Monday, March 08, 2004
mel gibson
My views about Mel Gibson's latest flick change with every exposure to appealing and well-constructed opinion, the latest being Charles Krauthammer's here
I wonder, though, whether Charles is not a little strong here in his denunciation of St Mel.
True, the central characters in 'The Passion of the Christ' are all Jews.
Just like vile Shylock in Shakespeare's 'The Merchant of Venice', Gibson's Caiaphas dresses in Jewish garb and is simultaneously the movie's touchstone of evil . Just like Shylock's daughter Jessica, 'Passion' 's heroes are ethnically Jewish but have embraced Christianity ... and are (therefore?) portrayed in the story like the embodiment of good.
For Jewish people - at a real and "visceral" (hasn't that word been a worked chestnut in 'Passion' discussions!) level - there is indeed much to feel uncomfortable about. The terrible charge of deicide has a long and bloody history of coinciding with maelstroms of anti-Judean bigotry.
Part of Gibson's apparent motivation in making the film, as Krauthammer points out, exacerbates such discomfort, to wit the overt distaste the actor/director has for Vatican II - a seminal event to the many who appreciate its express Papal directive calling for humane interpretation of the very subject matter of Gibson's 'Passion'.
But Vatican II is a disaster in Gibson's view for its watering down of fundamental Christian practices.
By now we all know - and I would greatly prefer not to know - that Mel's branch of Catholicism conducts services in Latin and is heavily geared towards giving the old two fingers to VII in other ways. Like making an unadulterated, honest to gospels film about Christ's final hours. One that powerfully conveys the meaning in the Eucharist. A version which, the director insists, is in no way anti-Semitic and in fact is all about promoting universal love.
Garbage, says Krauthammer. There is no way on earth - and this is clearly true - that Gibson could not have known this subject matter would be disconcerting for Jews, whilst abetting the types of nasty chauvinistic views we are led to believe - and, boy oh boy, wasn't this something you wish you'd never heard - are held dearly by Gibson's own father.
Furthermore, out of spicy Mel G's own mouth in that now famous 'New Yorker' interview came the clanger about "secular Judaism" trying (for ages, he says) to blame the Holocaust on the Catholic Church.
Following such a curious deluge of factoids I, for one, may never again be able to watch Mel's film 'Conspiracy Theory' with a light heart.
But on the substantive point of suspicion and difference between said Spiceboy and our non-Calvinist columnist CK I aver that - it is at least possible that - both legitimately claim to being righteously indignant.
Consider the obscure production - in volatile 1920s Jerusalem - of an opera, called 'The Jewess', in which one of the main (and bad-ass) characters is a Cardinal. The Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem became upset with that portrayal. He invoked the support of the (British) Mayor of Jerusalem in successfully persuading the play's producer to fashion said character as a black-robed and secular judge instead of a red-robed and cross-bearing cardinal.
Which pleased the patriarch - but at the same time upset radical Jewish commentators, who wailed loudly that the governor’s very public intervention had brought a “new inquisition” to Jerusalem.
Well, here we are in a different era. 'Passion' hails from a different continent, and motion pictures are of course a different medium. The shoes of the 1920s play were also on opposite feet, but still ... it's all the same hotdanged thing, isn't it!? Complainant says, hey, don't tell bad stories about me, don't you dis me. Purveyor says bug off, this is nothing to do with you, mind your own. And both stare and fold arms in religion-cloaked, sanctimonious indignation.
Now, this simplistic explanation is not to say that some of Krauthammer's points are not spot on. Mel (hey look, I know he has suddenly become "Mr Gibson" to a lot of writers but I always liked him when he was just plain Mel) is a long way from ignorant of the bullying effect on Jews that he is creating. He has admitted to wanting to promote "discussion", and his PR campaign has of course cashed right in on this heavily hyped Christian v Jewish controversy. He may be startled that things got this big, but it would be surprising if part of his financial windfall is invested in, say, trying to win back millions of Jewish fans who now feel a little bit disturbed instead of delighted when they gaze upon that familiar face in re-runs of 'Ransom' , 'The Patriot' and 'Air America'.
The hatchet job on Gibson that has been done by the liberal media brigade led by 'The New York Times' has certainly achieved enough - no matter what you're view - to make you wonder about Mel G's hidden (err, "visceral"?) demons. The father's influence looms large. Some wonder whether Mel is affected by his age: whether at 48 or thereabouts, in one view, there is the drive to reinvent himself within his art. Perhaps, others may quietly muse, he is disaffected with some of the Jewish powerbrokers in Hollywood. Then, in yet another view, there is the flavor that many of us have seen regarding people who later in life find religion; that the transformation is often zealous and driven by escapism, reform, denial, repentance or some such reaction to mistake or misfortune.
It's all mere speculation. Who knows what, if any, demons lie within? The ad hominem information we're getting on Gibson is more unseemly and compelling than anything in a Hollywood gossip magazine, but has been blasted at us from mainstream newspapers and network TV screens. It has incensed the actor, while catapulting him to a place in cinematic, box office and inter-religious history instead of succeeding in ignominious character assassination.
Thankfully, Gibson has so far proven not be a high-profile Jew-hater like Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford or Roald Dahl. And, understandably, the entire American Christian establishment is pinching itself in glee at pegging a big one back in the face of a mighty and sustained attack, most recently regarding homosexual paedophilic abuse by Catholic clergy, it's uphill battle on issues like gay marriage and abortion, and the enmity of liberal public figures like Ted Turner and a plethora of activist US higher court justices.
Not to mention the murderous anti-Christian chauvinism of Islamic radicals.
Curiously, emphasizing the justificatory "He died for our sins, ALL our sins, so that we may love one another" message of the movie is a great result for Christians and Jews alike. This atmosphere has given rise to the rethink of the cleric in one part of Colorado who was motivated by the film, at first, to display "The Jews Killed Jesus" outside his church, and then to pull it down when angry voices were raised against him.
In another part of Colorado, the 'Passion' wave motivated the anonymous no-life idiot who tarnished Jewish graves, as well as the good people who joined the Jewish community in cleaning those same gravestones. The 'Passion' "discussion" has caused leading Christian clergy to reach out to their communities with proactive instructions not to lapse into anti-Semitism.
Of course, people like we imagine Mel Gibson's father to be will draw ugliness from the film and the gospels' message, as they always did. But perhaps, we can hope, even some of that ilk will notice that the same liberal elites they imagine to be part of a Jewish conspiracy also attack Israel incessantly and have recently been carping about the sinister influence of "Jewish neo-conservatives".
Perhaps they might also notice that Christian precepts and morals are rooted in Judaism. That it corrupts the essential Christian message to quantify every Jewish 5 year old, grandmother and dunderhead as a target for ugliness, or as a part of "ZOG", or as a sinister Elder of Zion.
In fact, despite the fact that both are Jewish, one of very, very few things upon which Charles Krauthammer and a 'New York Times' denizen like Frank Rich might agree is something which - err...viscerally - alerts them to the spectre of a direct threat.
Like a story from the bible that has galvanized bullying, and outright carnage, of the Jewish minority over many centuries.
Contrary to what is being propagated, it is tough for people like CK and the ADL's Abraham Foxman to stand up to a popular figure like Mel Gibson. In some quarters, the way things stand,this movie has had an excellent effect. Part of that is the boon to people like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Newsmax.com, Drudge and the gang who have rallied on this issue against arrogant liberal elites. Part of it also, and this may be only in my imagination, may be to show stratospheric Islamic or Palestinian radicals that the issues between Jews and Christians historically have been quite significant and that the Jewish nexus with the Holy Land is very real - and not a myth of "colonialist" European expansion.
Part of it, though this remains to be seen, may be the drawing of renewed attention to fundamental issues that can be, and have been, a source of chauvinism and conflict, and the development of a more moderate, sensible approach to such issues.
But all things are variables. The key thing is the goodness within each individual.
I wonder, though, whether Charles is not a little strong here in his denunciation of St Mel.
True, the central characters in 'The Passion of the Christ' are all Jews.
Just like vile Shylock in Shakespeare's 'The Merchant of Venice', Gibson's Caiaphas dresses in Jewish garb and is simultaneously the movie's touchstone of evil . Just like Shylock's daughter Jessica, 'Passion' 's heroes are ethnically Jewish but have embraced Christianity ... and are (therefore?) portrayed in the story like the embodiment of good.
For Jewish people - at a real and "visceral" (hasn't that word been a worked chestnut in 'Passion' discussions!) level - there is indeed much to feel uncomfortable about. The terrible charge of deicide has a long and bloody history of coinciding with maelstroms of anti-Judean bigotry.
Part of Gibson's apparent motivation in making the film, as Krauthammer points out, exacerbates such discomfort, to wit the overt distaste the actor/director has for Vatican II - a seminal event to the many who appreciate its express Papal directive calling for humane interpretation of the very subject matter of Gibson's 'Passion'.
But Vatican II is a disaster in Gibson's view for its watering down of fundamental Christian practices.
By now we all know - and I would greatly prefer not to know - that Mel's branch of Catholicism conducts services in Latin and is heavily geared towards giving the old two fingers to VII in other ways. Like making an unadulterated, honest to gospels film about Christ's final hours. One that powerfully conveys the meaning in the Eucharist. A version which, the director insists, is in no way anti-Semitic and in fact is all about promoting universal love.
Garbage, says Krauthammer. There is no way on earth - and this is clearly true - that Gibson could not have known this subject matter would be disconcerting for Jews, whilst abetting the types of nasty chauvinistic views we are led to believe - and, boy oh boy, wasn't this something you wish you'd never heard - are held dearly by Gibson's own father.
Furthermore, out of spicy Mel G's own mouth in that now famous 'New Yorker' interview came the clanger about "secular Judaism" trying (for ages, he says) to blame the Holocaust on the Catholic Church.
Following such a curious deluge of factoids I, for one, may never again be able to watch Mel's film 'Conspiracy Theory' with a light heart.
But on the substantive point of suspicion and difference between said Spiceboy and our non-Calvinist columnist CK I aver that - it is at least possible that - both legitimately claim to being righteously indignant.
Consider the obscure production - in volatile 1920s Jerusalem - of an opera, called 'The Jewess', in which one of the main (and bad-ass) characters is a Cardinal. The Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem became upset with that portrayal. He invoked the support of the (British) Mayor of Jerusalem in successfully persuading the play's producer to fashion said character as a black-robed and secular judge instead of a red-robed and cross-bearing cardinal.
Which pleased the patriarch - but at the same time upset radical Jewish commentators, who wailed loudly that the governor’s very public intervention had brought a “new inquisition” to Jerusalem.
Well, here we are in a different era. 'Passion' hails from a different continent, and motion pictures are of course a different medium. The shoes of the 1920s play were also on opposite feet, but still ... it's all the same hotdanged thing, isn't it!? Complainant says, hey, don't tell bad stories about me, don't you dis me. Purveyor says bug off, this is nothing to do with you, mind your own. And both stare and fold arms in religion-cloaked, sanctimonious indignation.
Now, this simplistic explanation is not to say that some of Krauthammer's points are not spot on. Mel (hey look, I know he has suddenly become "Mr Gibson" to a lot of writers but I always liked him when he was just plain Mel) is a long way from ignorant of the bullying effect on Jews that he is creating. He has admitted to wanting to promote "discussion", and his PR campaign has of course cashed right in on this heavily hyped Christian v Jewish controversy. He may be startled that things got this big, but it would be surprising if part of his financial windfall is invested in, say, trying to win back millions of Jewish fans who now feel a little bit disturbed instead of delighted when they gaze upon that familiar face in re-runs of 'Ransom' , 'The Patriot' and 'Air America'.
The hatchet job on Gibson that has been done by the liberal media brigade led by 'The New York Times' has certainly achieved enough - no matter what you're view - to make you wonder about Mel G's hidden (err, "visceral"?) demons. The father's influence looms large. Some wonder whether Mel is affected by his age: whether at 48 or thereabouts, in one view, there is the drive to reinvent himself within his art. Perhaps, others may quietly muse, he is disaffected with some of the Jewish powerbrokers in Hollywood. Then, in yet another view, there is the flavor that many of us have seen regarding people who later in life find religion; that the transformation is often zealous and driven by escapism, reform, denial, repentance or some such reaction to mistake or misfortune.
It's all mere speculation. Who knows what, if any, demons lie within? The ad hominem information we're getting on Gibson is more unseemly and compelling than anything in a Hollywood gossip magazine, but has been blasted at us from mainstream newspapers and network TV screens. It has incensed the actor, while catapulting him to a place in cinematic, box office and inter-religious history instead of succeeding in ignominious character assassination.
Thankfully, Gibson has so far proven not be a high-profile Jew-hater like Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford or Roald Dahl. And, understandably, the entire American Christian establishment is pinching itself in glee at pegging a big one back in the face of a mighty and sustained attack, most recently regarding homosexual paedophilic abuse by Catholic clergy, it's uphill battle on issues like gay marriage and abortion, and the enmity of liberal public figures like Ted Turner and a plethora of activist US higher court justices.
Not to mention the murderous anti-Christian chauvinism of Islamic radicals.
Curiously, emphasizing the justificatory "He died for our sins, ALL our sins, so that we may love one another" message of the movie is a great result for Christians and Jews alike. This atmosphere has given rise to the rethink of the cleric in one part of Colorado who was motivated by the film, at first, to display "The Jews Killed Jesus" outside his church, and then to pull it down when angry voices were raised against him.
In another part of Colorado, the 'Passion' wave motivated the anonymous no-life idiot who tarnished Jewish graves, as well as the good people who joined the Jewish community in cleaning those same gravestones. The 'Passion' "discussion" has caused leading Christian clergy to reach out to their communities with proactive instructions not to lapse into anti-Semitism.
Of course, people like we imagine Mel Gibson's father to be will draw ugliness from the film and the gospels' message, as they always did. But perhaps, we can hope, even some of that ilk will notice that the same liberal elites they imagine to be part of a Jewish conspiracy also attack Israel incessantly and have recently been carping about the sinister influence of "Jewish neo-conservatives".
Perhaps they might also notice that Christian precepts and morals are rooted in Judaism. That it corrupts the essential Christian message to quantify every Jewish 5 year old, grandmother and dunderhead as a target for ugliness, or as a part of "ZOG", or as a sinister Elder of Zion.
In fact, despite the fact that both are Jewish, one of very, very few things upon which Charles Krauthammer and a 'New York Times' denizen like Frank Rich might agree is something which - err...viscerally - alerts them to the spectre of a direct threat.
Like a story from the bible that has galvanized bullying, and outright carnage, of the Jewish minority over many centuries.
Contrary to what is being propagated, it is tough for people like CK and the ADL's Abraham Foxman to stand up to a popular figure like Mel Gibson. In some quarters, the way things stand,this movie has had an excellent effect. Part of that is the boon to people like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Newsmax.com, Drudge and the gang who have rallied on this issue against arrogant liberal elites. Part of it also, and this may be only in my imagination, may be to show stratospheric Islamic or Palestinian radicals that the issues between Jews and Christians historically have been quite significant and that the Jewish nexus with the Holy Land is very real - and not a myth of "colonialist" European expansion.
Part of it, though this remains to be seen, may be the drawing of renewed attention to fundamental issues that can be, and have been, a source of chauvinism and conflict, and the development of a more moderate, sensible approach to such issues.
But all things are variables. The key thing is the goodness within each individual.
