Should we give Mel Gibson credence?

[ice nine]

I've always been one to believe in actions speaking louder than words. Mel says he's not anti-semitic and he's very sorry for what he said about the Jewish folk, but I think he doesn't like us. The excuse of being drunk only goes so far. You say things you believe while drunk, but when you're sober you know better not to say them. I saw somewhere that when Mel was asked about the number of Jews killed in the concentration camps he sorted skirted the answer.

Mel is a very influential person in Hollywood and, thus, the world so is his message any more important than anyone else's.

You would think that after producing I'm Your Man he would be more sensitive

[King Hoarse]

Would you have given Elvis credence right after the Columbus incident?

[verbal gymnastics]

Good point KH.

[lostdog]

It is a good point. Although there appears to a little more cumulative evidence against Gibson - however, that may simply be down to artistic interpretation of his Passion of the Christ, which - however flawed the film; I haven't seen it - is always a dubious way to look for 'evidence (a bit like those who sought to paint EC into a corner by highlighting his use of 'darkies' and 'white niggers' on Armed Forces.)

I don't like Gibson much, but if this is the first time he has ever said anything of this nature, he has the right to apologise and claim it was out of character - only time will tell whether it reflects his true nature or not. Alcoholism, after all, is a disease that can make people do terrible things.

Jewish individuals, of course, have the right to judge him as they see fit.

[Who Shot Sam?]

Yes, but this is more than a one-off comment from Gibson. His father has a history of ugly statements about Jews, and Gibson has refused to repudiate them. Alcohol loosens the tongue, and in this case I think we're seeing the ugly truth. I'll have nothing to do with his movies, apology or no, but I wasn't exactly a big fan to begin with.

[lostdog]

If he has a history of this nature - and I have heard a few people say this but haven't examined the evidence - then, of course, it would be hard not to come to the conclusion that he is an Anti-Semite.

He's hardly a cultural colosuss, either way I would take issue with the first post which regards him as somehow 'important'.

[RedShoes]

Jewish individuals, of course, have the right to judge him as they see fit.

I've never quite understood this perspective. Why do specify that "Jewish individuals" have the right to judge him as they see fit? Can't non-Jews get pissed off about anti-semetic remarks too?

[lostdog]

Can't non-Jews get pissed off about anti-semetic remarks too?

Of course they can, don't be silly.

My point is, while acknowledging that there might be people who are prepared to argue that Gibson should be given the benefit of the doubt from an objective standpoint, I wouldn't presume to suggest to somebody who felt that their faith or creed or identity was directly and personally insulted by what he said, and thus despised him, that they were in any way wrong or misguided for doing so.

I hope that's clear.

[Emotional Toothpaste]

Taking a cue from his movie, "The Conspiracy Theory", I think the whole thing is a publicity stunt.

[newlacesleeves]

Credence is too good for him... He doesn't deserve such classics as ' who'll stop the rain?' and 'Bad moon rising'... We should give him Milli Vanilli instead!!!

[Mechanical Grace]

No. The answer is no. He's a very conservative Catholic of the sort that gives Jewish-Catholic relations a bad name, and he does have a history of anti-semitic leanings.

His father is a Holocaust denier. Charming.

[newlacesleeves]

I thought this was an interesting article..

THE BIG PICTURE

The Shame Is That So Few Say 'Shame'
By Patrick Goldstein
Times Staff Writer

August 2, 2006

Amy Pascal is my hero.

When Times reporters Claudia Eller and Claire Hoffman called all the Hollywood big shots Monday to get reactions to Mel Gibson's now infamous anti-Semitic tirade during his arrest on suspicion of drunk driving, the Sony Pictures chairwoman was the only studio chief to go on the record with her outrage over Gibson's slurs, which included the Hamas-style charge that "the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world."

Actually, it would be a stretch to say that Pascal was outraged. She simply said that it was "incredibly disappointing that somebody of his stature would speak out that way, especially at this sensitive time." But even that tame criticism was more than any other studio chief was willing to muster. The Associated Press had a story Tuesday headlined "Film Industry Assesses Gibson Fallout," but the biggest name it could find willing to talk was Barbara Walters.

One of the few executives who wasn't mum was Disney's new production chief, Oren Aviv, who's releasing Gibson's new film, "Apocalypto," in December. And he actually defended Gibson! He told Slate's Kim Masters he has "a great relationship" with Gibson, adding, "We all make mistakes, and I've accepted his apology to what was a regrettable situation."

Only when you're in business with someone in Hollywood do you get to describe a man who's made vicious anti-Semitic slurs as being in a "regrettable situation." When Masters reminded Aviv that he had stopped talking to director Michael Mann because he'd been rude and disrespectful during the making of a film at Disney, Aviv demurred: "It's behind us. He's a talented director, and I respect his body of work."

This is how Hollywood works. The only morality in this town that really means anything is the bottom line. When the president of Harvard said women made lousy scientists, his colleagues jumped all over him. When Atlanta Braves relief pitcher John Rocker made a series of nasty ethnic slurs about various minorities, he was roundly criticized and dumped from the team.

But when an actor-director who has won an Oscar, had a string of action hits and made "The Passion of the Christ," one of the biggest-grossing movies in recent history, has an anti-Semitic hissy fit, the Big Kahunas of Hollywood are silent. DreamWorks' Jeffrey Katzenberg and Steven Spielberg, Warners' Barry Meyer, Universal's Ron Meyer, Paramount's Brad Grey — the list goes on and on — are happy to weigh in on censorship and movie piracy. But bad behavior by a big movie star? Not a chance.

Not to let Gibson off the hook, since he is the real bad guy here, but the silence of Hollywood Jews has been responsible for many of the most shameful chapters in industry history. When Hitler was killing Jews in Europe during the Holocaust, Hollywood studio chiefs were largely mum, rarely giving money to Jewish refugees or — God forbid — making movies about the subject until long after all 6 million Jews were dead.

In the 1950s, at the height of the Joseph McCarthy-led Red Scare, it was the predominantly Jewish studio chiefs who caved in to government threats and instituted an industrywide blacklist against alleged communists. The fact that no one ever made a good case that these alleged communists — most of them cranky screenwriters — had ever engaged in any subversive activity, other than trying to slip a share-the-wealth gag into an Abbott and Costello comedy, hardly mattered. Guilty by suspicion and association, they were summarily fired and often had careers permanently ruined.

The tragedy, of course, was that the blacklist wasn't run by the government. It was engineered by Hollywood studio chiefs, many of them first-generation Jewish immigrants, worried that if they didn't persecute the easy targets — loudmouth writers and bit players — they would be next. After all, anti-Semitism wasn't so far away. Walt Disney himself refused to hire Jews for years. When one of his longtime employees took a job at Columbia Pictures, Disney snapped: "OK, off you go to work with those Jews. It's where you belong, with those Jews."

Hollywood Jews have always been insecure about their religion, often with good reason, which is why for years Jewish actors changed their names to more WASPy monikers. Emmanuel Goldenberg became Edward G. Robinson. Muni Weisenfreund became Paul Muni. David Kaminsky became Danny Kaye.

Film-noir hero John Garfield started out as Julius Garfinkle but changed his last name to Garfield when he came to Hollywood as a Warner Bros. contract player. Jack Warner was unimpressed, saying, "It doesn't sound American." Garfield reminded him that Garfield was the name of an American president. Great, said Warner, we'll call you James Garfield. Garfield protested, saying he couldn't use a president's name.

"You wouldn't name a goddamn actor Abraham Lincoln, would you?" he said.

"No, kid, we wouldn't," Warner instantly agreed. "Abe is a name most people would say is Jewish, and we wouldn't want people to get the wrong idea."

The timidity we see today from studio chiefs runs deep in Hollywood's DNA. You don't rock the boat. When a star puts his foot in a big, steaming pile of dung, you swallow your pride, graciously accept the apology — Mel has made two already — and quietly move on.

After all, Gibson may be down right now, but after a requisite PR ritual of apology, detox and atonement (is there any doubt that the likes of Larry King and Diane Sawyer are already scrambling to see who'll get the first "exclusive" interview with a penitent Gibson?) Mel will be back in action, just the right lead for a summer box-office extravaganza. If someone had made some testy remark about Gibson's anti-Jew tirade, who would be apologizing then?

"Studio executives are clearly not the bravest people in the world," says Howard Rosenman, producer of "The Family Man" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." "They don't want to alienate Mel or [Gibson agent] Ed Limato, one of the most powerful agents in town. They're all thinking, what happens if he comes out of this and I've said something? He won't work with me when I need him."

That's what saddens me the most about Hollywood's virtual silence on Gibson. He isn't going to go away. His star isn't necessarily going to fade. And the longer he keeps making movies, the harder it will be to forget that of all the powerful studio kings and queens, only Pascal had the quiet courage to say what was on everyone else's mind.

It's telling that she didn't say she was outraged; she said she was disappointed in Gibson. I feel the same way about her studio peers. Once again, Hollywood had a chance to do the right thing, and once again it flunked the test.

When Rosenman, an old industry pro, got off the phone, he couldn't resist a little gallows humor. "You will portray what I said about Mel the right way," he said with a laugh. "You never know — I might want to work with him someday!"

[noiseradio]

I'm all done with Mel Gibson. And what makes it different than "The COlumbus Incident" is everything except the drink.

[Mr. Average]

Are conservative Catholics more prone to anti-semitic prejudices? MG? If not, then why mention his religious beliefs? If so, please explain. I am raised as a conservative Catholic in a large neighborhood filled with conservative Catholics. Born in 1957. Never, ever, ever heard an anti-semitic comment until I left parochial high school and entered University. Some real sad black racism, made more fascinating to me that Tom Snow and Jim White (I crap you negative) were the two black kids my age in the neighborhood and their families were among the most benevolent contributors to the stability and safety of our neighborhood.

Pardon my religiocentrism, but I would like to learn why conservative Catholics are referenced and more prone to hatred of Jews.

Mel Gibson is an absolute idiot, and deserves nothing less than to live the rest of his sorry ass life making restitution and becoming educated with the slim possibility that he might relieve himself of the ignorance that prevails him.

[Mechanical Grace]

If I thought all conservative Catholics were anti-semites, I wouldn't have needed to bother typing out "very conservative Catholic of the sort that gives Jewish-Catholic relations a bad name," I would have just written "conservative Catholic".

[BlueChair]

I don't think it's fair to describe Mel Gibson as a conservative Catholic, because his views (and especially those of his father) are pretty radical in their traditionalism.

Hutton Gibson subscribes to a branch of Catholicism known as Sedevacantism, which believes that Pope Pius XII was the last legitimate post. In other words, any declarations made by popes since then have been null and void to that sect.

He's also been publicly friendly with Holocaust deniers and have made clear, racist anti-semetic statements.

Less is known about Mel's beliefs, probably because of his high-public profile, though he does subscribe to "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus," which means "Outside the Church there is no salvation." So really, even if he didn't make flat out racist comments about Jews or anti-gay statements in past allegations, he still thinks we're all going to hell.

[mood swung]

I went to Columbus two weeks ago and didn't have an incident.

Players and coaches were greatly relieved.

[Mechanical Grace]

I don't think it's fair to describe Mel Gibson as a conservative Catholic, because his views (and especially those of his father) are pretty radical in their traditionalism.

Not radical really-- politically it's the opposite, the very definition of reactionary. But yes, I agree that his particular religious beliefs, which are a reactionary strain of Catholicism, directly inform his anti-semitism. That's why I said it was a type of Catholicism that gives Catholic-Jewish relations a bad name.

[newlacesleeves]

This is from the ADL... Personally I won't subscribe to any magazine..

Nostra Aetate: Transforming the Catholic-Jewish Relationship

A Catholic Perspective

Posted: October 20, 2005

"A Continuing Challenge"

By Eugene J. Fisher


A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT


Nostra Aetate, No. 4, represents one of the first items taken up on the agenda of the Second Vatican Council, yet was one of the last documents to be approved by the Council.


Between 1962 and 1965, the debate on the draft raged furiously both on the floor of the Council and behind the scenes. Anti-Semitic tracts were passed out to the Council Fathers and debunked by defenders of the statement. Intense diplomatic pressure was put forth by Arab governments. Compromises in wording and nuance were made and remade. The document was originally intended to be a lengthier one put out on its own. Then it was thought to attach it to the statement on ecumenism. The final compromise was to include it in a statement on "Non-Christian Religions" in general. Thus it was that the Council Fathers took up the issue of dialogue with Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and the native traditions, in a real sense, in order to take a positive approach to Judaism.

In many ways, the 15 long Latin sentences that make up the Council's declaration on the Jews and Judaism, the first ever issued by a Council in the history of the Church, constituted a mini-version of all of the debates of the Council as a whole. Scriptural and liturgical studies, ecclesiology and Church history, all were brought to bear on and in turn tested by this remarkable distillation of scholarship and pastoral sensitivity. Nostra Aetate remains to this day a litmus test for the implementation of the Conciliar vision as a whole, so pervasive in Catholic thought are the challenges it raised and still raises for Christian teaching and preaching.

Nostra Aetate (In Our Time) marks the end of one long era in the history of Catholic-Jewish relations and the hopeful beginning of a new age of positive dialogue between our two ancient communities. To understand Nostra Aetate 's profound significance, it would be useful to review briefly the history of Catholic-Jewish relations, divided here into six steps:

1. The first stage is the briefest, encompassing the period from Jesus' ministry to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple by the Romans in the year 70 of the first century of the common era. In this period, Christianity is perhaps best understood as a Jewish movement, although one can see the beginnings of its distinctive liturgical life reflected in the writings of St. Paul. 1

2. The second stage may be called the "the parting of the ways," a phenomenon that took place gradually, reaching maturity and definitiveness by the middle of the 4th century. This was the period that saw the setting down of the bulk of the New Testament, including the four gospels and the later Epistles, such as the Epistle to the Hebrews. During this stage many of the New Testament and Patristic polemics against Jews and Judaism were written (against, for example, the Pharisees and the Temple cult), reflecting the confrontations between the emerging Church and the developing rabbinic tradition. By contrast, the Mishnah, the earliest and "core" volume of the Talmud, was written at the end of the second century and, for its part, contains remarkably little anti-Christian polemic. 2

3. The third stage begins at the end of the 4th century with the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. It ends in the 10th century with the massive violence perpetrated against the helpless Jewish communities of Christian Europe by the Crusaders (despite the strong opposition of the Pope and St. Bernard). In consolidating its secular power, Church policy sought on the one hand to suppress the attractiveness of Judaism to potential converts and on the other to protect Jewish existence, as a witness to the validity of the Hebrew Bible upon which the Christian proclamation is based. No such protection was accorded pagans, Muslims, or those deemed by the Church to be heretical. 3

4. The fourth stage, from the 10th through the 16th centuries, marks in a sense the nadir of Jewish-Catholic relations. It begins with massacres of Jews by the Crusaders. During this period, the teaching of contempt against Jews and Judaism, initially only theoretical, came to fruition in such sinful acts by Christians against Jews as forced exiles and baptisms, ghettos, Talmud burnings, and blood libels. By the end of this period the Jewish communities of Western Europe were decimated and severely oppressed. 4

5. The fifth stage lasts from the Enlightenment to the eve of World War II. Though freed from the ghettos and contributing significantly to European society, Jews were still considered "outsiders" by most Europeans. Simultaneously, this period saw the development of pseudo-scientific racism, in great part as a means of rationalizing colonization and the slave trade to the New World. These "racialist" theories sought to justify what was being done to native peoples on the grounds that they were lower forms of humanity and were soon extended to the most "alien" group within Europe, namely, the Jews. Nazism carried these theories to their most extreme to justify" the Holocaust in which, ultimately, two-thirds of the Jews of Europe were coldly and systematically murdered. The Holocaust, therefore, represents a crisis not only for Church teaching but for the Western civilization as a whole. 5

6. The sixth stage begins with the liberation of the death camps by the Allied armies, and with the shock of realizing what had happened there. A high point was reached when a Jewish state was reestablished in the land of Israel, manifesting the Jewish people's renewed ability to hope. This spirit of hope for the future continued as the Church began to embark upon a profound examination of conscience and renewal, resulting in Nostra Aetate and similar statements by other churches. 6

The progress of the churches in addressing and reviewing their own teaching since Vatican II has been remarkable, as has been the intensity of the dialogue between Catholics and Jews. In many respects, American Catholics and Jews have been at the leading edge of the dialogue today. Central to and reflective of this dialogue have been several books worth noting. In 1980, the Stimulus Foundation published a volume honoring the 15th anniversary of Nostra Aetate. The book, Biblical Studies: Meeting Ground of Jews and Christians (Paulist), was edited by Lawrence Boadt, Helga Croner, and Leon Klenicki. In 1988, the International Catholic-Jewish dialogue published its paper in a volume entitled Fifteen Years of Catholic-Jewish Dialogue (1970-1985) (Libreria Editrice Vaticana/Lateranense, 1988). Still, we in America have much to learn. Recently, for example, the bishops of Italy announced a national day of reflection on Catholic-Jewish relations, to involve all seminaries, Catholic schools, religious education classes, and adult groups. So far as I know, such a measure has no precedent at the national level in this or any other country, though several dioceses in America have launched similar efforts over the years. Today the necessary documents and official statements have come forth from the international, national and local levels. However, this great vision remains to be fully implemented in the lives of our Catholic people.

Here in America, where we are blessed with such active and faithful Jewish and Catholic communities, we can do no less than continue this critical work.

[Boy With A Problem]

I'm all done with Mel Gibson. And what makes it different than "The COlumbus Incident" is everything except the drink.

This is really interesting - what does it mean to be "done" with someone?

I think Mel Gibson said some ugly things and probably has deep seated negative feelings towards Jews. Of course this is just from things I had read during the "Passion" hype - I don't know the guy....but it smells pretty rotten.

However, I'm not sure it would stop me from seeing a film that he acted in, directed or produced. While looking over his credits this morning I saw that he was an executive producer on last year's Leonard Cohen documentary, which I would like to see. I've never really been a fan, though I liked Gallipoli a lot, much of his other action stuff is watchable, but nothing that would appear in any sort of favorites list.

I still listen to Little Willie John and he murdered someone! Little Richard liked to hang out in the men's room of the Macon bus station and check out guys peeing - I still like his tunes though. I love the Louvin Brothers, despite the fact that Ira Louvin was a horrible racist. These guy's songs can all be found on Kojak Variety. Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis - not nice people at all, but I'm not going to stop listening to their records. The list could go on and on.

Film, literature and painting are all littered with similar figures.

Do we separate the artist from his art? Does it make it easier to write off a Mel Gibson (or a Gary Glitter for that matter), when many of us feel he wasn't much of an artist to begin with?



This just in from the Onion



http://www.theonion.com/content/node/51159

[Emotional Toothpaste]

Good post, Boy with a Problem. Sums up the way I feel.

I don't understand what all the fuss is about either. If people think actions speak louder than words . . . then we should be MORE upset that he was driving around drunk with an open bottle of tequila in his car, and could have killed somebody --- not the garbage he spouted off to the cop.

And does anyone really care when Barbara Walters says she never wants to watch a Mel Gibson movie again? Yeah, I'm convinced, Mel is anti-semitic. So what? Hollywood is littered notable people with strange beliefs, and there isn't all this fuss. Mels views will plague him the rest of his days, and thats good enough for me.

[Who Shot Sam?]

Gibson's anti-Semitism is more than a "strange belief" - it's something that he actively promulgated in a blockbuster movie. At what point are we entitled to start "making a fuss" about racist and anti-Semitic comments from public figures? Gibson has a larger following and bigger platform than most politicians, so what he says has a huge impact, like it or not. If nobody speaks up the challenge discourse like this, it eventually becomes acceptable. I don't begrudge anyone the right to continue to watch the movies he stars in, directs or produces, but I personally would rather not give him my money.

[newlacesleeves]

I agree.. This rush to forgiveness is offensive. If Mel Gibson had gone on a tirade about any other minority, the outrage would be deafening, and there certainly wouldn't be the whole, 'well he was drunk, let's give him a break' attitude.. Here is a man who has been long suspected of anti-semitism, and when he blatantly shows his true hand the majority of the public seem to want to give him a pass.. Well, to me this smacks of anti-semitism.. Pure and simple.

[Mechanical Grace]

I agree with BWAP up to a point. If there was an ensemble-cast film that sounded really great, and Mel Gibson was one of the actors, I'd still go and see it. The point is, the guy is a prick. I won't forgive him for it and neither will a whole fat lot of other people. It will affect his image, and probably his bankability as well, even if it's not so much that he disappears from Hollywood.

The movies he makes are another matter. As WSS points out, The Passion was a vehicle for showcasing his own ideology (as are loads of movies, really) and I didn't go see it, and I probably wouldn't go see another such film he made.

[Emotional Toothpaste]

I'm not giving him a pass, or forgiving him.

I just don't understand the hysteria. It shouldn't be headline news. Rascists are in plentiful supply anywhere you want to look. Just because he is a big movie star, so what? Now, if it was discovered he has been giving money to Hamas or Hezbollah, or going around throwing lit tequila bottles at synagogue's --- then you got a news story. But showing him on TV with that strange beard and a crazed look in his eyes, and all his goofy press-conference apologies and then the news-talk shows with rabbi's coming out with what they think of it, c'mon its all to Geraldo-ish of a newstory for me. Its sub-news.

He opened his mouth and revealed his own stupidity -- happens all the time. If I owned a copy of Lethal Weapon DVD, would I go smash it with a hammer? No, but if it makes YOU feel better, then have at it. I think its silly. Does he deserve some heckling for the rest of his life? - yeah probably.