(no subject)
Feb. 23rd, 2004 12:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
heidiI 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:
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?
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?
