Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Jesus War (New Yorker Piece on Mel Gibson, "The Passion")
The New Yorker ^ | September 15, 2003 | Peter J. Boyer

Posted on 09/11/2003 4:25:18 PM PDT by Greg Luzinski

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last
Much discussed. Thought it would be worthwhile to put online.
1 posted on 09/11/2003 4:25:18 PM PDT by Greg Luzinski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
I recently received this for a breakfast tomorrow in NYC 823 United Nations Plaza (46th Street and First Avenue) ...

Upcoming Events:

Gibson's The Passion: Special Insider Briefing with Abraham H, Foxman: Mr. Foxman will offer his perspective and concern surrounding the film. Friday, September 12th, 8:30 am @ ADL. Space is limited. Please RSVP to 212-885-7977 or vbecker@adl.org.
2 posted on 09/11/2003 4:28:44 PM PDT by Greg Luzinski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
Sure is strange they want to silence Christ's message again. Must be a genetic defect.
3 posted on 09/11/2003 4:33:25 PM PDT by Rain-maker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lady In Blue; Canticle_of_Deborah; Desdemona; Flying Circus
The Passion ping
4 posted on 09/11/2003 4:34:01 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
BUMP
5 posted on 09/11/2003 4:41:12 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
Very interesting article.
6 posted on 09/11/2003 4:55:09 PM PDT by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
Thanks for posting this. An excellent read!

Also, Mel's anger is more understandable in context.
7 posted on 09/11/2003 4:57:30 PM PDT by Clintons a commie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
What is interesting to me is that Gibson's "traditional" approach dislikes ecumenism, yet he seems to be actively courting Evangelicals. And, the fact that this movie is being made shows that he is ok with private interpretation.
8 posted on 09/11/2003 5:03:50 PM PDT by bethelgrad (for God, country, and the Corps OOH RAH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
Best article on this so far, thanks!
9 posted on 09/11/2003 5:16:55 PM PDT by Belial
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bethelgrad
What is interesting to me is that Gibson's "traditional" approach dislikes ecumenism, yet he seems to be actively courting Evangelicals.

What's even more interesting to me is that Evangelicals (including the Southern Baptist Convention) are coming out very much in favor of this movie. If anyone knows whether the movie passes Scriptural muster, so to speak, it would be the Evangelicals. Not to mention that many Evangelicals are coming out in support of a *spit*, *spit* Roman Catholic "traditionalist". So you have on the one side a Catholic "traditionalist" who, if you buy into the stereotype, would normally consider Evangelicals a bunch of heretics, while on the other side you have Evangelicals, who, if you buy into the stereotype, would normally refer to the Roman Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon, and both sides are coming together because both sides think this is a very faithful movie. Ain't that great?

I think it goes to show that the common perceptions people have about both the traditionalists and evangelicals don't always ring true.

10 posted on 09/11/2003 5:20:17 PM PDT by wimpycat (Down with Kooks and Kookery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
Hey Mel,

Your not an 'artist', your a man. Make the movie, take your stand.

I'm starting to think your brother is right when he called you a wimp.

Oh, start praying your rosary and quit being a potty mouth.

11 posted on 09/11/2003 5:35:09 PM PDT by Cap'n Crunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
BUMP
12 posted on 09/11/2003 5:35:41 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bethelgrad
I think it depends on what is meant by ecuminism.
13 posted on 09/11/2003 5:36:18 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
This reporter's bias is the reason I dumped the New Yorker about 10 years ago. For background he only consults leftist and paleoliberal scholars. Where is the balance with interviews from Fuller theologiacal , Wheaton College, Dallas Theological Seminary and other conservative Catholics? More leftist garbage masquarading as balanced reporting.
14 posted on 09/11/2003 5:46:59 PM PDT by mlmr (Today is the first day of the rest of the pie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
So you have on the one side a Catholic "traditionalist" who, if you buy into the stereotype, would normally consider Evangelicals a bunch of heretics...
Hey, he flat out said that his wife won't even make the cut because she isn't a Catholic!

FWIW, I'm a staunch Protestant but I certainly expect to see many, many Catholics in Heaven, including Gibson.


15 posted on 09/11/2003 5:58:39 PM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
What a great article. The New Yorker is the best magazine, ever. And what does it say? Gibson is a human being ... just like the rest of us ... imperfect. So what.

As an agnostic, I am very much looking forward to this movie. As this article suggests, it seems it will be a movie which transcends its pre-release criticism.

I make this prediction: this movie will make more money than any other ever produced. I will go further: this movie will dwarf all others in the money made.

The interesting question, which is the subtext of all the controversy, is whether this movie will affect human hearts more than any other.

Judging by Sister Mary Applesauce and the other leftists who felt compelled to lecture Gibson, they are very very scared that Jesus might actually come across as a messanger of love and compassion. Why would they feel that way?

16 posted on 09/11/2003 5:59:46 PM PDT by Urbane_Guerilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
It was like they [so-called "scholars"] were more or less saying I have no right to interpret the Gospels myself, because I don't have a bunch of letters after my name. But they are for children, these Gospels. They're for children, they're for old people, they're for everybody in between. They're not necessarily for academics. Just get an academic on board if you want to pervert something!”

Amen Mel.

17 posted on 09/11/2003 6:11:35 PM PDT by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike
Yeah, well, he's been married to her for how long? And yet he's still married to her (of course, he can't divorce her), but she's still not a Catholic. So, somehow, they manage. But I can understand why he says what he says and why he also says she's a saint. I don't see as much incongruity as some people might.

As to the other thing you said, I feel the same way.
18 posted on 09/11/2003 6:15:56 PM PDT by wimpycat (Down with Kooks and Kookery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Urbane_Guerilla
"Judging by Sister Mary Applesauce and the other leftists who felt compelled to lecture Gibson, they are very very scared that Jesus might actually come across as a messanger of love and compassion. Why would they feel that way?"

I assume it's because these religio-elitists feel Mel Gibson is ditching in line to meet the King of Kings without having proper heavenly "credentials."

19 posted on 09/11/2003 6:18:56 PM PDT by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Cap'n Crunch
Oh, start praying your rosary and quit being a potty mouth.

Our Lord was a carpenter, and surrounded himself with professional fishermen. While I don't have any evidence either way, I wouldn't be surprised if the Aramaic word for "bullshit" didn't come up occasionally in His presence.

20 posted on 09/11/2003 6:19:15 PM PDT by TontoKowalski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mlmr
This reporter's bias is the reason I dumped the New Yorker about 10 years ago. For background he only consults leftist and paleoliberal scholars.

Maybe it's not bias, but fear. On some subjects, one dares not be too objective.

21 posted on 09/11/2003 6:21:02 PM PDT by Commie Basher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Commie Basher
Fear? Fear that Christians are going to march lockstep and kill all "intellegent life" perhaps...but not fear of the Lord.
22 posted on 09/11/2003 6:25:44 PM PDT by mlmr (Today is the first day of the rest of the pie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Urbane_Guerilla
What a great article. The New Yorker is the best magazine, ever. And what does it say? Gibson is a human being ... just like the rest of us ... imperfect. So what.



Used to be the Best Magazine Ever. This is from a woman who treasures her hand typed letter from William Shawn.
23 posted on 09/11/2003 6:27:47 PM PDT by mlmr (Today is the first day of the rest of the pie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mlmr
Used to be the Best Magazine Ever. This is from a woman who treasures her hand typed letter from William Shawn

Oh my goodness ... that is a great tease. You got a letter from Shawn?

And (less importantly ... lol) you do not believe the New Yorker is anymore the greatest magazine?

24 posted on 09/11/2003 6:36:29 PM PDT by Urbane_Guerilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
Mel is under a tremendous amount of pressure these days. I am going to cut him a whole lot of slack. Lesser men would have succumbed by now.
25 posted on 09/11/2003 6:55:34 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
"both sides are coming together because both sides think this is a very faithful movie. Ain't that great?"

I really do think it is great and can't wait to see this movie. I've been a Gibson fan for a long time and have always appreciated his storytelling. He has a way of reminding me that I am a man with a duty to protect my family and the inocent, which is very rare these days.
26 posted on 09/11/2003 7:07:15 PM PDT by bethelgrad (for God, country, and the Corps OOH RAH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
Abraham Foxman, the head of the Anti-Defamation League. Foxman was equally alarmed by the Gibson project, and had written to Gibson, seeking assurances that the movie “will not give rise to the old canard of charging Jews with deicide and to anti-Semitism.”

Do you suppose he is as concerned about anti-German sentiment that might arise from the next holocaust film?

27 posted on 09/11/2003 8:24:59 PM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
Good post.

I was taken back by Foxmans' remark...

‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' Now, has the Jewish state, or have Jews, practiced the Old Testament by taking an eye for an eye? No. So a literal reading of almost anything can lead to all kinds of things.”

The fact is the Jewish state does take 'an eye for an eye..'. Whenever the Palistinians 'kill', the Israelis recipricate, but only in 'equal' measure. And IMO so it should be. It would be wrong to respond beyond measure. Seems the Bible is right on the money in this case.

If a person kills, it's right that he forfeit his own life.

28 posted on 09/11/2003 8:32:25 PM PDT by duckln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
Speaking with Foxman made me realize just what it was that Gibson had done in making “The Passion.” Gibson had said from the start that he was going to make a movie taken straight from the Gospels. Foxman was saying that, for better or worse, Gibson had done just that.

The horror of it all!

29 posted on 09/11/2003 8:45:10 PM PDT by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
bttttttttttttt
30 posted on 09/11/2003 8:55:04 PM PDT by dennisw (G_d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bethelgrad
I had never seen the trailer before, and I saw it on the big screen on Saturday. I have never had the reaction to a whole movie that I did to that trailer.
31 posted on 09/11/2003 9:01:46 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
...but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong... I Cor. 1:27.


So, Abe Foxman is convening his war council tomorrow morning. Drudge has had rumblings for 2 days that The Vatican is about to endorse Mel's Passion. Abe's summoning his legions to take on The Pope.


Deal Hudson had a story recently mentioning that Mel had quit smoking and was even giving away his stash of contraband Cubans. Fascinating to find out Mel's fair-weather show-biz friends threatened to spit on him if he ever returned to their smoking club. They're soooo tolerant out there in Hollywood -- unless you happen to be a Christian.


I've respected Mel since he was the only one at the Academy Awards 3 years ago with the decency to look disgusted and embarrassed as tolerant Hollywood presented award after award to a pro-abortion movie. If they do kill Mel's career and he departs La La Land, I predict God himself will blow the fault lines and cast California into the pit of hell. Wonder what the NY Times headlines will be?


As for me and my house, I usually see a movie once and then buy the DVD -- spending 100 bucks, max. For The Passion, I'm planning to spends thousands at the box office alone, taking everyone I know. Then I'm going to spend thousands more on DVDs. I hope The Passion makes Mel a billionaire.
32 posted on 09/11/2003 9:49:54 PM PDT by karenbarinka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
Do you suppose he is as concerned about anti-German sentiment that might arise from the next holocaust film?

Excellent question! One gets the feeling that they'd like to see some violence so they could blame the film.

33 posted on 09/11/2003 9:55:55 PM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
I have never had the reaction to a whole movie that I did to that trailer.

You and me both.


34 posted on 09/11/2003 9:58:16 PM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Rain-maker
You're an ass.
35 posted on 09/11/2003 10:09:05 PM PDT by Hildy (SUCKER: Short-sighted Uncompromising Conservative Kool-Aid-drinking Elitist Republican.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
I'm astounded that a group "insists' on consulting on a movie when they're not asked to. Name me one other director that would put up with this?
36 posted on 09/11/2003 10:11:18 PM PDT by Hildy (SUCKER: Short-sighted Uncompromising Conservative Kool-Aid-drinking Elitist Republican.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
To: Rain-maker

You're an ass.

He deserved that.

37 posted on 09/11/2003 10:21:27 PM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
Did you see it on the big screen?
38 posted on 09/12/2003 12:52:21 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TontoKowalski
Wonder what the Aramaic word for "dickead" is?

I'm of the opinion that perhaps early on there may have been some profanity but I would bet that after being in the presence of Jesus for a day or two, and seeing how holy He was, the profanities ended real soon.

I think Mel, devout catholic, needs to work on that. The references to ripping out the guys intestines and killing his dog is a bit much also.

39 posted on 09/12/2003 5:57:36 AM PDT by Cap'n Crunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mlmr
No, not fear of Christians. Fear of being perceived as anti-semitic or intolerant if his report is too favorable to Mel Gibson.
40 posted on 09/12/2003 6:05:58 AM PDT by Commie Basher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
No, just moved by it.
41 posted on 09/12/2003 6:18:35 AM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
<<<<>>> yes, but I think it's more of a coming togetehr because both sides see it a a very 'literalist' movie. It follows the Gospels as they are in the Bible, so we can say yes, it is faithful to what is written there, literally speaking. TC
42 posted on 09/12/2003 9:07:08 AM PDT by truecompassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
a saint who won't make it to heaven though according to what he said.......right? She hasn't converted even living with him? SO..... this means she doesn't believe in his traditionalist beliefs, but doesn't try to convert him to her way and vice versa,
GEE, why can't the the two opposing sides/views on the film, and those who might watch it eventually, be like them and live together in harmony!! LOL!!!
TC
43 posted on 09/12/2003 9:14:36 AM PDT by truecompassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
Who's they?
44 posted on 09/12/2003 9:17:11 AM PDT by truecompassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
Who's they?
45 posted on 09/12/2003 9:17:37 AM PDT by truecompassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike
Hey, he flat out said that his wife won't even make the cut because she isn't a Catholic!

Mel's pretty clearly a better moviemaker than he is a theologian.

I mean, this position of his (technically called "Feeneyism" by Catholics) puts him squarely against such dangerously heretical liberal Catholics as Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII.

Vatican II taught correctly and clearly on this issue, and what they taught is the traditional doctrine of the Church.

46 posted on 09/12/2003 9:36:13 AM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
In the view of historical-Jesus scholars, such differences invalidate the Gospels' strict historicity, and, therefore, any dramatization based literally upon them is deemed ahistorical.

Maybe true, but if all four gospels mirrored each other exactly they would be saying that they had to be a hoax because they are all exactly alike. They already have their opinion they just have to find the "facts" to lead them there.

47 posted on 09/12/2003 9:50:11 AM PDT by Lost Highway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truecompassion
Who's they?

The ADL and all those who keep predicting violence.

48 posted on 09/12/2003 10:26:03 AM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Greg Luzinski
Bump for later.
49 posted on 09/12/2003 10:27:43 AM PDT by StriperSniper (The slippery slope is getting steeper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Vatican II taught correctly and clearly on this issue, and what they taught is the traditional doctrine of the Church.
We disagree on much but agree 100% on this.

Gibson sounds like he might be a little tough to live with.


50 posted on 09/12/2003 11:37:11 AM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson