Frank Rich - The Greatest Story Ever Sold

[realFedUp]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/21/arts/21RICH.html

The Greatest Story Ever Sold
Frank Rich, Sunday Sept. 21

When Gibson expressed his feelings about Rich. "I want to kill him," he said. "I want his intestines on a stick. . . . I want to kill his dog." — The New Yorker, Sept. 15

PETA members may be relieved to learn that I do not have a dog.

As for the rest of Mel Gibson's threats, context is all: the guy is a movie star. Movie stars expect to get their own way. They are surrounded by sycophants, many of them on the payroll. Should a discouraging word somehow prick the bubble of fabulousness in which they travel, even big-screen he-men can turn into crybabies. Mr. Gibson's tirade sounded less like a fatwa from the Ayatollah Khomeini than a tantrum from Sinatra in his cups.

My capital crime was to write a column on this page last month reporting that Mr. Gibson was promoting his coming film about the crucifixion, "The Passion," by baiting Jews. As indeed he has. In January, the star had gone on "The O'Reilly Factor" to counter Jewish criticism of his cinematic account of Jesus's final hours — a provocative opening volley given that no critic of any faith had yet said anything about his movie (and wouldn't for another three months). Clearly he was looking for a brawl, and he hasn't let up since. In the New Yorker profile, Mr. Gibson says that "modern secular Judaism wants to blame the Holocaust on the Catholic Church," a charge that Abraham H. Foxman, of the Anti-Defamation League, labels "classic anti-Semitism." Mr. Gibson also says that he trimmed a scene from "The Passion" involving the Jewish high priest Caiaphas because if he didn't do so "they'd be coming after me at my house, they'd come to kill me."

Who is this bloodthirsty "they" threatening to martyr our fearless hero? Could it be the same mob that killed Jesus? Funny, but as far as I can determine, the only death threat that's been made in conjunction with "The Passion" is Mr. Gibson's against me. The New Yorker did, though, uncover one ominous threat against the star: "He's heard that someone from one of his hangouts, the Grand Havana Room, a Beverly Hills smoking club, said that he'd spit on him if he ever came in again." Heard from whom? What is the identity of that mysterious "someone"? What do they smoke at that "smoking club"? Has the Grand Havana Room been infiltrated by Madonna's Kabbalah study group? I join a worried nation in praying for Mr. Gibson's safety.

-continued-

[Cassandra]

1. I had read part of the New Yorker interview

I was so disgusted that if I never watch another Mel Gibson movie, including ones I've previously enjoyed, I'll be very happy.

[NickDanger]

2. Remember what Brando said about seeing the ugly side of everyone

except Jews?

"Hollywood is run by Jews; it is owned by Jews--and they should have a greater sensitivity about the issue of people who are suffering. Because...we have seen...the greaseball, we've seen the Chink, we've seen the slit-eyed dangerous Jap, we have seen the wily Filipino, we've seen everything but we never saw the kike. Because they knew perfectly well, that that is where you draw the ."

And Brando was excoriated for this. So will Gibson be.

[Cassandra]

7. Are you implying anything...

by quoting that?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cassandra]

11. Sounds like Mel has your sympathy.

1. Mel deserves some tough sledding, both for the film and for some of the vile things he said in his interview.
2. There is a big difference between unflattering characterizations and accusing Jews of blood libel. One would almost think he wanted to start a new series of pogroms, but of course Mel is one of those people who doesn't believe Jews have ever been persecuted.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PATRICK]

15. still an embarassing issue

for all sides, but blaming the "Jews" for the their government of occupation is like blaming Americans for....wait I had it on the tip of my tongue. In such matters irony accompanies the cloud of unknowing we know as willful coverup. One obstacle was the earnest and desperate Christian posture of not wanting to offend the Romans. A particular complication, lost in the lack of context after probbably the first few decades was Matthew's and even Mark's particular "Jews" as enemies that was so strong as to apear generic. matthew was inveighing against the Pharisees of HIS time, the ones huddling in brittle antagonism against impure liberals like Christians in an exclusion fron the Torah even more total than the MInim excommunication and purge of 50 AD. The whole Gospel is a counter Torah fuflfillment of Jesus as messiah. Mark oddly was more in line with Paul's pro-Gentile expansionism and taking down the Jewish Chiristians a big peg or two. That was staking pout the genuine message of the Gospel against reactionary crimping of the faith. "Get thee behind me, Satan" was spoken to Peter not Caiaphas.

The common people, powerless, simple faith or never quite getting it to rival the crush of oppression and lack of choice in thought or reality...these people had pretty much the same positive reaction as any people would to the preacher from Nazareth...but dogged by Freepers and spies and isntitutional hacks with a slime machgine that nearly got him stoned on more than one occasion.

It is and always has been about the human race and the same old good/bad split the bad guys love to blur and the not quite good enough bullied masses cling to for false comfort.

Who killed Christ? The ultimately all powerful and very willing viceroy of Rome of course and the Roman collaborators protecting their turf in the overt role using Pharisaic righteous attacks only for weak cover. As for mob manipulation after the kangaroo court. Well, that has never been able to be scrutinized except that the Passover crowds- the real and devout ones- were probably not there. More likely the good old boys of the Temple coin changing franchises. It was up and over before the sheep could even bleat.

The history of anti-Semitism of course is a continuation of the particular Gospel beefs over the persecution and legality of Christians aided by the Jewish rivalry that soon enough saw the tables turned(not the cheek) with many many longer centuries of Church persecution against the Jews. In the streets the ugly murk became an ethnic hatred of the insane and lasting variety we still know and love today even in the extreme right vs. normal people split.

[Cassandra]

16. "Cultivated a culture of victimhood....

which is used to deflect criticism and obtain benefits." Hmmm..... As opposed to actually having been victims for centuries, which didn't need cultivation and has yielded some really lousy benefits. The screams of long dead Jews, who were murdered by Christians yelling "Christ-killers", should be ringing in your ears right now. Some of us are not worried about a film attacking an "image", but about viewers of that film attacking Jews in the streets.

[Classical_Liberal]

18. This isn't coming from Hollywood Jewish people

It is coming from ADL and certain neocons like the ones at New Republic. Hollywood so far has either supported the movie Jack Valenti, and Kirk Douglass or is reserving judgement, as everyone should do here. This is a fight between paleocons and neocons with both sides mislabling each other as liberal. Though certain Liberal Jews are completely blind to the neoconservatives now controlling such orgs as ADL. Frank Rich falls in that category.

[bemildred]

3. This is rich.

Mel says "Bring it on" in hopes of arousing some interest in
his rotten movie. Various other people, ignoring the obvious
approach of just ignoring the hero-movie blowhard, step up and
start to belabor his loud, stupid rantings. It's hard to know
which side to pick, better to just sit back and enjoy the ruckus.

The best question to ponder here is who is jerking who's chain?

I vote for Mel the blowhard, he is getting just the reaction he
wanted. There is nothing aging not-very-good actors hate more
than not getting their usual dose of attention.

[Skittles]

4. I boycott all movies with a homophobic f*** in them

I cannot stand Mel Gibson.

[realFedUp]

5. but what do you REALLY think...

lol.

[Maeve]

6. I dislike the person as well

But I gave him the benefit of the doubt and watched "Signs." If that was any indication of his acting ability, I'll pass on future projects he's involved with.

[Loonman]

8. Yer all fucked in the head

I remember the last time I started a thread about "The Passion"........but that bastion of tolerance that DU has become(~snicker~) could not handle a religion thread.


Stupid hippies.

Frank Rich is a no-mind, anyway.

[realFedUp]

10. well, that's kind of a generality...

I like Frank Rich's writing and hadn't read the
New Yorker piece with Mel's words about him.

Cleaning up your subject line might be nice :-)

[Merlin]

12. Jesus Christ! No more Mel for me.

This is simply outrageous.

If the Catholic Church in America does not immediately disown the villification implicit in the message of this flick, it will have further shamed itself.

[Classical_Liberal]

17. Why should they

It is a faithful rendering of the biblical account, which is what has really got everyones panties in a bunch. Abraham Foxman considers the bible antisemitic, but doesn't want to offend his rapturite buds as the Christian Coalition, like Ralph Reed, so he goes after Mel. Then they get bunched up more by antisemites who often are the ones defending Mel.

[Wetzelbill]

14. I'm a film buff

I'll watch it, see what I can learn from it and take all the bullshit with a grain of salt. I like Gibson's films; I find most of them entertaining and always have been a fan. That being said, I don't agree with his views, but he has the right to have them and I will not boycott a film because of those notions. If he is that narrow-minded than that makes him not much of a person in my book. However, I will try not to judge and will avoid from trashing the guy even though what his family believes in makes absolutely no sense and angers me somewhat. Anyway, yikes, this guy is........

[Democat]

19. Is he talking about Arnold with this quote?

"The guy is a movie star. Movie stars expect to get their own way. They are surrounded by sycophants, many of them on the payroll."