Mel Gibson's passionate movie critics have cross to bear

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Print this page Frank Devine: Mel Gibson's passionate movie critics have cross to bear

THERE'S nothing like antagonistic opposition, based on dirty tricks and disinformation, and then unmasked, to cast a favourable light on something or somebody. Mel Gibson's forthcoming movie about the Passion and death of Jesus Christ – with dialogue in Latin and Aramaic without subtitles – has benefited considerably from such opposition.

When I first heard of his project, and of Gibson putting up the $US25 million ($37.5 million) production cost, I suspected vanity publishing. I planned to get a slice of the action by sitting between two Aramaic-speaking friends for the first Australian showings and scalping seats within earshot to people without Aramaic-speaking friends. Then, last month, came near-simultaneous public denunciation of the unfinished movie by "an ad hoc group of Jewish religious scholars" and (apparently) by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops – two voices I would normally be more than willing to heed.

However, the two-pronged attack was based on an 18-page draft script (from which little can be concluded about a movie) stolen by a Gibson employee.

The Jewish scholars claimed the film would "promote anti-Semitic sentiments". The Catholic bishops (apparently) believed it might run contrary to traditional Catholic teaching.

These criticisms were prominently reported in Australia. But little attention was given to the bishops' subsequent apology to Gibson and their disavowal of any connection with the hostile statement.

Bishops Conference bureaucrats evidently issued a declaration on faith and politics they feared the bishops might overlook if left to themselves.

The Jewish scholars have been fairly taciturn since the bishops' disavowal. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League asked Gibson to "review" the completed movie with them, a reasonable way of going about things. The purpose of the cynically premature assault on a movie that's not due out until next March was clearly to stop Gibson getting a distributor and to put the wind up cinema owners. For me, this has created an infinitely stronger imperative to see Mel's picture than I have to see Ken Park.

The Catholics involved wanted no challenge to their perceptions of Jesus's life and death. Gibson is a religious fundamentalist of a kind more commonplace in Protestant faiths than among Catholics. Their ill-judged action may also reflect to some extent widespread unease among Christians about the depiction of Jesus in film. Yet the Passion play survives – from Oberammagau to Manila – as a valued part of Christian culture. Its transference to modern media has a logic to it.

The Jewish scholars were, I suppose, understandably burdened by the belief that Catholics accuse Jews of killing Christ. As a Catholic I believe an ancient community of Jews collaborated with the Roman tyranny to bring about the death of Jesus. The idea that Jews are collectively and perpetually guilty is preposterous and evil. This is the official and I believe now popular position of Catholics. The disinformation seepage about Gibson and his movie has its roots in a scurrilous and mealy-mouthed article in The New York Times of March 9.

It is mealy-mouthed because the author ostentatiously declares himself a Catholic. Why could a Hindu (for example) not have written honestly and informatively on the subject?

The article is scurrilous because of its snidely derogatory tone and because almost a third of it is devoted to Mel's 86-year-old father, Hutton, who denies the Holocaust and Islamic participation in September 11, and calls the pope Garrulous Karolus, the Koran Kisser. The Chinese Communist Party abandoned "the bloodline theory" of responsibility 20 years ago; The New York Times lags.

In contrast to his pre-emptive critics, Gibson shows a clarity of purpose that I admire. He has attended mass daily since he started work on The Passion. His religious beliefs have blended with his work in his last two movies. In We Were Soldiers he played Colonel Hal Moore, devoutly Catholic commander of an American combat regiment in Vietnam. In Signs Gibson was a protestant minister who lost and regained his faith. His director was M. Night Shyamalan, a dedicated Catholic whose The Sixth Sense has rare spiritual quality.

Barbara Nicolosi, operator of a website of Christian-orientated Hollywood news, was one of a dozen people Gibson invited to a rough-cut preview of The Passion on June 26. She calls it "a stunning work of art . . . a devout act of worship by Gibson and his collaborators."

Of course, she would say that. Just as The New York Times would note the make of cars parked around the church Gibson attends and financially supports.

M. Night Shyamalan, a dedicated Catholic whose The Sixth Sense has rare spiritual quality.

Rare, perhaps, but not exactly Christian. Perhaps that's because Mr. Shyamalan is a Hindu? Ignorati say he's Catholic because he went to a Catholic high school.

The former President disembarks from his airplane after a trip back to Arkansas. Although the hoopla is less now that he is out of office, Clinton still occasionally finds himself greeted by military personnel. This is one such occasion. He climbs down the stairs, carrying two huge pigs, one under each arm. He gets to the bottom, and nods his head in return to the soldier's salute. "Son, what do you think about these?" he says. "Nice pigs, SIR!" comes the reply. Clinton gets mildly miffed and lectures, "I'll have you know these aren't just pigs but the finest of Arkansas Razorbacks. Top notch. I got one for Hillary, and one for Chelsea. What do you think about that?" "Nice trade, SIR!

Free Republic
Your donations keep us laughing at liberals

The former President disembarks from his airplane after a trip back to Arkansas. Although the hoopla is less now that he is out of office, Clinton still occasionally finds himself greeted by military personnel. This is one such occasion.

He climbs down the stairs, carrying two huge pigs, one under each arm. He gets to the bottom, and nods his head in return to the soldier's salute. "Son, what do you think about these?" he says. "Nice pigs, SIR!" comes the reply. Clinton gets mildly miffed and lectures, "I'll have you know these aren't just pigs but the finest of Arkansas Razorbacks. Top notch. I got one for Hillary, and one for Chelsea. What do you think about that?"

"Nice trade, SIR!

Free Republic

Your donations keep us laughing at liberals

The Catholic bishops (apparently) believed it might run contrary to traditional Catholic teaching.

If true, it would be the first time since 1965 that the US Bishops' Conference ever criticized a filmmaker for contradicting Catholic teaching.

"Why could a Hindu (for example) not have written honestly and informatively on the subject?"

A Hindu can. No one is stopping them. But none has.

Just as The New York Times would note the make of cars parked around the church Gibson attends and financially supports.

Now I'm curious - anyone know what they were?

The critics are lying. They are not concerned about antisemitism or, in the case of the few Catholics who objected, to the film not following current church views.

What concerns them is this film will help spread the Christian faith. The critics are all on the extreme left. Christianity is, to them, a threat.

And they are right. It is.

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.