Skip

I, Mel, absolve your bloody entrails
March 7, 2004 6:02 AM   Subscribe

Mel Gibson wanted Frank Rich's bloody entrails on a stick, wanted to kill Rich's dog. But now... In the buildup to his new film, Mel Gibson said, about Frank Rich, "I want to kill him. I want his entrails on a stick I want to kill his dog" (The New Yorker, September 15) . Any american non-celebrity teenager who uttered such threats would have been immediately arrested, interrogated, and forced to submit to lengthy counseling. Yet to right wing US press media, it seems, the "entrails" threat was immaterial. Indeed, chirps WorldNet's Barbara Simpson, "Gibson is the bravest man in Hollywood. Perhaps, he's the bravest in the country....Gibson's hell has been very public. " Now, on Leno, Mel has granted Rich forgiveness and absolution for Rich's sin of criticizing "The Passion" : "You try to perform an act of love even for those who persecute you", said Gibson to Leno.
posted by troutfishing (39 comments total)

 
Mel Gibson at O'Reilly Factor. Ok, I don't need to know anymore. It's a big big hate-marketing world these days.

My quarrel is not with most of the millions of Christian believers who are moved to tears by "The Passion." They bring their own deep feelings to the theater with them, and when Mr. Gibson pushes their buttons, however crudely, they generously do his work for him, supplying from their hearts the authentic spirituality that is missing in his jamboree of bloody beefcake

I Couldn't have said it better.
posted by elpapacito at 6:20 AM on March 7, 2004


> Any american non-celebrity teenager who uttered such
> threats would have been immediately arrested,
> interrogated, and forced to submit to lengthy counseling.

News flash, the more wealth and power you have the less you have to conform. Darn, this was so not true last year or the year before that. Where did we go wrong?

P.S. no I'm not going to see the movie. I'm always disappointed with movie adaptations of books I've read.
posted by jfuller at 7:03 AM on March 7, 2004


i had always wondered how gibson's reprehensible character would eventually out itself, and i gotta say it couldn't have turned out more surreal. it's been an odd entertainment watching him sloppily unravel in some ways and in other ways be in a looney sort of control, ie: his purposeful christ-figuring of himself in the media. the guy has just gone completely crazyhuhkookoonuts. i'm guessing that's what leading a life of total hypocrisy does to an individual.
posted by t r a c y at 7:26 AM on March 7, 2004


t r a c y sniped me on my comment, and much more eloquently. I was just gonna say that Mel was nuts.....
posted by Eekacat at 7:29 AM on March 7, 2004


check out the always amazing Elaine Pagels in the New Yorker. Professor Pagels (tangentially mentioned in the second Rich link troutfishing provided) has to say that -- and excuse me if I quote at lenght but this is the best article I've read on Gibson's movie, I strongly suggest anybody interested reads it in its entirety -- there’s a context for the movie in the history of art. When Christians read the Gospels as historical acts, they will say what Mel Gibson says: that this is the truth, this is our faith. But the important thing is that this film ignores the spin the gospel writers were pressured to put on their works, the distortions of facts they had to execute. Mel Gibson has no interest whatsoever in that.”
Pagels explained that the four gospel writers of the New Testament probably wrote between 70 and 100 A.D. These were the years following the Roman defeat of the Jews, which left the Temple and the center of Jerusalem in ruins. Acts of sedition by the Jews against their conquerors were met with swift execution. As a result, Pagels said, the Gospels, which were intended not as history but as preaching, as religious propaganda to win followers for the teachings of Christ, portrayed the conflict of the Passion as one between Jesus and the Jewish people, led by Caiaphas. And, though it was the Roman occupiers, under Pontius Pilate, who possessed ultimate political and judicial power in Judea, they are described in the Gospels—and, more starkly, in Gibson’s film--as relatively benign.
“Our first informed comment on Pilate comes from Philo of Alexandria, a wealthy, influential Jewish citizen who was part of a delegation sent to Rome to negotiate with the emperor,” Pagels said. “The delegation saw the Emperor Caligula in the year 40, seven to ten years after Jesus’ death, and Philo writes that Pilate was stubborn and cruel and routinely ordered executions without trial. The other great historian of the period is Josephus, who wrote the history of the war between the Romans and the Jews. He tells us many episodes about Pilate that also go against what the Gospels tell us—that he robbed the public treasury, that he deliberately incited the Jerusalemites. Josephus tells us that when people rioted in protest Pilate sent his soldiers to beat and kill them. So he was far from the man depicted in the Gospels.


it's also important to point how consistently in "The Passion" Pilate (the excellent Hristo Jivkov) is depicted as a good, tolerant man. and how sadistic the Sanhedrin rabbis consistently look.

me, I kept wishing for more and more flashbacks on Jesus' speeches to his disciples. these are really amazing -- I think Caviezel when unburdened by those gallons of blood and all that torn flesh is very, very good -- and I kept wishing for more.

let us not forget that the discredited Anne Catherine Emmerich is one of the non-Gospel sources of Gibson's movie. that says a lot, sadly.

Gibson (an actor I used to like a lot, back when he was younger and acted in interesting projects like The Year of Living Dangerously) is the usual very crude director of Braveheart, genetically incapable of subtlety (I still remember the amused/horrified look of Meryl Streep when his Best Director Oscar was announced) I loved Deschanel's cinematography -- he is a true maestro. I liked many little things (Claudia Gerini is very good as Claudia, Pilate's wife), but the main thrust of the movie I didn't really like. I also think it's a dangerous movie, for the less sophisticated viewers could really come out of the cinema with a terrible opinion of those bloodthirsty, hook-nosed, sadistic, Christ-killing Jews.

oh, I'm also surprised at Caviezel's hard, cold stare right after the Resurrection. He rises with a terrible, grim look in his eyes. more Terminator than God of Infinite Love.


I won't even comment on Gibson's "intestines on a stick" demented threats, nor on his ability to whine every two minutes. conspiracy my ass, Mel. and you know it. I'm allergic to the "everything is anti-semitism" PC contigent, but really, you've been dealing bad stuff with this flick, reap the profits and deal with it

posted by matteo at 7:33 AM on March 7, 2004


> oh, I'm also surprised at Caviezel's hard, cold stare right
> after the Resurrection. He rises with a terrible, grim look in
> his eyes. more Terminator than God of Infinite Love.

How an uncredited meme gets around. David Edelstein in Slate, Feb. 24:

When Jesus is resurrected, his expression is hard, and, as he moves toward the entrance to his tomb, the camera lingers on a round hole in his hand that goes all the way through. Gibson's Jesus reminded me of the Terminator—he could be the Christianator—heading out into the world to spread the bloody news.

...though neither Edelstein nor matteo is referencing any previous work by Gibson, since Terminator is Arnold's franchise, not Mel's. I assume we're just hopefully recasting here; James Caviezel is out as Jesus in Christianator II: The Last Judgement, Arnie's in. (Personally, it occurs to me that Arnie will be a lot older after his second term as President, old enough at last to do Conan the King, which should be his first priority.)
posted by jfuller at 8:12 AM on March 7, 2004


Oops, fixed Slate link.
posted by jfuller at 8:14 AM on March 7, 2004


"P.S. no I'm not going to see the movie. I'm always disappointed with movie adaptations of books I've read." - this made me laugh out loud.

"the more wealth and power you have the less you have to conform. Darn, this was so not true last year or the year before that." - That was exactly my point, and no - I don't know the answer to your question either, but William Greider, in "Who will tell the People?", has some pointed suggestions. I think part of the answer lies, as well, in quickly widening disparities of wealth distribution in the US - the rich and famous feel themselves to be different in the eyes of the law. And perhaps they are correct. Lesser mortals than Gibson would have experienced some sort of repercussions for such thinly veiled threats - for example, if I - troutfishing - were to publicly state "I want Mel Gibson's entrails on a stick", I'd expect a knock on my door within 24 hours and things would get worse from there. Maybe even to the point of prison.

But Gibson's no mere mortal. He's famous.

I knew that Gibson was a bit extreme from hearing - at least a decade ago at this point, I think - that he followed an interpretation of Catholicism which was opposed to all forms of birth control whatsoever. I'm not even sure Gibson accepts the "rhythm method" . Maybe he does, I don't know, but he and his wife have a whole pack of kids - a dozen or so if I recall correctly.

Lots of room in Australia. I wonder what he thinks about Aussie immigration policies?

The thought of having Gibson as a father makes me cringe. But I'll say this about him - when he's not threatening to disembowel people or kill their dogs, he's very consistent with his beliefs. For example, Gibson - breaking with Hollywood tradition - remained with his wife through the whole arc of his career. Many stars divorce soon after hitting the big time. For this, at least, I respect him.

But isn't Gibson, on his own terms, as an agent of Hell - as one who preaches love and sells hatred and violence?

My childhood has steeped in the New Testament but I don't recall such a message - of violence, hatred and suffering - which Gibson sees in the Gospels - wasn't the message quite the opposite, that of love, selflessness, charity, and forgiveness? Or is my recollection incorrect?

I certainly recall Jesus saying "I come bringing not peace but a sword", yes. But I tend to view this sword as a symbolic one - and Jesus certainly did not follow that statement with - "...and with this sword I shall disembowel my enemies and smite their dogs!"

Threatening to kill somebody's dog - that's pretty low, if you ask me.
posted by troutfishing at 8:15 AM on March 7, 2004


That someone - that it's Gibson is immaterial - would want Rich's "bloody entrails on a stick" is hardly news. During his tenure as theatre critic for the New York Times, Rich earned the soubriquet "The Butcher of Broadway" for his unnecessarily brutal reviews. During the final years of his reign of terror, producers actually began refusing the Times reviewer tickets in order to avoid Rich's nastiness. Gibson's remarks about Rich - when taken in context of Rich's career - seem tame compared to what other theatre professionals have said about him, publicly and privately.

Gibson's a disturbed individual, that much seems obvious, but his loathing of Frank Rich actually couldn't be more mainstream.
posted by JollyWanker at 8:19 AM on March 7, 2004


jfuller,

have you seen the movie?
because it's unclear whether you are a) denying that Caviezel's stare is hard and cold and grim or b) suggesting that I'm part (with the Jew Edelstein) of the Jewish anti-Gibson conspiracy

fact is, have you seen the movie? if you did, how would you describe Caviezel's eyes?

oh, and I know Terminator is not a Gibson movie. actually, Gibson as a director makes Jim Cameron look subtle. no small feat

btw the Terminator comparison is everywhere, not really thanks to Edelstein, but thanks to Gibson's unusual directorial choice. I remember an Italian critic writing that "Jesus looks so angry He seems headed straight to a Crusade". he looks like he was resurrected to kick some ass, jfuller, and it's not my fault. that ending looks like the prequel to a revenge movie -- and again it's not my fault.

I actually don't remember reading Edelstein's piece (I usually don't care much for his criticism, I'd much rather read Mitchell, and I remember reading AO Scott on The Passion, maybe I read Edelstein too, who knows)

anyway, here's Emmerich's text. read and enjoy

ps I hereby state that I haven't taken any money (especially 30 silver coins) from any Jewish person to spread evil anti-Gibson "memes" over the Internet
posted by matteo at 8:30 AM on March 7, 2004




Wow, you people really challenge each other's viewpoints, huh?
posted by yerfatma at 8:39 AM on March 7, 2004


matteo: Good points -- between the expression at the end, the earthquake, and the snake in the beginning, I got the feeling this Jesus had some Old-Testament ass kicking in him.

I don't think it would have changed the movie (or most of the criticisms of the movie) to make Pilate more realistic. Pilate could have been portrayed by footage from Caligula and it wouldn't have changed the story that Caiphas (and some of the other priests) manipulated the system to have Jesus executed. OTOH I think you overlook the fact that the movie is full of good Jews (Mary, Mary, the Apostles, the priests who are kicked out of the temple, the guy who helps with the cross, the woman who offers Jesus water, the people who are crying as he's being whipped) and ugly, cruel Roman soldiers. Ultimately, between the Satan character (who talks to Jesus but never tries to convince a human to stop it) and the ass-kicking Jesus (who could have used his earthquake power to escape), I got the feeling that every human character in the movie was supposed to be a cog in a machine that brought Jesus through torture, death, resurrection.
posted by subgenius at 8:40 AM on March 7, 2004


remained with his wife through the whole arc of his career. Many stars divorce soon after hitting the big time. For this, at least, I respect him.

he's been very consistent at cheating on said wife, which pretty much cancels out any respect one can have for his remaining married. people have been very good to him in terms of keeping his on set antics hush hush. he's never made any attempt to be discreet but he was easy enough to work with otherwise so he got away with it. however after his recent remark that his wife will be going to hell because she's a protestant, a few columnists have decided to drop that previous courtesy and have been making mention of his adulterous ways. not a few production assistants (who had to cover for his lying ass) have leapt to their feet and done the wave over that turn of events.

how would you describe Caviezel's eyes?

third day, stone rolls away, freshly laundered and oddly invigorated star ready for revenge (no love or forgiveness in those eyes) and sequel.
posted by t r a c y at 9:32 AM EST on February 28
posted by t r a c y at 8:49 AM on March 7, 2004


Next summer: Passion II: Night of the Living Christ!
posted by SPrintF at 9:07 AM on March 7, 2004


Not to derail too hard, but am I the only one who absolutely cannot stand (or understand) that bizarre, overly-paginated IHT side-scrolling format?
posted by dgaicun at 9:16 AM on March 7, 2004


> have you seen the movie?

Already answered in this very thread. In general I am a reader, not a watcher. But even as a watcher I'd take a good anime any day over either of these.


> because it's unclear whether you are a) denying that
> Caviezel's stare is hard and cold and grim or b)
> suggesting that I'm part (with the Jew Edelstein) of the
> Jewish anti-Gibson conspiracy.... ps I hereby state that
> I haven't taken any money (especially 30 silver coins)
> from any Jewish person to spread evil anti-Gibson
> "memes" over the Internet

The denial and the suggestion are the only two possibilities that occur to you? The second is a textbook instance of neuroticism failing to pass as irony. Get thee back to thy therapist presto, I'd say.

Actually I'm (vainly, no doubt, but all good men must do what they can) just attempting to step on a propagating meme that's, first, too traceable to be used without any attribution, on pain of looking derivative instead of insightful, and second, pretty dim to begin with. (Comparing the risen Christ's expression to Terminator's might be canny if Gibson was in fact responsible for both. But since he was not I see only a close-but-no-cigar attempt at cannyness, picked up from the netnoise and uncritically repeated. Better compare Him to, oh, Dirty Harry or Godzilla or some other character that had some connection to revenge, which Terminator lacks.)


> But isn't Gibson, on his own terms, as an agent of Hell -
> as one who preaches love and sells hatred and violence?

Certainly. He's welcome to his own understanding of the chronicle but he has no business making money off it. (Not that there aren't a few precedents for moving your goods with religious sell.)
posted by jfuller at 9:41 AM on March 7, 2004


on a propagating meme that's, first, too traceable to be used without any attribution,

because of course only Edelstein ever saw Terminator, an obscure box office bomb. and only Edelstein would only dream up that similitude.
but it's always a good thing to add footnotes, so yes, Edelstein (whom I may or may not have read, but many reviewers made the same point) made the Terminator comparison first. and here we have that useful fact in this thread, etched in white pixels on blue, for future archival purposes. happy now?
Godzilla is a lizard, so you could hardly compare its expression to an actual human being's. Callaghan? no, not really. Caviezel's eyes struck me as more robotic (as in a menacing, malevolent robot) than anything else. so the Terminator similitude really is spot-on. the fact that Gibson didn't direct Terminator is immaterial -- he made a directorial choice. call it an (involuntary?) hommage if you want

but then again, between you and me I'm the one who saw the movie, instead of pontificating about it without having seen it.

Get thee back to thy therapist presto, I'd say

why? you're already doing the analyzing for free here. it's bad, patronizing, amateurish work and slightly insulting, but I know that free health care is very hard to come by in the US, so I guess I'll take it anyway


you know, I'd probably know better than to defend a very controversial movie by the right-winger, trash-talking loving son of a notorious Holocaust denier ("the man never lied to me") without having actually seen it. but you're free to do that of course. one suggestion: since you're not a watcher but a reader, check out the transcript of Emmerich's visions. it's an interesting read. Gibson's movie is all there, in nuce

posted by matteo at 10:09 AM on March 7, 2004


matteo: Those are 300 pages of visions. How do they -- and, more impotantly, the film -- depart from the Gospels?
posted by subgenius at 10:16 AM on March 7, 2004


subgenius: very quickly, and off the top of my head -- the satanic evil children taunting Jesus, Pilate's attitude, Claudia's constant cheering for Jesus, Claudia's presence with Mary and Magdalene at Golgotha, the general bloodthirstiness of the Jews, a general sense of, ahem, very human and not very holy anti-Semitism (dirt-poor Westphalian illiterate Emmerich's visions are by now either discarded by the Church or anyway there's a lot of prudent talk about her being "a creature of her time" in her attitude towards the Jews. all this comes from early nineteenth-century Westphalia, remember).
anyway she had visions where she flew through time and space to 33 AD Jerusalem, and she recounts she witnessed all of the action, magically comprehending the meaning of the dialogue. a famous writer (Klemens Brentano) later went through all her visions and translated them from her Westphalian dialect into German

re: the differences between the movie and the Gospels there's a good Newsweek cover story here, to start with
posted by matteo at 10:28 AM on March 7, 2004


> Godzilla is a lizard, so you could hardly compare its
> expression to an actual human being's.

But he's such a human lizard. At least as much expressiveness as Sly Stallone or Charlton Heston. Plus, he died for your sins. Repeatedly.


> you know, I'd probably know better than to defend a very
> controversial movie by the right-winger, trash-talking loving
> son of a notorious Holocaust denier ("the man never lied to
> me") without having actually seen it.

What thread are you reading, my boy? Where did I defend the movie? I wonder if you didn't accidentally pick up the same set of glasses Mel uses to read Holy Writ.
posted by jfuller at 10:58 AM on March 7, 2004


Godzilla is dead.
posted by Hildago at 11:18 AM on March 7, 2004


...he looks like he was resurrected to kick some ass...

This time... Jesus is fighting back!
posted by bwg at 11:23 AM on March 7, 2004


christians should be thanking the jewish people, without someone killing jesus he wouldn't have died for their sins and their whole religion effectively wouldn't exist.

jesus was preordained to die for that very reason.

it isn't the jews christians should be blaming it's their own god.

Disclaimer: this may be a classic example of an atheists oversimplification...
posted by knapah at 11:28 AM on March 7, 2004


> Disclaimer: this may be a classic example of an atheists oversimplification...

Maybe. I'd point to atheism as the classic example of atheist oversimplification. Symmetrically, I pick theism as the classic example of theist oversimplification.
posted by jfuller at 11:56 AM on March 7, 2004


matteo: Thanks for the links, that was interesting. I didn't think the movie was anti-semitic (for the reasons I discussed above) but it is striking that those visions (or whatever they were) contributed to the soft portrayal of Pilate. Here is another interesting (very religious) site, that breaks down the Emmerich influence scene by scene. I had no idea that so much of the film related to the Stations of the Cross.

One good thing about all this, I guess, is the fact the film's been out for a couple weeks and no one has done anything spectacularly stupid.
posted by subgenius at 12:10 PM on March 7, 2004


the film's been out for a couple weeks and no one has done anything spectacularly stupid.

In America, I'm not so surprised. But as Hitchens recently pointed out, it could be quite different when the film is shown in some other countries. We'll have to wait and see.
posted by homunculus at 12:31 PM on March 7, 2004


Matteo - Thanks, I typo-ed that "My childhood has steeped in" ( that should have been "was steeped in" ) but it's otherwise true...unless, of course, my "childhood" is still gooing on. OK, well I'm a little immature, maybe.....

Moving right along - why not grant Jfuller's point and compare Jesus' post-resurrection stare to that of some other evil character? Despite his being scripted as an unstopple death machine, Schwarzenneger facial expressions as the Terminator never actually struck me as especially menacing - and I actually think that the shrivelled affect that characterizes a lot of his film work was very appropriate in Terminator. He was, after all, playing a robot. But - on most actors - a "Terminator"-like 'glare' would come off as a Thorazine stupor. "Dirty Harry's" glare was far more menacing - I'd say that it was in another league altogether.

But - disclaimer - I haven't seen the movie. Maybe it IS appropriate. I just don't want to give any money to Mel Gibson to find out for myself.

T r a c y - [ "he's been very consistent at cheating on said wife, which pretty much cancels out any respect one can have for his remaining married." ] - I knew neither that nor Gibson's statement that his wife was going to Hell ( I try to avoid pop culture as much as I can ). That's was a truly sadistic thing for Gibson to say. Oh well - I retract my point of respect !

He's a wretch.

I wonder if American protestant evangelicals have realized that - by logical extension - Gibson is declaring that THEY will all go to Hell as well ?

I LOVE the ring of that : "Gibson declares all protestants going to Hell". Would that be slanderous?
posted by troutfishing at 1:03 PM on March 7, 2004


Would Anthony Hopkins playing Hannibal Lecter be an apt comparison? Or Christopher Walken playing.....well, anything?

I've got it - Christopher Walken playing Satan! (he actually did)
posted by troutfishing at 1:21 PM on March 7, 2004


I still haven't seen the movie so I can't really address the content directly but I can add a perspective from my childhood when I was raised in a deeply fundamentalist household.

I can remember thinking, after upteen readings of the gospels, that Pilate wasn't a bad guy. The gospel writers, especially in John, go out of their way to make him look reasonable with a wife who was a semi-believer. The full blame was placed on the Jewish priesthood leaders who initiated the entire thing.

If Gibson made Pilate reasonable, then he's following the source material closely.

In terms of the responsibility for the crucifixion, we were always taught that we were all responsible for it. The Jewish leaders and mobs were just the necessary foils for accomplishing Christ's death, but they were not solely responsible. In addition, we all realized, that within the christian myth, Christ's death was so essential that it had to happen. One would be almost thankful to the Jewish leaders and mobs for making it happen.

My church was very intolerant on many issues but they were never anti-Semetic. We did feel that the 'blood upon our heads and our children' was a sort of self-inflicted curse which caused the Jews to suffer through the centuries, but that curse didn't mean we had to participate in inflicting suffering on them.

Gibson sounds like an asshole, but he does seem, in many respects, to have been close to the source material, with the source's many warts and all.
posted by pandaharma at 2:06 PM on March 7, 2004


Godzilla is dead.

Hildago you take that back right this second...!! godzilla is simply going into retirement, just for a few years, that's all. *sob*

just attempting to step on a propagating meme that's, first, too traceable to be used without any attribution

jfuller - i saw the movie the evening it opened, previous to seeing anyone make the terminator comparison, and my instant reaction was the same as most people's... my b/f turned to me in the theatre and said "damn trace, that's not the son of god, that's dirty harry", and i responded with "nuh uh zoran, it's the christinator! he'll be back!" and everyone in the theatre around us agreed and you could tell they had already been thinking that before us 2 loud mouths said anything. some things are just too blatant, too obvious, too utterly relatable to some pop culture reference/already existing meme. that moment in that movie is just one of those things that reminds many people of the same thing.
posted by t r a c y at 4:50 PM on March 7, 2004


I just don't want to give any money to Mel Gibson to find out for myself.

neither do many people who have recently seen Divx hi-quality copies of the movie -- it's all over P2P networks since Ash Wednesday, I am told
WARNING: of course copyright infringement is bad and it shouldn't be done, ever, it also makes Jesus' heart bleed profusely.
and Deschanel's visuals deserve a movie theatre's screen and a good projector, but still.

posted by matteo at 1:22 AM on March 8, 2004


I almost forgot -- the entire New Yorker story that kind of started the whole mess and that trout mentioned in the fpp is here (Free Republic link)
posted by matteo at 1:37 AM on March 8, 2004


It is still not clear to me why Mel decided to cut the Jesus vs. Satan part. Although, if he is striving for accuracy, a possible answer is here.
posted by SNACKeR at 4:58 AM on March 8, 2004


Jews for Jesus, eh? How very fitting. I bought this very laptop (broken, I fixed it) on which I am writing this from the Jews for Jesus.

matteo - I AM NOT A LAWBREAKER ! (But Jesus WAS a communist, wasn't he ?...)

_____________________________________________

I had a very interesting conversation on the movie with a pre-Vatican 2 ultra-conservative priest-in-training. "Was the film a bit too bloody", I asked him? "No, not at all", he replied, "It's the Passion." He said that Pilate's wife's character in Gibson's "Passion" ( called by some critics a deviation from the actual Gospel record ) was "traditional - it's in the Apocrypha."

_____________________________________________

It occurs to me that - per t r a c y 's comment on Gibson's marital infidelity - the the actor is an apt illustration of the sort of near-psychotic moral schizophrenia which catholics can fall into from the Church's denial of the ways of the flesh - which stem from it's depiction of most human sexual desire as satanically inspired.

Exhibit "A" - Mel Gibson, a man who : 1) rejects all forms of birth control and so has fathered quite a few children, 2) reportedly has had numerous extramarital affairs, presumably involving various forms of birth control as well (or the paternity suits would ruin him), 3) makes sweeping moral indictments of others, even consigning his very own wife, a protestant, to Hell, 4) ostensibly promotes Jesus' message while covertly (and occasionally very overtly as well ) reveling in gratuitous violence.

I'd make the case that Gibson's behavior is all of a piece with the widespread abuse that has given rise to the current crisis in the Catholic Church, from the public outing of widespread sexual predation on the laity by it's priests (often sexual abuse of children) - and the Church's denial and coverups of this predatory sexual abuse....all somehow done in the name of God, I suppose.

Somehow, this - and Gibson's behavior - seems very distant from the teachings of Jesus as depicted in the Gospels.
posted by troutfishing at 6:43 AM on March 8, 2004


I AM NOT A LAWBREAKER

Scripture never mentions P2P. same for copyright infringement.
also, who gets the royalties for all those Bibles sold every day?

Jesus WAS a communist, wasn't he ?...)

yes, if you listen to Pasolini -- whose Jesus movie I strongly suggest you watch as soon as you can, if you haven't yet. Pasolini's Jesus is strangely unwilling to kick people's asses, OK, in the movie He probably doesn't even know kung-fu, but it's a good film anyway
;)
posted by matteo at 8:41 AM on March 8, 2004


SNACKeR, that J4J list leaves out a pretty important line:

SPJ: Visible being even to this day
Y: Not seen in about 2000 years

Plus, SPJ is way funnier.
posted by billsaysthis at 11:09 AM on March 8, 2004


Actually didn't Christopher Walken play Gabrial, Not satan? for the film Profecy?
posted by Elim at 4:40 PM on March 8, 2004


matteo - * wink *

Elim - perhaps you are right. I just remember the satanic quality of Walken's Gabriel. But it's not surprising that I had a hard time remembering this plot :

"Gabriel takes his anger out on the human race, coming to Earth to capture the soul of the most evil human alive in an effort to defeat the "good" angels that remain in God's good graces. One of the good angels is played by Eric Stoltz, who captures the evil soul before Walken does and transfers it into the body of a little girl. Are you with us so far? Don't worry if you're not, because writer-director Gregory Widen filled The Prophecy with so many wild ideas that he didn't bother to connect them to a coherent plot."

So you are right - Walken's Gabriel was not Satan. But he might as well have been.
posted by troutfishing at 8:31 PM on March 8, 2004


« Older to blathe, or not to blathe   |   Nostalghia: The work of Andrei Tarkovsky Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post