(no subject)

[heidi]

I don't often curse in my LJ. I know that kids can and do read it, and I generally keep my public posts to a PG-13 level.

But this is an exception. And I will not use cut-tags for this because I want to make this man's horrible attitude and wrong-headed beliefs as publicly visible as possible:

Steve Feuerstein — host of Speak Your Piece!— interviewed Hutton Gibson for a segment of his show to be broadcast Monday by the small Talkline Communications Network.

According to a transcript released by the network, Hutton Gibson said, "It's all — maybe not all fiction — but most of it is," when asked about his views on the Holocaust.

Gibson added: "They claimed that there were 6.2 million (Jews) in Poland before the war and after the war there were 200,000, therefore he (Hitler) must have killed 6 million of them. They simply got up and left. They were all over the Bronx and Brooklyn and Sydney and Los Angeles."

The article I pulled the quote from is in USA Today.

Now, it is *possible* that Mel doesn't agree with his father on this issue, but then *why* is his spokesperson *silent* on a response? What possible reason could Mel Gibson have for not saying, "I do not agree with my father on this," and even just leaving it at that? In the past, when he's been asked in media interviews whether he shares his father's views, Mel Gibson has said that he loves his father and will not speak against him.

You know, that's just not a good enough fucking answer for me now, sorry.

Now, I am not suggesting that anyone who wants to see the film should not do so; if you're interested, curious, wondering, etc., by all means go. But if you do, please read this article which explains some of the sources, other than the Gospels, which Gibson used for the original script of the film, and which at least may have impacted his directoral/production decisions, and make me question just how "truthful" (his words) any such film can truly claim to be without basically showing in quadrants.
Here's a bit from that article:

We already knew that Gibson's efforts to be "as truthful as possible" (his own words in the Times) would be frustrated by the best sources that he had to draw on, namely, the Gospels themselves. Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, whose texts were composed in Greek between 70 C.E. and 100 C.E., differ significantly on matters of fact. In Mark, Jesus's last meal is a Passover seder; in John, Jesus is dead before the seder begins. Mark and Matthew feature two night "trials" before a full Jewish court, and a dramatic charge of "blasphemy" from the high priest. Luke has only a single trial, early in the morning, and no high priest. John lacks this Jewish trial scene entirely. The release of Barabbas is a "Roman custom" in Mark, a "Jewish custom" in John. Between the four evangelists, Jesus speaks three different last lines from the cross.

Briefly, to bring this back to HP...

Our buddy Christopher Noxon (famous for those not-well-researched articles about slash a while ago) has been attacked by Gibson regarding Noxon's articles about the film - you can read more here. This is definitely not an "enemy of mine enemy is my friend" situation though, is it?

Comments

[zorb]

Everything I hear about that film makes me want to see it less and less. -_-

Re:

[here-be-dragons.livejournal.com]

Ditto . . . and the one and only time I've been spammed in LJ was some propaganda for that film. The whole thing is starting to really creep me out. And I'm not sure if I actually want to see it and see for myself, or if I would rather just stay away entirely.

I'll probably go with the latter option.

[perceval.livejournal.com]

No. being attacked by a nonce does not make you any less of a nonce yourself.

and dear old Mr Gibson is just so stupid.

Gah ... and this after all the dialogue that has been happening between Christians and Jews. I mean, even the Pope is trying his best!

I wonder what the Jew Jesus ben Joseph would have made of all of this ...

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

I have no tolerance for Mel Gibson. I'm fairly sure he does share his father's views. They're nasties.

*snuggles*

*waves 'Jews rock!' flag*

Re:

[shezan.livejournal.com]

And have you read what Mel, not his dad, says about gays?

[aome.livejournal.com]

Rarely does news get me that angry, but when I spotted the quote in my newspaper this morning, my mouth fell open in fury. Either he has never been to a concentration camp (because you could NOT see one and think it 'fiction'). Either that, or he thinks it was all an elaborate Hollywood set. I'm still unbelievably angry at his public bigotry.

Re:

[aome.livejournal.com]

Apologies for above post making no sense, grammatically. Changed my thoughts midstream. Too brain-addled to fix. Sorry about that.

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

Now, it is *possible* that Mel doesn't agree with his father on this issue, but then *why* is his spokesperson *silent* on a response? What possible reason could Mel Gibson have for not saying, "I do not agree with my father on this," and even just leaving it at that?

I'm afraid this reminds me very much of the recent discussion in the fandom about homophobia, hypocrasy, etc.
If Mel doesn't agree with his father, why doesn't he speak up? Well, in the recent fandom discussion, there seemed to be a notion that any opnion should be respected, and that "respecting someone's opinion" meant "not arguing against them". Could THIS be old Mel's position, as well? Well, if it is, he certainly needs to wake up.

Re:

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

But "the Holocaust never happened" cannot be an opinion, because whether it happened or not is a fact. It is a fact that people were gassed, and a fact that people were experimented upon and a fact that people were forced to wear yellow stars and pink triangles and a fact that people were tortured and used as slave labour.

Someone may be of the opinion that it was, oh, I don't know, deserved or something, and that's an opinion and a freaking weird and horrible one at that, but it's not like said person is trying to deny the fact that millions of people are dead because of the actions of the Nazis against Jews and Rom and Poles and gays and righteous gentiles and anyone who didn't mesh with their Aryan point of view.

[narcissam.livejournal.com]

Mel definitely holds some odd views himself. As for why he hasn't spoken out against his father, I think that this may have something to do with his odd upbringing. Among the weird stuff Hutton Gibson would have taught him was a weird sense of what one owes a parent in respect and love.

But to Mel Gibson's credit, he did do a lot of work to make the film not anti-Semitic. I know a lot of people I respect who have seen the film, and say that in their opinion, it isn't anti-Semitic. Of course, I'm reserving my own opinion till I see it.

I'll be seeing it on Friday, with some friends, and we'll be having a discussion afterwards about the film, and of course, that aspect especially. Should be a very interesting experience, and I'll be sure to post a review to my LJ.

One thing that does worry me about the reaction to the film is that people worried about the anti-Semitism of the film may go *too* far, and end up coming across as anti-Christian. That USA Today article, I'm afraid, strikes me as highly problematic. If the average Christian is to continually read in the newspapers, "Your religion is bullshit!": shades of which do appear in the USA Today article, and in other newspapers, a backlash might occur.

The bit you quoted, for example, isn't in line with the ancient Christian intrepretation of the Gospels.

In Mark, Jesus's last meal is a Passover seder; in John, Jesus is dead before the seder begins.

Just to pick this example, general Christian belief and tradition is that Jesus held the Seder early, and didn't *finish* it that night. The gospels say that he goes out to the Garden without taking the last drink of the supper. Then when he is about to die, he says "I am thirsty," and drinks the vinegar. His seder supper ends with his death on the eve of the feast, and is a symbolism of the Passion as the new Passover, and the fulfilment of the Old Covenant. All very rich with symbolism. Even if the Passion as related by the gospel writers wasn't historical, it's a particularly modern approach to an ancient text to suggest that the writers did know what they were doing. They were

Re:

[narcissam.livejournal.com]

erggh.. I pressed post while still writing.

Even if the Passion as related by the gospel writers wasn't historical, it's a particularly modern approach to an ancient text to suggest that the writers did not know what they were doing. Obviously, they had in mind a number of aspects they wanted to emphasize for their own symbolic reasons. USA Today would do well to do a little more research before accepting as the best in Biblical criticism the first person they meet with a cause to promote.

So, in short, Hutton Gibson is despicable, I'm interested in seeing how the movie plays out, but I really hope that concern about anti-Semitism doesn't turn into a bashing of Christianity in the media. If it does, the backlash from beleaguered Christians could be huge. And... ick... I wouldn't want to see that.

NM

[ladyguenivere.livejournal.com]

Well you know I have throw in my two cents! :D feel free to argue/disagree; I love a good discussion! Haha


Gibson's father is obviously misinformed. (or an idiot. O_o I'll leave out the other words running through my head.)

I dont understand how anyone can say that the Holocaust is, "...maybe not all fiction — but most of it is." What has this man been smoking?! Keep it away from me!

Anyhow, in the Diane Sawyer interview, Mel was asked this very question regarding his father. And he said that he didn't want to discuss it. He said "this man is my father." (No, not a direct quote -- my memory isn't that good.) He did look distressed about it in the interview. I know he's an actor, but it would be very difficult to have your father be so vocal about his beliefs while you disagree with him. It seemed to me that Mel was trying to respect his father even though it upsets him. But that was my interpretation of the interview.

(BTW, if you get a chance to see the interview, it was very interesting. And he has a serious case of ADHD. I swear. He was so jumpy!)

In the Diana Sawyer interview, Mel stated that he took the movie directly from the Gospels. He seemed to imply that anything not in the gospels was taken out. (There was a Nun (you mentioned her before, i think?) he was reading, however she was known to be very anti-Semitic -- Mel claims not to have read the passages that are anti-Semitic. Uh...? Anyhow, he seemed to say that bit was not included in the film.)

That said, there are four different tellings of the last hours of Christ. However, most scholars agree that Matthew and Luke are based on the writings of Mark. Their verbage is very similar. I'd hope that Mel would know this and plan the film around the more reputable Gospel, but...as we know, people don't always investigate thoroughly before they make an opinion and go with it. *frowns*

Not to mention that the Gospels have been re-written and badly translated over the years! Depending on which version he uses, it could be total crap. Agh.

Know anything about The Gospel of John? I remember that Mark is most reputable and Matthew and Luke are (poorly) based on Mark. But what about John? *turns to google*

Re:

[narcissam.livejournal.com]

. (There was a Nun (you mentioned her before, i think?) he was reading, however she was known to be very anti-Semitic -- Mel claims not to have read the passages that are anti-Semitic. Uh...?

I've never read the person in question, but I think that it's likely that her devotional material has been published in expurgated forms in recent years.

NM

[wishwords.livejournal.com]

And then you have this:

David Denby on "The Passion Of The Christ"
( Gibson is so thoroughly fixated on the scourging and crushing of Christ, and so meagrely involved in the spiritual meanings of the final hours, that he falls in danger of altering Jesus’ message of love into one of hate. )

as reported by shezan and you wonder even more.

That is just a disgusting view on so many counts.

Re:

[narcissam.livejournal.com]

Actually, David Denby's criticism is one of those that I would cite as being dishonest. I mean, isn't the depths of the scourging and crushing of Christ *part* of the traditional spiritual meaning of the Passion? Why would focusing on it transform the message into hate? The message has always been, "Look at the pain and suffering that Christ suffered for our sins."

I find criticisms like Denby's deeply disturbing. I can say quite honestly that there has never been a jot of anti-Semitism present in my life, but meditating on the passion of Christ has always been an important part of my religious tradition. Meditating on the immensity of the pain of this particular method of punishment and execution is supposed to bring tears to the eyes of the meditator, compassion for the wounded Christ, who represents all the wounds of humanity, and a resolve to mend one's life.

NM

[powersh20works.livejournal.com]

Actually, he was very clear about his personal opinions on the ABC interview. He state clearly that he believes the holocaust did exist, and that he is not anti-semitic. What he wouldn't do is say anything about his father other than that he loved him, and it seemed very clear to me that he wasn't suggesting any sort of agreement with him, but rather trying to maintain whatever strained relationship between them there was. The New Republic article from July that you cited is a bit outdated.

I personally think that the "sins be on our children" line that is in question isn't anti-semitic in itself (though I have my doubts whether or not it happened.) A reflection of a Jewish mob asked for the death of Jesus (whether it happened or not)--no more suggests anti-semitism than reflecting quasi-historically that Aileen Wuornos killed her johns suggests anti-womanism. The concept at large of believing the Jews present that day hold responsibility for the death of Jesus does run the risk of being anti-semitic, and as a (cafeteria) Catholic I personally believe that we no more can say definitively what happened that day than the Bible can. And only part of it implicates the Jewish mob. Thus the trouble with taking any religious text at surface level.

What Gibson seems to be missing is the potential for anti-semitism to build in confused or uneducated audiences, a la the passion plays of the early twentieth century. When Diane Sawyer brought it up, he sloughed off the question saying that it's not the passion plays that incited the hatred in Hitler-- it was already there. I think he's underestimating a bit.

At first I was quite concerned that he was claiming the film came through him from the Holy Spirit. I thought he was claiming to be a prophet. At least he had the decency to say in the Sawyer interview that while he was trying to depict what was in his mind the most truthful story, it was just that... truthful in his mind. He said that it was not the "gospel of Mel," but rather, the expression of what he sees as the truth. That, in essence, all of us have an expression of this story from the Holy Spirit. He even admitted outright to using material Emmerich's visions-- something that outdates the New Republic story as well.

Personally, I'm waiting to see the film myself before I decide in the case of the Gibsons whether or not the sins of the father inhabit the sons.

Re:

[praetorianguard.livejournal.com]

I couldn't resist, since Mel Gibsons's statements on this topic have been bothering me for days, and here you are talking about it. *grin*

Mel Gibson said he was not anti-Semetic because to be so would be racist and that would be a sin under his beliefs.

There are, however, two forms of anti-Semetism: racist and religious. And it is possible to separate the two.

Now, I don't believe that Mel Gibson is any more prejudiced against Jews than he is against me and my Methodist brethren, but I also don't think that being prejudiced against many religions in addition to Judaism makes you any less anti-Semetic. But you'll notice he didn't say that he thought the Jews, as a religion, were okay. Just that to dislike them because of their race was wrong.

There was a fabulous article in Newsweek about this, by the way, and the political context surrounding the writing of the Gospels ("The Jews" was used to mean the Jewish hierarchy, the apostles were reluctant to write against Rome at that time, Pilate wasn't actually a dithering idiot at all, etc.). And I do think you're right, and that to blissfully claim I'm not anti-Semetic, and neither is my movie meant to be, disingenuously and irresponsibly ignores the potential for it to be a weapon of hatred.

*steps down off soapbox*

[wordplay.livejournal.com]

Beyond how insulting this is, it's just ridiculously irresponsible to have such views in any way associated with your name and not set the record straight. How he could not know that completely escapes me.

It's not that hard to say, "I love my father very much, but, like most parents and children, we do not agree on everything." Everybody else on the planet seems to be capable of pulling this off; what's his problem?

[eilanhp.livejournal.com]

"According to a transcript released by the network, Hutton Gibson said, "It's all — maybe not all fiction — but most of it is," when asked about his views on the Holocaust. "

As a German who has grand-parents that while they were not in a concentration camp or anything, but had to flee to another part, I find this view deeply insulting. It's more or less standard for schoolchildren here to visit a concentration camp once during your schooltime. I visited Dachau, one of the bigger ones, near Munich. Nobody who has been to one of them would ever say something like that. I recommend to Mr Gibbson to visit one sometime.

Eilan, furious

Re:

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

I went to Dachau the first time I went to (West) Germany - I'm showing my age, it was 1989, so the wall was still up. I didn't go in; I went for tea with my mother while my dad and sister did go in.

I have a pretty modern Jewish family - one of my father in law's first cousins is married to someone whose father was in the German army during WWII, but I honestly don't know if he was a member of the Nazi party. It's irrelevant to me, because whatever the father did, his son has since spoken against, within the family and in general as well. I have a number of friends who are German, and I would never hold any of them culpable for the horrors of their grandparents and great-grandparents. Hutton doesn't seem to give the same level of thought or consideration to Jews, though.

[1anonymous1.livejournal.com]

Well, his dad is a real prick. As for him, I think hes just plain stupid. Anyway, I have no interest in the film, it just looks like the fifty other Jesus movies there are, except with more blood.

Re:

[thirteenthchime.livejournal.com]

You know, I can't help thinking the same thing about this movie.

From what I've heard the only 'real' difference between the host of Christ-Based movies and this one is that this focuses on the suffering (Passion) instead of the life. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't lift me up to a higher spiritual plane (even if that suffering was for my sake) and it's also something that my stomach cannot handle.

I'm usually a big promoter of "don't judge what you haven't seen"- but I don't honestly think I can watch this movie without it effecting me in some way negatively- mind or physical nausea. The scariest thing is that it's being paraded around as 'fact' when in fact it's one man's interpretation of events that occurred 2000 years ago aided by scriptures that were written by men anywhere from 70-150 years after the event occurred. Lest not forget the careful pruning of the gospels, editing, and subsequent translations.

[likebunnies.livejournal.com]

His father is an uninformed jerk and unfortunately, there are plenty of those to go around. Why Mel doesn't say anything, I don't know. Perhaps because even negative publicity is publicity. I believe last week's Entertainment Weekly focused a lot about the publicity of the movie since they weren't invited to go see it and they hit upon the idea that controversy equals ticket sales.

I'll be going to see it this Friday with a group from my church. Since I'm going with a church already, it's obviously not going to convince me of something I don't already believe in. Nor is it going to suddenly make me feel that the Jews are to blame for Christ's death (the ball was already rolling before that point in the story -- besides he had to die for it fit into prophecy and for there to be a resurrection and so on and if he really wanted to get out of town, he had ... never mind. Don't want to get into a different topic) One of the reasons I'm going is as a child, I sat and watched 'Jesus of Nazareth' on TV with my parents and in a very disgruntled manner, I asked 'Why are they speaking English?' and they thought that was funny I would ask such a question. I thought it would be interesting to see the movie in the languages of the time.

[erised1810.livejournal.com]

That just about made me sick. How on earth can someoen be so blutn and ignorant.
This discussion is interesitng thoug hI knwo half as mcu has anyoen else here adn have been to only oen memorial mseum .T obe honest, I ran in, I ran throug hit with soemoen guiding me adn I wa boutto jsut gag. Thigns for mthat time period have beenPHOTOGRAPHED for cring out loud .I dont'thin kthe next generaton wil forgetthis, orthe next, or the oen after that.

[sff-corgi.livejournal.com]

Not to negate any sense of outrage, because Hutton Gibson is one of those people that inspires the Texas Defence ('desairves killin'), but he does give a sense of context for Mel's attitude, kind of like what powersh20works said.

I think the son has made incredible progress away from his father's beliefs, which still leaves him conservative to the point of 'Huh?' compared to most of his Industry, but is still a vast improvement. If he doesn't speak against his father, even now, it's because of his sense of family loyalty, not silent agreement.

We can but hope Mel's horde of kids end up no 'worse' than your average NAmerican Midwestern rural resident, yeah?

[galeotti.livejournal.com]

"It's all — maybe not all fiction — but most of it is."

Perhaps he should tell that to the people with the numbers more or less branded on their arms, or the people that watched as family members were lead away and gassed, shot, buried alive even--or the people that were starved and beaten and treated as slaves. Maybe ol' Mel should tell that to them, seeing as how they all fled to areas like the Bronx and Los Angeles.

What I want to know is, how is it that thousands of survivors all managed to recount (essentially) the same story, and yet people still think it was one big hoax? Right, because they all just had one enormous gathering and decided, "Well...let's lie to the world and see how many people believe it! Look, we'll even have someone tattoo your arms with prison-like numbers to make the whole thing sound more convincing!"

Please, Mr. Gibson, spare me. Perhaps one day he'll get his head out of his ass just enough to see the light of day, but I don't think that'll be any time in the near future.

[nmalfoy.livejournal.com]

Unacceptable. Don't forget his comments about gays. I have no desire to see the movie--blood and gore isn't my thing, and, while I don't believe you have to "accept Christ as your savior" to go to heaven (and I am not sure such a thing even exists) I do think Christ set a good example of how to live your life. Don't judge others, accept them as they are, etc. I have no use for organized religion. However, a movie like this focuses so much on the gore, it would appear, that the larger message is being lost. So no. Gibson doesn't get any of my money.

Re:

[ladylisse.livejournal.com]

That's my problem with it too. Everything I've heard about the movie suggests that it's more spectacle than message -- and frankly, that just makes me damn uneasy. Like you said, I think Christ set a good example no matter how you regard Him religiously, and it seems like even though that's just as or more important, it got lost.

As for Mel's dad...I'm not even starting on that. That kind of opinion makes me ill.

[psychic-serpent.livejournal.com]

People who insist that the Holocaust didn't happen or was exaggerated are very scary individuals. When a high school boyfriend of mine (of very short duration) mouthed off with this opnion he was history. Period. Okay, he was history after I spent some time screaming at him about his having hidden from me that he was evidently a Nazi.

I never wanted to see the film and already knew about Gibson's religious "issues" before they started getting more publicized. I didn't know his father was like this beforehand, but given Gibson's attitudes it certainly comes as no surprise. (That Gibson's views on gays aren't exactly enlightened either should come as no surprise.) The hype for the film that is coming from evangelical churches is downright scary. Many of them are renting entire theatres for their congregations to see this. I bought "Dogma" for my husband's birthday gift (I really doubt he'd read your LJ). That is likely to be the most "religious" film I see in the forseeable future. God, I wish someone would make a film of "Good Omens"!

[chickadilly.livejournal.com]

Thank you for posting this. I have such mixed feelings about this film. I'd like to see it because the religious theme interests me however the more I hear about Mel Gibson (and his father) the more I'm turned off by the thought of contributing a dime to it.

How anyone can make such statements about the Holocaust just completely blows me away.

[sternel.livejournal.com]

::sigh::
I visited Mauthausen on All Souls
Day of 2000, and as I arrived at the camp (after walking the 6 km from the train station, since the buses were shut down) I could hear the closing hymn of the Memorial Mass being said in the chapel that was built in the camp, and entered the camp to find little old ladies from the local village saying their rosaries in pennance. I spent much of that day in tears.
I wonder what Gibson elder would call that.

[lizbee.livejournal.com]

I dunno. My father has expressed and published some bigoted statements on homosexuality, but I've never openly criticised them. Frankly, I wouldn't dare to.

Of course, I'm in an odd position, coming from exactly the same religious background as the Gibsons.

Re:

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

But it's different being in your 20s vs being in your 50s, I think. It should get easier to stand up to your parents once you've had a few decades of independence under your belt.

[sinisteral.livejournal.com]

I don't know...this movie confuses the heck out of me and about many other people too -_-

[tocomfortyou.livejournal.com]

Speaking as someone who finished reading Elie Weisel's Night yesterday:

How dare you?

[schnoogle.livejournal.com]

Ever seen Waiting for Godot? There's a good little bit in there that caused me to look up bits in the gospels. Not sure how much you know of the Easter story and all but I was always told that there were two criminals on either side of Jesus when he was on the cross. One was bad and the other repented on the cross and went to heaven (that's basically it, anyway ^_^). This version only appears in 1 of the four gospels but is, from what I can gather, the most widely taught version. *shrugs*

I'm very wary of that film after the LJ spamming and everything.