 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I suspect this movie will be one of the most controversial one yet when it comes out...Mel Gibson's Washington Power Play
By Lloyd Grove
Washington PostMovie star Mel Gibson -- under fire from Jewish groups and religious scholars for his still-unreleased film that graphically portrays the crucifixion of Jesus -- yesterday screened a two-hour rough cut of "The Passion" for a select group of Washington pundits, clergymen, cybergossip Matt Drudge and Hollywood lobbyist Jack Valenti, and at least one White House staffer.
"I've heard people talking about how I can't get a distributor," the casually dressed Gibson -- sporting sweat pants, sandals and white socks -- told the four dozen audience members. "Believe me, I can get a distributor."
A vocal conservative and devout Catholic, the 47-year-old Academy Award winner has weathered accusations of anti-Semitism for the movie, which is being produced by his company, Icon Productions. The influential Anti-Defamation League, which monitors incidents of anti-Semitism, has been especially critical, pointing out on its Web site the long historical relationship between passion plays and attacks on Jews: "ADL has serious concerns regarding Mr. Gibson's 'The Passion' and asks: Will the final version of 'The Passion' continue to portray Jews as blood-thirsty, sadistic and money-hungry enemies of Jesus? Will it correct the unambiguous depiction of Jews as the ones responsible for the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus?"
Yesterday's secret screening at the Motion Picture Association of America included columnists Peggy Noonan, Cal Thomas and Kate O'Beirne; conservative essayist Michael Novak; President Bush's abortive nominee for labor secretary, Linda Chavez; staff director Mark Rodgers of the Senate Republican conference chaired by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.); former Republican House member Mark Siljander of Michigan; and White House staffer David Kuo, deputy director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.
"I find this sad," said ADL National Director Abraham Foxman, who hasn't been permitted to see the movie. "Here's a man who appeals to the mass audience, but he feels he has to surround himself with a cordon sanitaire of people who back him theologically and maybe ideologically and will stand up and be supportive when the time comes. My request still stands: I would like to see the movie, and if it turns out I was wrong, I'll be the first to say so."
Yesterday when the lights came up, many in the audience -- who were required to sign a confidentiality agreement before being admitted to the screening room -- were in tears. Some were sobbing, we hear.
"Heartbreaking," Michael Novak told Gibson. "The Exorcist" author William Peter Blatty called the movie "a tremendous depiction of evil." MPAA President Valenti was perhaps the most enthusiastic. "I don't see what the controversy is all about," he told fellow audience members. "This is a compelling piece of art. I just called Kirk Douglas and told him that this is the movie to beat."
Another invitee, right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham, flew here from San Francisco to see the film but arrived too late and missed it. "I'm so bummed," Ingraham told us. "I want to see any movie that drives the anti-Christian entertainment elite crazy."
Follow Ups:
"Braveheart" and part "Mad Max..." perhaps, "Bravesoul." Or "Mad Jesus..."
At any rate, his previous lack of intellectual acheivement doesn't bode well for tackling this most sublime subject.
Regarding the "Temptation" of Scorcese: may I recommend a much better book than that upon which his film was based ( to those interested)?
Try "The Gospel According to Jesus Christ" by the Portuguese novelist José Saramago. Now THAT is a brilliant effort by as good a writer as is practicing the fine art today.
a
You misbehaved and got virtually spanked! Don't blame Beethoven because you apparently aren't willing to face the music! ;^)BTW, I plead the 5th! :o)
AuPh
Honestly, I wasn't expecting this kind of a response, but a healthy civil debate is always important. If folks are already this impassioned (sorry, just had to say it), just imagine what would happen after the movie comes out.
;^)
Probably nothing. The detractors here have never seen it, besides being (for the most part) avowedly anti-Christian. Which, it must be noted, it's quite all right to be.clark
BTW, you tossed off the remark that "...it must be noted, it's quite alright to be (Christian)", but WHY did you feel that must it be noted? No one has said that it is NOT alright to be Christian! OTOH, you've gone out of your way to denounce anyone (i.e., the Liberal "elite" as you call them, especially) who question the film's content or feel that the film's producers may have selectively limited the audience in a manner that some might find bigoted. In other words, this wasn't a typical pre-release screening of a work-print solely to assess public opinion, but rather, it appears to be a form of intense lobbying with a clearly discriminatory subtext.AuPh
s
A simple yes or no will suffice.AuPh
I think that he stated that, in his opinion, it's alright to be "anti-Christian."Chris
My bad! :o(That omission doesn't alter the context of my response significantly if you re-read it. Thanks for catching my error though!
AuPh
If this movie is done as honestly as possible, sticking to the scriptures as closely as possible, then I think that it WILL be blasted by those who see Christianity as oppressive.Simply because you cannot honestly look at this story without truly humbling yourself, and humility is not something that our pop culture embraces readily. I hope and pray that Gibson has done his best to make this as non-Hollywood as possible. If so, I will be in the audience...
But look at what they *do* embrace:Martin Scorsese's 1988 film The Last Temptation of Christ was based on Nikos Kazantzakis' 1955 novel in which Jesus appears as a tormented, fearful young man confused by sex and uncertain of his path in life. The film was condemned by virtually every Christian denomination, both here and abroad, was protested, picketed, subject to boycotts and bomb threats, and excluded from the titles carried by the huge Blockbuster Video chain.
I read the book (really very good) but missed the movie. Knowing Scorsese, it was probably trash. But liberals loved it because it dissed the Christians. Likewise must they hate The Passion. Nor do I think it has anything to do with "anti-Semitism"; that's just a gloss.
clark
Your last graf -- "[b]ut liberals loved [Scorsese's film] because it dissed the Christians" -- seems to imply that K's novel doesn't diss Christians, or that there's some substantial thematic difference between Scorsese's film (which you’ve suggested “is probably trash”) and K's novel, which you’ve allowed is “really, very good.”I'll confess that I’m troubled that someone who’d pen the following line – viz., “The writer has not seen the film, he's only read reports in the liberal press” – would excoriate a movie that he himself hasn’t seen. Is it possible that you’d refuse to see Scorsese’s Temptation simply because you experience a visceral dislike of the themes that occur and recur in his work? Surely, then, there’s no reason to await with fear and loathing the arrival of The Passion , which has been directed by a man -- Mr. Gibson -- who endorses an experience of Catholicism that makes Opus Dei-types such as Antonin Scalia appear downright progressive. It’s not possible that Mr. Audiophilander has rejected The Passion out-of-hand for many of the same reasons that you rejected Scorsese’s Temptation , is it?
FWIW, I thought Scorsese’s film – which I have seen, on several occasions, even -- surprisingly faithful to K's novel, especially given the scope (500+ pages, in my edition) of the latter. In the final analysis, I thought Scorsese's film no more disrespectful to Christians or Christianity than K's novel. YMMV – but you’ll never know until you see the movie, will you?
I have seen Scorsese's film, unlike Clark, but my impression is that he's displaying his "unsubtle" cinema snobbery a bit here because I was left with the impression that he views most if not all of Scorsese's films as trash.As I see it, Clark's criticism of my not having taken in a screening of The Passion before commenting is a bit ridiculous because the film isn't even available for wide release; I sincerely doubt that he's seen this film himself. Furthermore, for Mr. Johnsen to make such a specious argument when the National Director of the ADL can't even get an invitation suggests disengenuousness on his part. OTOH, one might fairly wonder why Clark hasn't taken the opportunity to see Scorsese's film when there are AMPLE opportunities to do so! Has his Blockbuster card expired?
My contention about the selective screening of Mr. Gibson's film is that it leaves the impression that there is something about his movie that may be seriously derogatory to specific ethnic groups. I don't intend to dismiss Mel's film out of hand any more than I would dismiss a historical masterpiece such as D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation, but in spite of the latter film's technical achievement we know where the success of that motion picture led us.
IMHO, it is only fair that ethnic groups which might be negatively perceived have the opportunity to see this film before it is widely released. I simply feel that their voices should be heard in the event that there is any kind of backlash from the film resulting in anti-semitic hate crimes. Some folks who call themselves "Christian" take such films too seriously, latching on to controversial portrayals as justification for their personal loathing of folks perceived as racially different.
I don't believe in censorship, but rather openness, candor and dialogue.
BTW, this "kettle" thanks you Mr. Chalmers, for clearing a bit of the blackened tarnish off of Clark's pot.
Cheers,
AuPh
I don't know if it's necessary to show a film to ANYONE before it's released, just to keep from ruffling feathers. That even goes for showing it to the so-called right to get their support.If we truly have freedom of speech, why not just put the film out there and let people decide whether or not it is offensive or not? Who cares if the Christians or Jewish community get mad, if we truly believe that freedom of speech exists?
If I remember correctly, there was a backlash against the Christian community for the protests about "Temptation," saying that moviemakers had a right to say whatever they wanted, and it didn't matter what the Christians thought. Now it looks like the shoe might be on the other foot, no?
Obviously the screening was held to make sure that Christian filmgoers would shell out their cash to see it. By the same token Mel's production company was equally concerned that non-Christians, especially those of the Jewish faith, who might see this film as anti-semitic and raise a protest prior to it's official release, be prevented from previewing the film; thus, the "selective" screening.AuPh
and I have a copy of the book, but I haven't read it yet.I think the protests on the film were somewhat overblown, but I understand the reaction to it. Personally, I think it did a pretty good job of showing what Christ gave up for humanity's sake: a wife, family, home, career, a regular life. Yes, it did challenge a few doctrines, but that shouldn't be a problem for someone who is solid in their faith. I can see where many Christians would have a problem with people ignorant of Christianity seeing the film and drawing conclusions about Jesus from the film itself. Being a purely fictional take on Jesus, it takes liberties that an unknowing viewer may take to heart as literal or Biblical truth, and I think that is what the protests were about.
Most people I know (who are Christians) who've seen the film say it isn't as bad or as far-out as they thought it would be, considering all the noise the protestors made when it came out.
I will be curious to see how Gibson approaches this story in his film. I've always thought that it would be amazing (and painful) to see an accurate representation of the crucifixion story. If it is done right, it would be more revealing of the true character of Jesus, and not the glossy sterile hero of modern religion. I think THAT may be what scares liberals & atheists---if people see the true Jesus and his sacrifice, they might actually want to believe in Him. Wouldn't that be something?
More like "of modern Catholicism" I'd say.clark
I found it rather an inspired version of the traditional story. It's the "fearful" Christians that can't understand, or handle, the temptation part--which actually takes place in a matter of moments on the cross. The movie was not shown in my hometown and it took a long time for the VHS to arrive. Plan to get in on DVD.
That Christ could choose to walk away from the suffering in order to live a regular life. It makes it even more profound that Jesus DIDN'T walk away from His purpose. I think a lot of people want to deny the human side and the choices He had to make. I am thankful that Jesus had to make the same choices we do, and that He did what He was sent to do.That's why I hope Passion is an honest attempt, because that human side should show through even more.
It should make the Jewish establishment feel better that if Jesus were alive today, He'd be going against the Christian religious establishment today. They just didn't exist back then!
Begging your pardon, but only the Catholics maintain a "religious establishment". Do I detect some subtle anti-clericalism in your pronunciamentos?clark (His imprimatur)
Ever heard of telepreachers, to go no further?Regards
BF
I think the protestants have just as much religious baggage as the Catholics, only it comes in different forms. I know many Christians in many different denominations who think their way of doing things is the right way, and everybody else is wrong.You can be just as stuck in ritual thinking as the Catholic church, and still be a Baptist, Methodist or whatever.
I was saying that Jesus would be challenging our thoughts as legalistic Christians in general, no matter what we like to categorize ourselves as...
Always a spectacle!clark
During the first ten minutes I almost crawled under my seat! I hope God didn't see me in the theatre that day. But, I did laugh my ass off--especially with the golden cow on the boardroom table.
it was created solely to cause trouble, and it wasn't very good. Plus, nobody saw it or intended to go see it.
It would appear that a mid-life crisis filmaker, supported by religious propagandists and Conservative wing-nut politicians are eyeing this new film to inspire the public *conscience* toward Christianity. Unfortunately, there would appear to be legitimate controversy about the film's depiction of Jews; enough to warrant concerns about fostering an anti-semitic attitude! If that is the case, it would be similar to the impact of D.W. Griffith's greatest film rehabilitating the South while encouraging white separatism! Beyond the cinematic achievement of the film, the overwhelming success of "Birth of a Nation" also resulted in the resurgence of the KKK and stalled race relations for over 30 years!Well, not to overstate the case, "The Passion" may be a great film, but it will NOT receive my patronage. Not to offend anyone's sensitivities, but religious zealotry of any sort just isn't my cuppa tea! The idea of more crazed cultists latching on to allegorical fables in this marvelous age of science and discovery is a sad reflection on the fearful side of Man's nature.
AuPh
Whenever a smug liberal newscaster or reporter covers a topic of conservative concern, the descriptors "controversial" or "not mainstream" are sure to be included, along with a wrinkled nose.And that's exactly what the quote in the subject line is doing.
The writer has not seen the film, he's only read reports in the liberal press -- but the "controversial" aspect has dissuaded him from attending it. But in typical liberal fashion, he adds to the downhill snowball by appending the phrases "religious zealotry", "crazed cultists" and "allegorical fables".
Well! Who'd ever want to see a movie like that!
The writer mentions Monty Python. Perhaps he should inform himself of the censored parts of Life of Brian. They're hilarious, but in the "liberal" venue of this writer, unshowable in theatres.
clark
...raising your virtual eyes and "speaking" directly, man to man, as a normal person would in confronting an opposing viewpoint. To be fair, perhaps you're simply trying to elevate your comments in a dispassionate (pun intended) jounalistic style, but posting dismissive comments in the 3rd person as if speaking for a larger group denouncing one lone dissenting voice suggests a megalomaniacal self-absorption on your part that reeks of pettiness, IMO. Wrapping strained observations in that trademark dismissive vernacular (i.e., the condescendingly indirect "the writer" rhetoric) may be suitable for curt editorial commentaries, but it does little to promote dialogue from where I sit.Well, Mr. Johnsen, I'll endeavor to ignore your condescension and respond politely, if only to correct your misimpressions and poorly drawn conclusions. Have I seen the film? Of course not! I'm basing my impressions on the rather troubling news report from Lloyd Grove in the Washington Post and the fact that the hand-picked audience to which Mel screened his film happened to be a who's who of the far right! This provides more than a clue to the film's agenda. Why were no representatives from the Jewish community invited even though attendance was requested by Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League? Why only those known to be devout Christians?
I used the word "contoversial" out of politeness, as I am not opposed to controversial films and would not be dissuaded from viewing ANY film for that reason alone. However, my added points about religeous zealotry, crazed cultists, and allegorical fables were intentionally included to weigh heavily here because I sense other manipulations at play. This isn't a discussion of censorship, but rather, conversely, this is about an effort to build an audience in the Christian community through careful screening and exclusion before public protests about purported anti-semitism can be levied against the film.
As for your comments about the hilarious aspects of "Life of Brian", the reason I find that film applaudible is the fact that it's NOT santimonious, but rather a parody. Any film which can laugh at life and our fierce devotion to sacred cows that True Believers can ever agree on is okay in my book.
AuPh
"This writer, that writer..." Yeah, sure. But just say "you" and one gets attacked for ad hominem
or whatever else suits the mood.(Notice how one properly says "one", and not "I", to divorce the writer from the person.)
But there is better -- just listen:
"...posting dismissive comments in the 3rd person as if speaking
for a larger group denouncing one lone dissenting voice suggests
a megalomaniacal self-absorption on your part that reeks of pettiness, IMO."One begs the writer's pardon! What was that all about?
"Wrapping strained observations in that trademark dismissive vernacular
(i.e., the condescendingly indirect "the writer" rhetoric) may be
suitable for curt editorial commentaries, but it does little to
promote dialogue from where I sit."Stand up and be heard then! And speak plainly. Please
"Well, Mr. Johnsen, I'll endeavor to ignore your condescension and
respond politely, if only to correct your misimpressions and poorly drawn conclusions."The writer is so very kind...
"Have I seen the film? Of course not!"
I knew it, I knew it!
"I'm basing my impressions on the rather troubling news report
from Lloyd Grove in the Washington Post"That report was *meant* to be "troubling" -- to the gullible.
"...and the fact that the hand-picked audience to which Mel screened
his film happened to be a who's who of the far right!"Q: Who's in the near right and who's in the mid right? (I mean,
it's always "far right", so one must wonder.)"This provides more than a clue to the film's agenda."
Hmmm... The "Christian far right" is another freely tossed-out
phrase. Could it be that these people were invited because they
were *Christians*, not because of their (coincidental) political views?!"Why were no representatives from the Jewish community invited
even though attendance was requested by Abraham Foxman, National
Director of the Anti-Defamation League? Why only those known to be devout Christians?"Aha! There's the answer already! Because they were *Christians*.
"I used the word 'contoversial' out of politeness, as I am not opposed
to controversial films and would not be dissuaded from viewing ANY
film for that reason alone. However, my added points about religeous
zealotry, crazed cultists, and allegorical fables were intentionally
included to weigh heavily here because I sense other manipulations
at play. This isn't a discussion of censorship, but rather, conversely,
this is about an effort to build an audience in the Christian community
through careful screening and exclusion before public protests about
purported anti-semitism can be levied against the film."Geez Luiz. Now we have ourselves a society where Christians can't
entertain Christians without someone should cry Exclusion!And in such stuffy language too...
"As for your comments about the hilarious aspects of 'Life of Brian',
the reason I find that film applaudible is the fact that it's NOT
santimonious, but rather a parody. Any film which can laugh at life
and our fierce devotion to sacred cows that True Believers can ever agree on is okay in my book."Fine, but they still didn't dare laugh at Jews. That makes it sanctimonious.
It was censored, plain and simple. Semper fidelis Hollywood.
clark
You worry about ad hominem attacks before they occur and apparently have denial problems when confronted about your refusal to talk directly. BTW, one can't help but notice that your aloof responses are quite selective, which only serves to reinforce the appearance of pettiness.> > > "Could it be that these people were invited because they were *Christians*, not because of their (coincidental) political views?!" < < <
"...were *Christians* ..." - So, are you suggesting that the movie might cause them to renounce their faith or recommit to it? ;^)
Seriously, if the movie didn't come off as somewhat anti-semitic why would concerned citizens of other faiths be restricted from previewing the film and only Christians & supporters of the current Conservative Administration be given VIP invitations?
> > > "Aha! There's the answer already. Because they were *Christians*." < < <
So, are you agreeing that the film's screening appears exclusionary and bigoted or what?
> > > "Geez Luiz. Now we have ourselves a society where Christians can't entertain Christians without someone should cry Exclusion!" < < <
Do you wish to exclude the better hotels and restaurants as well? How about restrooms? I guess my comments alluding to the impact of D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" went right over your head. I* guess that shouldn't surprise me. Many Conservatives are dead-set against anti-discrimination legislation as well; so, if Aryan cross-burners focus on this film as a justification for a renewed escalation of their hate crimes, where will you stand?
As for the excised footage from the Life of Brian, I'm against censorship of irreverent material regardless of who it pokes fun at because such films are parodies and do more to diffuse tensions than aggrevate them. I can understand why Jewish people might be sensitive to irreverent humor after all that they've been through, but IMHO the removal of any footage from a movie, whether it's sensitive or not, should only be considered when it gets a negative reaction from the preview audience. But that sort of makes my case for allowing members of the Jewish community to preview this film before it's wide release, doesn't it? ;^)
Cheers,
AuPh
The writer's language is so stuffy, one is tempted to be merely amused. However, a couple questions seem worth addressing.
"...why would concerned citizens of other faiths be restricted from previewing the film and only Christians & supporters of the current Conservative Administration be given VIP invitations?"Boston has numerous "Jewish Film Festivals". Does anyone in his right mind suppose that care is taken to invite Christians, Buddhists, Pagans etc. to the preview night? Geez!
"So, are you agreeing that the film's screening appears exclusionary and bigoted or what?"
All screenings are exclusionary. The writer ascribes that to bigotry. Let him indulge himself.
"Do you wish to exclude the better hotels and restaurants as well? How about restrooms?"
Maybe this is humor?
"I guess my comments alluding to the impact of D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" went right over your head."
Maybe this is patronizing?
"I guess that shouldn't surprise me. Many Conservatives are dead-set against anti-discrimination legislation as well; so, if Aryan cross-burners focus on this film as a justification for a renewed escalation of their hate crimes, where will you stand?"
Under the Cross? Geez!
"As for the excised footage from the Life of Brian, I'm against censorship of irreverent material regardless of who it pokes fun at because such films are parodies and do more to diffuse tensions than aggrevate them. I can understand why Jewish people might be sensitive to irreverent humor after all that they've been through."
Where's the sensitivity to Christians and what *they've* been through, like being thrown to the lions? Or more recently, being the constant butt of safe (albeit toothless and spineless) jokes by the liberals?
"But IMHO the removal of any footage from a movie, whether it's sensitive or not, should only be considered when it gets a negative reaction from the preview audience."
Ho hah. TLOB happened before preview audiences were used. That censorship was good ol' cowering before the powers.
"But that sort of makes my case for allowing members of the Jewish community to preview this film before it's wide release, doesn't it? ;^)"
Meaning, that it's cool to let them censor it?
Someone here has a weird view of free speech.
clark
> > > "The writer's language is so stuffy..." < < <Sorry Clark, I would take a Benadryl, but I doubt that it would clear-up my perception of your biases.
> > > "Boston has numerous 'Jewish Film Festivals'..." < < <
So, what does this have to do with our discussion here? Are you suggesting that they go out of their way to select attendees based on faith or political point of view as was done in the instance of Mel's film? LOL! If THAT'S your justification for The Passion's VIC (Very Important Christian) screening, then you'ld better work on it a bit! 8^D
> > > "Where's the sensitivity to Christians and what *they've* been through, like being thrown to the lions?" < < <
Earth to Clark! You're comparing this to the Holocaust, the attempted genocide commited in modern times by folks calling themselves Christians? Wow, if I weren't shocked by the outrageousness of your views I'd try to muster a laugh. Let's see, those poor abused Christians who were thrown to the lions, when? Oh yeah, nearly 2000 years ago!
As for Christians being the butt of *safe* jokes by Liberals, albeit toothless and spineless in your estimation, well, you only have bonafide space cadets like Jerry Falwell & Pat Robertson, hypocritical womanizing evangelists like Jim Bakker & Jimmy Swaggert and crazed cultists like David Koresh & Jim Jones to thank for that!
If Christian evangelicals and other weak-minded overzealous folks would keep their own council and leave the rest of us the you-know-what alone then there'ld probably be a lot less cause for concern over entertainment and how it might be perceived by the public at large.
AuPh
Interestingly enough, one of the invitees was Matt Drudge, why I don't know, but he happens to be Jewish and I've read that he's claiming it is one of the best movies he's seen. I find it bizarre that Drudge was in the audience. Apparently, Lloyd Grove tried to crash the party, but he was shown the door.
Drudge himself is often a central figure in controversy. It's hard to say how appreciative he would be at being let-in on something as controversial as a film screening where he could rub shoulders with other right-wing Washington insiders, but it wouldn't surprise me if he made a few promises and pulled a few strings in order to attend.AuPh
a
I rest my case!Cheers,
AuPh
Liberals and their group politics. Feh!clark
I always thought TLOB was a clever satire of "religion," and not of Christianity itself. Very funny and biting movie, and yes---it is pretty un-PC today. Don't think it would fly far in today's cinema...
...the parts that satirized the Jewish religion had to be removed. Semper fidelis Hollywood .clark
;^)
nt
n
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
