Lights, camera, "Passion": Gibson movie set to open on Feb 25

And they - meaning the gutless, decadent wonders who run Tinsletown - have made known their opinion(s) of Gibson and his film. Said one anonymous executive: ''[Heinrich] Himmler could have cast ["The Passion of the Christ"]. Everybody looks like they're auditioning for the part of Fagin.''

Oh, and this person is identified as a Christian.

Said another: ''[Gibson has] been very shrewd. He has positioned this picture very well politically. For a movie he made for next to nothing -- in Aramaic -- Gibson and his people have done a pretty good job of creating awareness...I just don't want to see [for himself] that kind of relentlessly brutal movie." (Quotes are from a Feb. 10 story in the Boston Globe, titled "Actor's film of 'Passion' is others' fury," by Michael Paulson and Ty Burr.)

Ah. I wonder if this unnamed Hollywood executive refused to see "Schindler's List" because of it being "relentlessly brutal." And I wonder if he refused to see blatantly anti-Christian/Catholic films like "The Last Temptation of Christ," "Agnes of God," "Priest," "Dogma" and so on, because they malign Christianity and the Church. I don't think it would be a stretch to answer in the negative.

But we know the real reason behind Hollywood's anger at Gibson. He's made a movie that glorifies God. You're not supposed to do that. If it mocks God and organized religion, that's fine. But since "The Passion of the Christ" promotes Christianity, and because it's being used as a tool for evangelization, it's a threat to the establishment. The liberal establishment, that is.

Again quoting from the Globe story: "Said David Kanter, a manager and producer for the Culver City-based production company and talent agency Anonymous Content, 'People feel betrayed, because here's a nice guy who has done the time and worked really hard in the business, creating a statement that many, many people are going to find offensive'."

There you have it. "Many, many people" (anti-Christian bigots?) will be offended by "The Passion of the Christ." Why? Because it dares to promote the New Testament. It dares to promote God. And, of course, Mel Gibson is a conservative. Anyone, particularly someone who has fame and influence, who is even remotely conservative, is a threat and thus demonized.

Remember Elia Kazan?

###

FEb 12, 2004 UPDATE - Following this article, Matt got several letters. Here is his response to several of them:

Atheist, Rabbi Scorn Mel's 'Passion', by Matt C. Abbott

One of the negative e-mails I received in response to my "Hollywood's Hatred for God" commentary was from a gentleman who resides in Hollywood. Judging from the content of his correspondence, he is an atheist. And we all know how, er, "colorful" atheists can be - especially when it comes to responding to those with "strong beliefs in the supernatural," to use the terminology of this individual.

I subsequently forwarded his correspondence to a friend of mine, a fellow Catholic, who likes to respond to such "colorful" individuals. She wrote him a thoughtful response, and the following are excerpts from his response to her response (are you keeping track?):

"You know I'm sure there are meetings in Roswell, NM every year proclaiming the existence of little green men. My point is this, just because a gang of 'believers,' wearing really neat hats, proclaim something to be real - that does not necessarily make it so... When all religious belief is arbitrary, as it truly is, you just pick the group that dresses like you and act the same, think the same. Pretty silly, don't you think? If Mel had been an Eskimo, I wonder what sort of wacky story about Polar bears he'd have made up. Shame we'll never know. I like bear stories....

"What hurts people is when one silly group makes up things, then promotes these ancient hatreds as the truth about another silly group. If you need an example of this, look no further than the front page of your daily news. For all of 'God's' great planning, the Middle East remains a center of ancient blood feuds, with ritual killings going on 24/7 and proclamations of sacred truths spouted by all sides. This on-going tragedy seems the birth pains of a time in the future when all this sectarian belief will transform into whatever the next religion mankind makes up, hopefully one where they don't have to kill each other.

"What Mel's reasons for using his millions to make a movie about his opinion of religion is anybody's guess. Seems likely it started with his father beating his beliefs into the son. The funny part is this: He's just an actor with a lot of money. Take any uneducated brute, give him millions for his looks, then let him make a movie about little green men. (Wish he had...sounds a lot more fun.)"

Well, at least the atheist isn't calling for a boycott. But Rabbi Shmuly Boteach is. In a Feb. 11 commentary in The Jerusalem Post, Boteach writes (excerpted)

"Has the real Mel Gibson been kidnapped by space aliens, leaving a Jew-hating, racist, body-double in his place?...

"I once greatly admired Mel Gibson not only as a quality actor but as a quality human being. He was one of the few Hollywood celebrities who seemed devoted to his wife and family, and as a father of seven I had great admiration for another father of seven who saw the blessing, rather than the burden, of having lots of kids. As a religious man, I was greatly inspired by his commitment to his Catholicism. But all that is behind me now. Because whether Mel hit his head against a rock or just decided to follow in the footsteps of his Holocaust-denying, anti-Semitic father, the Mel Gibson that first charmed us as an innocent-looking Australian soldier in Gallipoli seems gone forever.

"...Elsewhere, I have written a lengthy refutation of the New Testament's passion narratives, where I also emphasized that whether or not Mel's movie will excite anti-Semitism is beside the point, since the bigger issue is that it is based on an anti-Semitic lie, a cheap fabrication contradicted by all serious history of the time....

"...I am at a loss to explain the silence on the part of Hollywood's Jewish celebrities and media moguls regarding Mel's movie. Why aren't people like Steven Spielberg protesting the horrible message of this loathsome film? Where is Barbra Streisand - so vocal in her attacks on Republicans - on a movie that portrays her people as deicidal villains? Are Hollywood's Jewish celebrities afraid to criticize the movie because it's 'art' even when that art brings to life a story that has been responsible for the slaughter of our people for centuries?

"Calling someone an anti-Semite is about as big an insult as one can hurl, and I for one am forever careful in its usage. But if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If a man comes along who isn't prepared to acknowledge the special crime of the Holocaust, makes a movie that portrays Jews as wicked God-killers, and is prepared to risk his illustrious career on the making of that movie, well, quack, quack, quack."

Now, I ask you, dear readers: Who is worse here - the atheist or the rabbi? I'm still undecided.