Hating Mel (Bill O'Reilly's take on the passion over The Passion)

bill oreilly web sit ^ | Feb. 19, 04 | Bill O'Reilly

[churchillbuff]

Hating Mel By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com Thursday, Feb 19, 2004

Here's a no spin review of Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ," which opens on Ash Wednesday. First off, the film is a faithful rendition of the execution of Jesus according to the four Gospels. [snip]... ...[snip]

...The story line does not depart from traditional Christian teaching. Yet the movie and Gibson himself continue to be viciously attacked. Why?

Even Abraham Foxman, the militant leader of the Anti-Defamation League, now admits the film is not anti-Semitic. Yet Foxman continues to object to it on the basis of what it might do. And that's the crux of this matter. ....[snip]

So fair-minded people can understand the emotion that some Jews feel when they hear that a Jewish character, Judas, betrays Jesus and another Jewish character, Caiphas, who agitates for his death in the movie. The apprehension is real and understandable, but it is wrong to use it as an excuse to vilify a man who wants to tell a scriptural story that he believes illustrates his faith.

As the Muslim killers on 9/11 and the pedophile Catholic priests prove, there are bad people in all religions. Rational individuals understand that although evil has many faces, it does not reside in any particular race. ...[snip]

People who hate Jews don't need a movie to fuel their neurosis. ...And ironically, Mel Gibson's movie is about love. Christians believe Jesus loved mankind so much that he was willingly gave up his life to give human beings redemption from their failings. Also, please remember that Jesus, above all, was a Jew.

The brutal attacks on Gibson may themselves create bad will. Most Americans who see this movie, I believe, will respect Gibson for making it. They may well see the defamation that has been heaped on him as grossly unfair. .... [snip]...I know [Gibson] a bit and I know his passion is to persuade people that Jesus was a man to be admired and imitated. It is Gibson's prerogative to use the Gospels to make that point. It is also the prerogative of his critics to frown on the project.

But trying to destroy the man's reputation is something else. It reminds me of Roman justice: guilt or innocence really didn't matter as long as the harsh punishment set a frightening example. Ad hominem, indeed.

[Jabba the Nutt]

The brutal attacks on Gibson may themselves create bad will.

Sadly, Fox News has jumped on the 'Smear Mel' bandwagon. I got an email from Fox News Roger Friedman on Mel's support for his church, his dad's opinions and his 'controversial, possibly anti-Semitic' movie.

I'm optimistic though, that the shear impact of the Passion is going to overwhelm all the sandfleas nipping at Mel's ankles. The movie Patton was denounced at it's time as 'fascistic'. Who remembers that charge today? Or Star Wars and Starship Troopers both suffered from that charge.

[contessa machiaveli]

educate me, what has been said? i don't recall seeing anti-christian rhetoric....and i'd be the first to condemn it.

[newzjunkey]

I'm unlikely to go see The Passion unless I have someone to go with; I don't like going to films alone.

That said, this Jewish fervor over what might be construed from the film and so forth does more to foster contempt in a censorship-backlash than the film itself ever could. I'm already bent there was some editing seemingly done to appease Jewish critics. Come on, Mel, have some spine!

It's suspicious that Hollywood can write, create and distribute some of the most worthless drivel ever to appear on film and *this* film has been a hard fought creation from day one. IMHO, Jewish leaders are using the event of this film to once again underscore and fortify the impression in American minds that Jewish culture is above criticism, politically untouchable and somehow superior in thought, wisdom and vision even regarding a tale that is not their own, that of the Christian Savior. All this "Passion" talk is good cover for Ariel Sharon's latest back-stabbing of the United States or attempted erradication of the Palestinians such as the gunship's murder of an innocent child in recent weeks.

[tinamina]

Very simple for me. Satan is using every trick he can to prevent people from seeing this, because it's going to convert and convict many. He's been winning this war lately through the ACLU and their cronies, he doesn't like losing some of his hard fought souls.

[King Prout]

"I don't know why people behave as they do in movie theatres...although one of my theories is that the individuals in the audience are seized with the need to divert attn from the screen to themselves, to become an alternative performance...an exercise in vanity."

Vanity, yes... but you do not take it far enough: Barbarity is essentially baroque in nature, and requires no reason to vilely flower forth... beyond the fact of its own existence. They act that way because they can, and no one is enforcing the social contract to stop them.

People believe that movie theaters are "public" places.
They are not.
They are private property, and can (and SHOULD) be governed by the rules set by that property's legitimate entitled owner. As this is the case, the rules set by the owner or his duly empowered representatives ("management") are in fact law within the bounds of that property.

Most movie theater owners require silence or near-silence from their patrons while the movie is projected. Most movie theaters owners require a basic minimum level of decorous physical demeanor, cleanliness, and dress from their patrons while on premisis.

By voluntarily purchasing a ticket, a patron is entering into a civil agreement to abide by the rules set by the site owner in exchange for services rendered. One of those services the property owner promises is a civil, tranquil, safe environment in which a patron may peacefully enjoy a film.

Failure by a patron to abide by those rules is breach of contract. A patron who disobeys those rules can and should be required immediately to desist or leave. Failure or refusal to immediately do one or the other is criminal trespass. This can, and should, result in summary detention by the police, jailtime, and fines.

Failure by the property owner to enforce those rules against unruly patrons is fraud and breach of contract against all other patrons. As a dissatisfied patron usually can get an immediate refund, and can refuse his patronage to that establishment in perpetuity, it is difficult to assess the possibilities of stronger and more effective (reformative) legal penalties being applied to negligent theater owners.

Unfortunately, the litigious climate prevailing today, as well as the advanced state of decay to which public etiquette has devolved, serves as a disincentive to theater owners to assert their own rights as private property owners and enforce their just will on their voluntary and unruly guests.

So the obnoxious bastards, who have made what was once a pleasant means of diversion into a terribly unrewarding and annoying experience, run rampant.

Solution? I have no earthly idea.

[westerfield]

It's suspicious that Hollywood can write, create and distribute some of the most worthless drivel ever to appear on film and *this* film has been a hard fought creation from day one. IMHO, Jewish leaders are using the event of this film to once again underscore and fortify the impression in American minds that Jewish culture is above criticism, politically untouchable and somehow superior in thought, wisdom and vision even regarding a tale that is not their own, that of the Christian Savior.

Good observation.

[Mamzelle]

re: As a dissatisfied patron usually can get an immediate refund)))

Yes, and I have done that just a few weeks ago for a ruined performance of Return of the King--but when you and sweetie have set aside the time and effort to watch something, it isn't the price of the ticket that you regret losing.

It was this particular movie that brought home to me just how distressing the behavior of movie-goers can be--I truly wanted to see this movie in a theatre, unmolested.

re: Solution? I have no earthly idea.)))

I'm afraid you will have to invest some money in a home theatre--but you'd be surprised how quickly even an expensive monster television can earn its way.

[King Prout]

re: home theater system

I'm saving my shekels for a biiiig HiDef digital flatscreen with some tasty trimmings. that solves the symptom (my viewing discontent) well enough, but it doesn't solve the underlying problem.

I think, perhaps, that bad press might be a useful lever to motivate theater operators to enforce their own rules... or stop pretending to have any.

[Mamzelle]

re: I think, perhaps, that bad press might be a useful lever to motivate theater operators )))

Wish I agreed...but I don't think so. The world is too much with us. You don't need a fancy screen--just a BIG one. (g)

[BillyBoy]

>> Abe Foxman is an EVIL MAN. I hope his FUNDRAISING is going well. He thinks he should have a say in Mel Gibson's INTERRUPTATION of the Scriptures. I don't remember him wanting to rewrite "Schindler's List". I also didn't realize how many Jews hated Christians (behind our backs). <<

I wonder how many of these Gibson bashers are worried about "opening old wounds" and "anit-Catholic hatred" being spread EVERY time someone writes another book/movie/play, etc., etc., blaming the Holocaust on Pope Pius XII.

I guess it's okay to trash all Catholics based on the THEORY that one Pope may have contributed to the Holocaust, but it's not okay to point out the FACT that SOME Jews, along with the Romans, yelled "Crusify him" 2000 years ago.

[rmichaelj]

Sorry to hear you won't be going. I think if anything the movie will in a small way demonstrate the fullness of just what Christ went through for us, and by that can serve to deepen your Faith. Also, as I understand it, the flashbacks in the film serve to give a relation between the events of Jesus's life and what he experienced at the end of it. (e.g. the last supper and being raised on the cross).
As to why the gospels were not detailed in their account of the Passion, it probably had to do with the fact that in the time that they were written, everyone was all too familiar with what a crucifixion and scourging was like. That is something that has been lost in these times (at least in the Western world.)
Regardless, why not wait a while, talk to people you know who have seen it, and if you choose, you may want to see it later??

[MarMema]

You are not alone. Having waxed and waned I have come to the same conclusion. So has this writer, I think.

[Nov3]

I am so glad I built my system. I did quite a bit a research at avsforum.com. I am using a Studio Experience 20HD projector. (Sharp Plv-70). I play and scale DVDs to the projectors native resolution using a computer. It is digital all the way. I project it on a grey wall. The screen image is 4.5' by 8' for a 9.2' diagonal. The sound system is an Outlaw 770 processor with 2-4 channel QSC amplifiers (400 watts/channel at 4 ohms for 3,200 watts total!) running 6 speakers and 2 subs. It totally rocks and the image is crystal clear even at that screen size. I don't miss movie theaters AT ALL! I haven't had to deal with cell phones and threats since. Nobody who feels the need to talk at living room level less than 3' away from me. Thank God. Best of all - my wife loves it more than me.

I hated going to movie theaters. I don't have to now. I will for this movie though.

[Nov3]

Solution? I have no earthly idea.

Buy your home theater. It is obtainable at a reasonable expense.