Mel Gibson Censoring Critics

by DevonMcBride 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

DevonMcBride

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/139/story_13900_1.html

'Something Between Cover-up and Censorship' A leading Bible scholar reacts to the secrecy surrounding an advance screening of 'The Passion'

By John Dominic Crossan



I have spent the last 40 years of my life as a scholar and professor, author and lecturer. All of that activity is conducted in the public arena, where both support and criticism are normal, and controversy is an expected part of the landscape. In the last decade I have been conducting seminars on the historical Jesus, earliest Christianity, and their contemporary implications, in churches across this and other countries. I have always told those churches they could tape officially for their own purposes (including sales) and told individuals they could tape unofficially for their own private use.

My reason for that openness is simply to avoid an obvious contradiction between content and format. My content is a Jesus who was utterly open, so open that it cost him his life. Asked about his teaching, Jesus responded, according to John 18:20-21, "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said to them; they know what I said." I have therefore tried, as a scholar who is also a Christian, to be equally open and transparent and to accept both support and criticism, especially and above all else when speaking of Jesus himself.

On January 21, I registered for the full three-day "Beyond All Limits 2 Pastors Conference" of the Global Pastors Network at Calvary Assembly in Orlando, Fla. My only purpose was to hear an interview with Mel Gibson that afternoon and to see a screening of his film The Passion of the Christ that evening (9:30-11:30 p.m.) although I also attended most of the sessions that first day. I filled out all appropriate forms, gave my full name, local address, and status as a Professor of Religious Studies at DePaul University . The $245 fee allowed me a name-tag and the letter G marked on the back of my left hand (presumably for Gibson). Both tag and G were checked at the bottom of the stairs, again at the top of the stairs, and finally at the door leading into the 5,500-seat auditorium.

I also expected to sign a Statement of Confidentiality . That in itself did not bother me. I understood that as a pre-screening of a "rough cut," some privacy could be necessary. I did think, however, that, since most people know how the story ended, it was a little unnecessary.

In any case, it was not the fact but the content of the confidentiality agreement that surprised me. On one hand, it enjoined me "to hold confidential my exposure, knowledge and opinions of the film." On the other hand it affirmed that, "pastors and church leaders are free to speak out in support of the movie and your opinions resulting from today's experience and exposure to this project and its producer."

I understand that legalese to mean that negative opinions are forbidden but positive ones are solicited. It is one thing to say that nobody can give any information about the movie or even express any opinion about it; but to allow support while denying criticism is something between cover-up and censorship. And its power is that of fear--the fear of ordinary and unprotected persons like myself that they might be sued for giving their opinion, even insofar as that could be done without discussing the movie itself.

One footnote here. Leaders of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith infiltrated the movie's screening the same night without signing a Statement of Confidentiality. Although I did not know about their presence that night, I was aware that, after registration, one could enter the auditorium with the stealth high-technology of a black marker to make a simple G.

What bothered me most about that Statement of Confidentiality's disjunction was not just its clear attempt at censorship or its even clearer attempt to promote interest by secrecy and conspiracy. What bothered me intensely was the way it contradicted the character and attitude of its own subject, that Jesus who spoke always openly and publicly, who received and accepted both loving support and lethal criticism. If the Gospel of the Christ was so publicly open, why is "The Passion of the Christ" open only to support but closed to criticism? If you cannot take criticism, Mr. Gibson, get out of the Passion.

I signed that Statement of Confidentiality in order to see the movie, and thus I can only speak about that document and not about the film itself. I emphasize its disjunctive content--supportive opinions are acceptable, but critical opinions are forbidden---and especially its contradiction with its own subject.

But I add one final element. There was a two-page flyer opening to a one-page poster scattered everywhere around the public areas open to non-registrants (even in the bathrooms). It advertised "A Mel Gibson Film," gave its title as "The Passion of the Christ," and underneath was the sub-heading, "Dying was his reason for living." I have spent 40 years studying the gospels and have noticed two points about them. First, they range from a short 16 chapters in Mark to a long 24 chapters in Luke--but none of them gives more than one or two chapters to the passion of Jesus. The vast majority of their content describes how the life of Jesus as lived absolutely for the justice of of the God of Judaism led inevitably to his death by imperial execution. He lived the Kingdom of God, and the Kingdom of Rome crucified him for it.

Therefore, in the name of that God, his Jesus, and those gospels, I deny that sub-headed slogan and I reverse it to this: Living was his reason for dying.

DanTheMan

Dark forces are at work in this country. I just lost a lot of respect for Mel Gibson after reading that. I had planned on seeing the movie when it came out, but now I am having second thoughts.
Double Edge

Dark forces are at work in this country. I just lost a lot of respect for Mel Gibson after reading that. I had planned on seeing the movie when it came out, but now I am having second thoughts.
You read a one opinion article and you completely change your mind? Why not read several articles and get a more balanced view before making up your mind?
I have spent 40 years studying the gospels and have noticed two points about them. First, they range from a short 16 chapters in Mark to a long 24 chapters in Luke--but none of them gives more than one or two chapters to the passion of Jesus. The vast majority of their content describes how the life of Jesus as lived absolutely for the justice of of the God of Judaism led inevitably to his death by imperial execution.

regarding the bold: So what? The picture is ABOUT the one or two chapters regarding the passion, it is not about the totality of Christ's life. It reminds me of the criticism of "Saving Private Ryan" ... some of the Brits were upset about the film not showing British participation in D-day, but the film wasn't about the totality of D-day, it was ABOUT one sqaud of American G.I.s on D-day.
He lived the Kingdom of God, and the Kingdom of Rome crucified him for it.
That is his minority opinion. He wouldn't have been crucified if it wasn't for the radical Jewish leadership demanding it (they themselves were powerless in capital punishment cases and they needed to have an approval from Rome).
bigboi

I think his main fear is the supposed anit-semiticism that a lot of critics say his film may ingite. With things currently going on in the world scene as they are, I think the secrecy surrounding the film may be prudent. This is really hard to say given that I haven't seen the film, but I think that may be part of his thinking.
Satanus

The article may be a clever way of reversing the situation. Jews have been screaming about this movie being inflamitory of antisemitism since gibson started making it. They have been trying to censor gibson. This article makes it appear as if gibson is the censor. I would investigate this pastor's connections and beliefs to look for evidence of judaismic sympathies/connections, as oposed the christian leanings, along w free speach. He can't be that uninformed about the situation surrounding this movie.
Elsewhere

Jesus actor struck by lightning Actor Jim Caviezel has been struck by lightning while playing Jesus in Mel Gibson's controversial film The Passion Of Christ.
The lightning bolt hit Caviezel and the film's assistant director Jan Michelini while they were filming in a remote location a few hours from Rome.
It was the second time Michelini had been hit by lightning during the shoot.
Neither of them was badly hurt, according to the film's producer Steve McEveety.
Michelini had previously been struck during filming in Matera, Italy, when he suffered light burns to his fingers after lightning hit his umbrella.
Describing the second lightning strike, McEveety told VLife, a supplement of the trade paper Variety: "I'm about a hundred feet away from them when I glance over and see smoke coming out of Caviezel's ears."
The Passion Of Christ, which was filmed in the ancient languages of Latin and Aramaic, is directed and co-written by actor Mel Gibson and focuses on the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus.
Although it is not due for release until early next year, it has already hit headlines after Jewish figures in the United States slated it for being "dangerous" and portraying Jews in a negative way.
Originally titled The Passion, the film changed its title last week after Miramax claimed the rights to the title for one of its own projects, a historical epic based on a Jeanette Winterson novel.
The film now looks set to be released in the States by independent distributors Newmarket Films, who released Memento and Whale Rider in the US.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/entertainment/3209223.stm
Helloooooo.... can ya take a hint?????
Satanus

Else
Was it sssatan?? Word has it, he didn't like jesus much.
imallgrowedup

SS -
The article may be a clever way of reversing the situation. Jews have been screaming about this movie being inflamitory of antisemitism since gibson started making it. They have been trying to censor gibson. This article makes it appear as if gibson is the censor. I would investigate this pastor's connections and beliefs to look for evidence of judaismic sympathies/connections, as oposed the christian leanings, along w free speach. He can't be that uninformed about the situation surrounding this movie.
I agree with you. I highly suspect that this man is not who he claims to be. To me, this man's article sounded more like someone who wanted a platform where he could legally bash this movie under the guise of a violation of his own pet peeve. He had not one nice or positive thing to say about the movie at all. I would think that as a pastor, there had to be something he had to like about it - even if it was a comment about how many more people may choose Christ because of this film. Instead of focusing on the film, he chose to focus on how he was not allowed to critique it. If he didn't like the arrangement, why did he sign the agreement? His indignation would carry much more weight had he not signed the agreement at all, and forewent the movie preview altogether. However, when he signed on the dotted line, he willingly compromised his ideals, so he has no right to self-righteouly accuse Mel Gibson of requiring him to violate his own pet peeve. As the main character in this very movie once said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Speaking of Mel Gibson not wanting any negative press on the movie - can you blame him? If I were making a movie on the last few days of Jesus' life, I would know that the best endorsement I could get would be from Christian pastors. Why bother doing the screening at all if anyone was going to run off and bash it? Besides - no one was forced to sign the agreement. They could have walked.
For what it is worth, my own pastor attended this screening. When he got back, he could not praise this movie enough - especially in regards to it's historical accuracy. In fact, he is going to interrupt the series he has been speaking on to illustrate to us just how accurate it is by doing a biblical comparison. This may not sound significant to some, but to members of my church, nothing our pastor has ever done speaks as loudly as his decision to interrupt our current series-in-progress. In fact, to illustrate how significant this is - my pastor didn't break down and change the series the weekend after 9/11 hit - much to my chagrin. It was "business as usual" for him. So to say that we are going on "hiatus" to study just the last few days of Jesus' life prior to the release of this movie speaks volumes about how great this movie is.
Again, if the guy who wrote this article really is a pastor, why couldn't he find one good thing to say about the movie, when my own pastor, who barely gives a glance to events taking place outside of our church is setting everything else aside to insure we know what we are looking at when we go to see this movie. I say this guy is a mole, and a transparent one at that.
As for me, I'll be waiting in line on opening night.
growedup
logansrun

My take? The Bible most likely presents a distorted view of how Jesus was crucified. The movie is based on the Bible, not modern historical understandings of Jesus. Big deal.
Bradley
MegaDude

Mel Gibson is a smart man. He has tens of millions of dollars invested in this film and he wants it to succeed. I don't blame him for being very cautious as he brings the film out slowly to create publicity. He knew ahead of time there would be people who would make moves to keep it from suceeding. They have their people to create a certain spin in the media. Obviously they can have an effect. Already one poster has decided this may be a movie to skip based on.... spin. Obviously there are Jews who want to paint the film as anti-semitic, which is a huge load of bull in my opinion. After all, the hero of the movie is a Jew, for crying out loud.
This reminds me of the crap that spread about Martin Scorcese's excellent film "Last Temptation of Christ." Fundy Christians picketed the film and claimed there was a Jewish conspiracy to smear Jesus. Anyone who has seen this film knows the film has tremendous respect for its subject.

Mel Gibson Censoring Critics

Share this