Everybody’s talking about Mel Gibson, so I’ll say something too.
I think there’s much to agree with in this post on the Libertas site. Gibson’s credentials as a conservative are actually kind of mushy. We’ve loved him, first of all because of Braveheart, one of the few recent movies that men who aspire to heroism can really embrace. Then came The Passion of the Christ, which we almost had to defend just because of the nature of the attacks on it (a not-very-defensible tactic).
I liked, but didn’t love, The Passion. It was a far more Catholic movie than most Protestants realized, which doesn’t necessarily make it bad. I don’t object to Catholics making Catholic movies. In the realm of literature, I’ve learned to enjoy several Catholic novelists very much—far more than a lot of Protestant authors, many of whom are too liberal or insufficiently skilled to please me.
In contrast to many of Gibson’s defenders, even Jewish ones, I thought I saw a hint of anti-Semitism in The Passion. I thought the priests in the movie were portrayed as Jewish caricatures. I never mentioned it at the time, because the whole subject is so thorny (which makes me a coward). I don’t agree with the current orthodoxy that says that the Jewish leaders had nothing at all to do with the crucifixion. The gospels clearly state that they did. The priests wanted to be rid of Jesus, and they manipulated Pontius Pilate, through threats of unrest, to have Him put to death.
But they did it for a reason, as the Gospel of John (11:48) makes clear. They considered Jesus a political threat, not just to themselves but to the commonwealth. They feared an uprising and Roman reprisals. Gibson could have emphasized this aspect and made his priests more sympathetic, without selling out to the “blame the Romans” revisionists.
If Gibson’s career is over, it frankly serves him right. But if Braveheart and (even) The Passion get tarnished because of him, our loss will be great.
That Libertas post shook my faith a bit, but the Wikipedia article cites instances of Gibson’s conservative political views. He doesn’t advocate conservative views across the board.
Still, I think he’s a decent man. I’ve heard his community loves him, that he and his family are very open and support the neighborhood, etc. The police don’t have anything against him; they may even want to defend him a little. But I don’t think “in wine there is truth” is a solid, universal truth. Some people say hateful things for the purpose of being hateful, not b/c they believe what they say. I’ve said stupid things in the same way, not in order to be stupid, but for some poor reason and I wish I had stopped myself.
Anyway, I’ll wait to judge Gibson’s heart for something like this.
And I didn’t notice any anti-Semitism in The Passion. It may be viewer perspective, because I’ve occasionally worried about anti-German issues with WWII movies. But it isn’t Germans as a whole. It’s the Nazi or generally fascists. And with The Passion, it isn’t Jews as a whole; it’s the Jews of Jesus’ day. I heard a guy try to say all passion movies were wrong b/c the Jewish leaders killed Jesus, not the Jews as a group, but the Bible refers to those who cruxify as a large group which seems to be more than just the leaders.
I wasn’t wild about The Passion for the same reasons I had issues with Narnia or LOTR – I hate it when movie makers make stuff up that wasn’t in the book! (knowing of course that there is no comparison between the Bible and works of fantasy) There was so much in The Passion that was extra-biblical. It kept distracting me – and therefore lessened the impact.
I feel bad for Mel. I’m a bit dismayed about his anti-Semitic comments -but the whole “His career is over!” shrieking of the press seems a bit over-the-top. What really bothered me the most about the whole thing was Mel’s apology yesterday where he said people should not even be allowed to think thoughts like that. Beg pardon? We’re going to say what people can’t think now? Sigh.
I trust Mel was speaking as a Christian when he said that, and not advocating a political course. I thought the apology was pretty good, but I do think “in vino veritas” is generally correct. Though I hate to think what I might say if I ever have a stroke (which is pretty likely).
To my eyes the Jewish leaders in “Passion” looked more like Eastern Orthodox hierarchs than like an anti-semitic caricature, & I also think Mel went out of his way to make the Roman soldiers look bad. To me, the place where Mel left himself most open to a charge of anti-semitism isn’t in any of the spots most people point out – it’s when the curtain in the Temple is split, and the floor of the Temple splits as well (that last part isn’t in the Bible). Like Blest With Sons, I was bothered by at least some of the extra-biblical stuff, & that was the most ill-advised departure from Scripture, IMHO.
Be that as it may, I loved the best parts of “Passion” well enough to excuse him for the questionable parts. I believe that Mel is sincere in professing not to be anti-semitic, but I think in his old nature he has a blind spot in that area, more than he may realize. I believe in “in vito veritas”, though I don’t look at it as an infallible source of truth about anyone’s inner thoughts. In 2004 I had the privilege of presiding at the funeral of a man who had been rendered incapable of controlling his utterances by a severe head injury a few years previously. On the rare occasions that he said anything, he said things like “Praise Jesus, praise His name”. That’s how I know he was a holy man. What would we say if we couldn’t control our tongue? So in sum I believe Mel is sincere but in need of growth (how’s that for sticking to safe turf?), & no, his career isn’t over.
Additionally, Gibson belongs to a wing of the Catholic Church that is very unhappy w/ alot of the clergy’s behavior and I read the treatment of the Sanhedrin in that movie as partly a slam at Catholic bishops today-Caiaphas, for instance is more charismatic and ambiguous in the movie than his father-in-law, who is very nastily portrayed; and Caiaphas’s motives do not become clear until we see his reactions to the damaged Temple at the end: he seems to be meant to be someone who upholds the conventions of religion for sincere reasons but loses sight of religious truth in the process.
As for how evil or not Gibson is, I honestly can’t know. The most charitable interpretation would be that he comes from an Archie Bunker-like background and may not intellectually assent to racism but still has very racist reflexes. I just don’t know whether that’s true or not.
But Braveheart (which I haven’t seen) is famously historically inaccurate. Fine to like it, so long as you don’t believe it. (We English have had our moments, but not as portrayed in that movie.)
True, Maxine. Braveheart was a historical mess. We love it for what it celebrated, not because we share Wallace’s enmities.
I liked the Patriot, too. 🙂
This one’s a mess… conservatives say liberals would give him another chance if he was liberal, and liberals say conservatives would be all over him if he wasn’t conservative.
I guess there’s some truth to both sides.
I don’t like in vino veritas, due to having a lot of alcoholic relatives. But maybe it’s a blind spot.
Some of the gloating coming from some corners is rather unbecoming. I want to ask some of the gloaters what they think of Roman Polanski.
I was saddened to hear about Gibson’s rant. But I am far too aware of the filth that hides in my own heart. When I look at the Seven Deadlies with anything like a clear eye and a mirror, I see much that makes me fearful of what I would do were my inhibitions removed.
I’m not sure if this is pertinent, either, but I got to thinking about Stanley Milgram’s experiment on obedience to authority. (http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7article/article35.htm)
All of us–ALL OF US–have great darkness inside. (Christian Theology 101.) Gibson’s came spilling out in a very public way.
I liked Mel in “Tim”.