and story. Some will no doubt find this boring, others will be drawn in to the tales, and the intrigue.

More than being a history of Hollywood however, this book is also a history of the Jewish lives of the studio bosses, and of the way in which their Jewishness and desire to be more American than the President affected both them and Hollywood. To different degrees the bosses dropped their Judaism, or allowed it to be more compatible with their vision of Americanism. They founded a country club when they were barred from others, and many adopted Christian practices. They had a show biz rabbi and sent their children to the best schools. Assimilation was more of a priority than Jewish life - most of the studio bosses really wanted their children to be a real part of American high society. That this obsession with assimilation influenced not only the kind of films made in Hollywood, but also in the last analysis created the myth of the American Dream, is perhaps the most intriguing and absorbing part of An Empire of Their Own.

Gabler argues that the Jewish studio bosses were keen to see films that stressed a message of social inclusion, and of the 'other' being capable of change, worthy of good treatment. What the studio bosses were really concerned with, was their own social standing - they made films they thought would help them achieve their strongest wish - to be accepted. The ideology that permeated these films then was about how anybody could succeed, should be allowed to, and should be accepted as an American. The American Dream - created by Jews.

Gabler succeeds in conveying the tragic side of the bosses' lives too. Self-confidence was never natural, and a fear of being criticised for having too much power or influence prevented Hollywood from being more active in working to combat the Nazis or bring America into the Second World War. The bosses were weak again when confronted by McCarthyism. Gabler portrays the bosses as near-broken by these experiences, although he does it in the under-stated and factually-laden way that characterises An Empire of Their Own.

A television programme has been made of An Empire of Their Own, and in many ways is more worthwhile - writing about film is necessarily limited by a lack of film to illustrate the point. What the TV programme misses though is the time to create an incredibly rich tapestry of the lives of the studio bosses.

An Empire of Their Own is a fascinating book. Well argued and written by an obvious expert, it is well worth getting hold of.

Ok, is the Godwin Law about to apply here?

:-)

I could not agree with you more.

A prominent Jewish leader on Friday asked actor Mel Gibson (news) to make certain that his new film on the last 12 hours in the life of Christ does not portray the Jews as collectively responsible for the crucifixion.

Jesus WAS a JEW you moron.. Is this guy suggesting Jesus committed suicide? Because that's the only way his comment makes any sense.

It was the Pharasees who plotted against him.

¥

Was anyone protesting Last Temptation of Christ? Nah.

It was a big deal when students/citizens tried to keep the film out of the Student Union
at Oklahoma State University...while the Union was also the site of prayer breakfasts.

Believe it or not, it made the national news...

It was Jewish religious leaders who saw him as a threat..

Nothing more, and certainly not a sight against Jew's in general because Jesus was one himself.

For some reason when I saw the headline I heard Jim Morrison singing, "L.A. Rabbi".

Ye gods and little fishes, leave Mel Gibson alone.

He will do a fine film judging by Braveheart, The Patriot, We Were Soldiers.

I'm not particularly in the mood for more demands to genuflect toward Rome.

We're faced with a flesh and blood Satan in Saddam Hussein and the Pope just wants to get along.

You go, Mel.

I do, as well. Hier is getting worked up on the wrong things. He ought to prioritizr more wisely.

Hey, real Christians adore and love the Jews. Just wanted to let you know.

Genesis 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

I beleive Gibson when he says he just wants to tell the story.

Agreed.
He'll show how a small group of aristocrats did what they wanted when their
Roman sponsor let them "get away with it".

And that the founder of Christianity forgave anyone responsible for his physical
death...and his followers, after some hearty discussion, tried to maintain a friendly
link with Jews and Gentiles alike.
No use of Damascus steel blades to win converts in the New Testament that I can find...

If Gibson doesn't catch those major themes (or warps them)...I'll be suprised.

Never heard of that before. Brilliant!

How to post about Nazis and get away with it - the Godwin's Law FAQ

From: tskirvin@uiuc.edu (Tim Skirvin)
Newsgroups:
alt.usenet.kooks,alt.usenet.legends,alt.answers,news.answers
Subject: How to post about Nazis and get away with it - the Godwin's Law FAQ
Supersedes: Followup-To: alt.usenet.legends
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 00:00:04 -0500
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing
Summary: This is a list of frequently asked questions about Godwin's Law, the natural law relating Usenet and Nazis once and for all.
URL: Maintainer: tskirvin@uiuc.edu (Tim Skirvin)
Godwin's Law FAQ
-or-
"How to post about Nazis and get away with it"
One of the most famous pieces of Usenet trivia out there is "if you mention Hitler or Nazis in a post, you've automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in". Known as Godwin's Law, this rule of Usenet has a long and sordid history on the network - and is absolutely wrong. This FAQ is an attempt to set straight as much of the history and meaning of Godwin's Law as possible, and hopefully encourage users to invoke it a bit more sparingly. Of course, knowing Usenet, it won't do an ounce of good...
[Standard Disclaimers: this document assumes you have some basic knowledge of Usenet; if you don't, go check out news.announce.newusers for a while to gain said knowledge. Misuse of the information contained within this FAQ is not the responsibility of the author (though he's pretty confused exactly how you could misuse this information).
Copyright 1999, Tim Skirvin, all rights reserved, <, fnord, furrfu.]
I. The Basics
1. What is Godwin's Law?
Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin (godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to the Jargon File:
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
2. What does it mean?
It pretty much means exactly what it says - as a Usenet thread goes on, the chances of somebody or something being compared to a Nazi approach one.
3. Yes, but what does it *mean*?
Aah, now *there's* the real question.
In case your head has been buried in the sand for the last sixty years or so, the Nazis were a German political party lead by Adolf Hitler that slaughtered upwards of ten-million people that didn't meet their standards of "ethnic purity" and set off to conquer Europe and the world in World War II. They are generally considered the most evil group of people to live in modern times, and to compare something or someone to them is usually considered the gravest insult imaginable.
As a Usenet discussion gets longer it tends to get more heated; as more heat enters the discussion, tensions get higher and people start to insult each other over anything they can think of. Godwin's Law merely notes that, eventually, those tensions eventually cause someone to find the worst insults that come to mind - which will almost always include a Nazi comparison.
4. That still doesn't answer my question. What does it *MEAN*?
The Law is generally used on Usenet as an indicator of whether a thread has gone on too long, who's playing fair and who's just slinging mud, and who finally gets to "win" the discussion. It has, over time, become the closest thing to an impartial moderator that Usenet can get.
So, what this means in practical terms:
o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it wasn't necessary or germane without it necessarily being an insult, it's probably about time for the thread to end.
o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult, the speaker can be considered to be flaming and not debating.
o If someone brings up Nazis in any conversation that has been going on too long for one of the parties, it can be used as a fair excuse to end the thread and declare victory for the other side.
5. So - *WHAT DOES IT MEAN*?
Fine, fine - it means that somebody's eventually going to say something about the Nazis in any thread that lasts very long. When it happens, the thread is going to start either degenerating into a long flamewar over Nazi Germany or about Godwin's Law. Either way, the thread is effectively over, and you can safely killfile the thread and move on.
II. What does it mean?
1. Didn't we already spend the last section talking about this?
Well, yeah, but people don't seem to get the point...
2. What happens if we're actually talking about Nazis?
Then you've already invoked Godwin's Law, and the chances are that your thread isn't going to last all that much longer as a sane discussion. Them's the breaks.
That isn't to say, of course, that you can't talk about Nazis and such on Usenet - this *is* Usenet, after all, where virtually every conversation that goes on is fairly ludicrous in the first place. It's just going to take you a lot more effort to find real information out of there and to avoid getting yourself off on side-threads - which you'll eventually do regardless, but you can try to put it off.
This also applies if a thread mutates into an actual discussion of Nazis, of course.
3. What about arguing with Neo-Nazis?
Arguing with Neo-Nazis is probably the quickest path to getting Nazi invocations, because, well, they're actually accurate. Still, trying to invoke Godwin's Law near a Neo-Nazi isn't really a good idea because it's not terribly original and they'll probably get off on it anyway. Just ignore them and occasionally publish a FAQ detailing what actually happened during the Holocaust and such; arguing probably isn't going to help you.
4. How can I use Godwin's Law to my advantage?
In the proper kind of flamewar, Godwin's Law can be used as a gambit - how can you force your opponent to invoke the Law? Actually teaching these skills is tough, of course, and is best done through experience. Experience with chess and alt.flame are recommended.
5. What should I do if somebody else invokes Godwin's Law?
The obvious response is to call them on it, say "thread's over", and declare victory. This is also one of the stupidest possible responses, because it involves believing far too much in the power of a few rules that don't say exactly what you wish they said anyway. The proper response to an invocation is probably to simply followup with a message saying "Oh. I'm a Nazi? Sure. Bye" and leave, and in most cases even that much of a post is unnecessary.
6. "Hitler!" Ha! The thread is over!
Nope, doesn't work that way. Not only is it wrong to say that a thread is over when Godwin's Law is invoked anyway (Usenet threads virtually always outlive their usefulness), but long ago a corollary to the Law was proposed and accepted by Taki "Quirk" Kogama (quirk@swcp.com):
Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual. Sorry, folks. Nice try, though.
7. Does Godwin's Law apply in the real world?
Actually, yeah, but usually discussions in Real Life end by somebody wandering off in disgust before it can be invoked.
8. Are there any topics that lead directly to Godwin Invocations?
Well, yeah. Of course. Case's Corollary to the Law states "if the subject is Heinlein or homosexuality, the probability of a Hitler/Nazi comparison being made becomes equal to one" - but that's just an old list. Abortion and gun control debates always lead to Nazi comparisons; talk with a Libertarian for more than a few hours and he'll almost certainly bring up Nazis; book-burning is pretty much considered a sub-topic of Nazism at this point. Hell, talk about anything politically related and you'll eventually get there.
If you're really bored, a fun game to play is Six Degrees of Godwin. Take a topic - any topic - and see how quickly you can relate it to Nazis using legitimate topic drift methods. For example: a discussion about computers will eventually lead to discussions of keyboards and which are best, followed by a lot of complaining about the Windows key on 104-key keyboards, leading to complaints about Microsoft, forcing the standard MS-vs-government flamewar that I'm sure you're all aware of, leading to attacks on Microsoft's "fascist" tactics by one side or another, which will force the other side to start talking about the differences between fascism, capitalism, and, of course, Nazism! The fun never stops!
Appendix A: The Many Forms of Godwin's Law
"When someboy on UseNet brings up Hitler or the Nazi's the thread has been going on too long." - Richard Sexton stating what would later be known as Godwin's Law, 1989 (
:Godwin's Law: /prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. - The Jargon File ()
Hitler, Nazis, nazis, and net.cops: Warning: now that this FAQ has mentioned Hitler and Nazis, UseNet Rule #4 (also known as Godwin's Rule, after Mike Godwin of the EFF, sci.crypt, and comp.org.eff.talk, a sometime foe of David Sternlight (q.v.) [even though it was apparently in use, by Richard Sexton {q.v.} among others, before Mike's 1988 (?) net.advent; the "Godwin's" part seems to stem from "Rich Rosen's Rules of Net.Debate, which I don't have a copy of]) says it will be coming to an irrelevant and off-topic end soon. Just as there will always be newbies ("It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the net" - response to a 1993 wave of delphi.com postings on a.f.u), there will always be people who see the net and are repulsed because there's stuff there they don't want to see - so they set out to make sure noone else can, either. They invariably fail, because there are no net.cops to enforce any such rules on UseNet; in the course of the heated flamewar that usually follows, things escalate until either Hitler or Nazis (or both) put in an appearance, at which point the thread has officially lost all relevance. People scream at each other a bit more, then give up and go home. Bleah. "Keep your brains up top; don't be a net.cop." This has mutated, in true UseNet fashion, to encompass *any* continuing thread; if you mention Hitler or Nazis out of the blue, the thread is sure to die irrelevantly soon (and, incidentally, you've lost the argument, whatever it was)... and every continuing thread on UseNet *must* contain such a reference sooner or later. Invoking Rule #4 deliberately in hopes of ending a thread, however, is doomed to failure (Quirk's Exception)...
UseNet Rules #n: No firm info at the present time is available on just what the other UseNet Rules #n are. However, at a guess, they include:
-- Rule #nonumber: There are no hard-and-fast Rules on UseNet, only Guidelines, which are more or less strictly enforced (and differ) from group to group; this is why it's generally wise to read any group for a bit before ever posting to it. Rule #0: *There* *is* *no* *C*b*l*. There *is*, however, a net-wide conspiracy designed solely to lead Dave Hayes (q.v.) to believe that there is a C*b*l.
Corollary: *There* *are* *no* *pods*. Rule #9: It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net. Dave Fischer's Extension: 1993 was The Year September Never Ended [so far, there doesn't seem to be much evidence he's wrong...] Rule #17: Go not to UseNet for counsel, for they will say both `No' and `Yes' and `Try another newsgroup'. Rule #2 (John Gilmore): "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." Rule #108 (from the soc.motss FAQ): "What will happen to me if I read soc.motss?" "In general, nothing. (You may be informed or infuriated, of course; but that's a standard Usenet hazard.)" Rule #666: Old alt groups never die. They don't fade away nicely, either. Rule #7-B: There is no topic so thoroughly covered that noone will ever bring it up again.
Rule #90120: Applying your standards to someone else's post *will* result in a flamewar. Rule #1: Spellling and grammer counts. So do grace, wit, and a sense of humor (the latter two are different), as well as a willingness to meet odd people, but these are lesser considerations. Rule #x^2: FAQs are asked frequently. Get used to them. Rule #29: no rational discourse can happen in a thread cross-posted to more than two newsgroups.
rule #6 (Eddie Saxe): don't post to misc.test unless you understand the consequences. Rule #547 (Arne Adolfsen): When people know they're wrong they resort to ad hominems. Rule #37 (Faisal Nameer Jawdat): Read the thread from the beginning, or else. Rule #5 (Reimer's Reason): Nobody ever ignores what they should ignore on Usenet. Rule $19.99 (Brad `Squid' Shapcott): The Internet *isn't* *free*. It just has an economy that makes no sense to capitalism. Rule #3 ("Why 3?" "Because we felt like it"): For every opinion there is at least one equally loud and opposing opinion; sometimes stated as: Rule #27 (Gary Lewandowski): "In cyberspace, *everyone* can hear you scream." And for completeness' sake: Rule #4: (Godwin's Rule) Any off-topic mention of Hitler or Nazis will cause the thread it is mentioned in to an irrelevant and off-topic end very soon; every thread on UseNet has a constantly-increasing probability to contain such a mention. Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual. Case's Corollary: If the subject is Heinlein or homosexuality, the probability of a Hitler/Nazi comparison being made becomes equal to one. - net.legends FAQ () --
Copyright 1999, Tim Skirvin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the current state of the world, Protestants, Catholics and Jews should be the absolute least of each others worries.

We should all be tighter than white on rice, imho.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend.. "

" We already have a million frothing fundamentalist Muslims wanting to avenge themselves on us, we don't need a bunch of cranky Christians added to that list."

Likewise, Christians can do without ignorants attempting to paint them as Jew-hating bigots.

It would probably do this Rabbi a world of good if he read the writings that Mel is taking his cues from for this motion picture. I have read them and among my friends I am considered something of a neighborhood expert.

The writings of Anne Emmerich are like watching a video of scripture. The Holy Bible, compared to her writings, are like Holy Snapshots.

Her depictions of Jewish life across the board were not in the least demeaning, but made me understand the reason why the Jews were considered by God to be "The Chosen People". Particularly inspiring was the holiness of the family which produced Mary and Joseph. They all prayed a lot and very intensely.

In the three-year ministry of Jesus, he would visit village after village. He would preach from the Rabbi's chair, usually on a little hill outside the village. The people, being Jewish mind you, begged Jesus to not leave them. Tears were always shed when he left them.

These Jews were the very people who became the seeds of the Church, many becoming martyrs. The 'woman at the well', a Jewish woman, was so struck with this person who talked to her at the well that she went home and told all her friends and family. She made a lot of people aware of this special man called Jesus. When she was baptized she took the name of Dina and eventually was martyred for her faith.

Jesus had a lot to say about the Jewish leaders. His constant discussion of them is why he was eventually captured and crucified. Maybe that is what the LA Rabbi is really concerned about.

I friend of mine just told me about it tonight. :-)

The problem with that is the Pope being a freind of people like Arafat. :-)

Where did you come up with any of that?

The Jews are not God's chosen people because of holiness.

They are his chosen in spite of themslves.

It's a picture of grace. Just like anyone who is saved is saved inspite of their lack of holiness.

Ever read Exodus?

And I don't think that's selling well domestically. It's mileage may vary internationally however.

My point was just that we have radical Islam and every pagan on the planet trying to rip us to pieces.

I am much more inclined to witness and let it drop between the three of us than I am in inter-faith food fight's.

We have all kinds of problems to deal with besides each other. If any three religions on the face of the planet should be able to co-exist without scratching each others eyes out, imho it should be the Catholics, Protestants and the Jews.

bookmark