Tag: Mel Gibson
Putting Words in Mel Gibson’s Mouth at the New York Times
Jim Davila uncovers an atrocious misquoting of Mel Gibson by the New York Times. Apparently the only thing they’ve learned from the Jayson Blair scandal is that they should lie by selective quoting rather than by outright making things up.
This is a quote from Gibson about his movie, Passion, that was widely republished and makes Gibson come across as a blatant anti-Semite. This is how Frank Rich characterized Gibson’s comments,
Asked by Bill O’Reilly in January if his movie might upset “any Jewish people,” Mr. Gibson responded: “It may. It’s not meant to. I think it’s meant to just tell the truth. . . . Anybody who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability.
As Davila notes, the clear implication there is that Gibson is an anti-Semite who thinks the Jews are collectively culpable for the death of Jesus. When I first read that quote a few days ago, I thought it was revolting and couldn’t believe Gibson would say something so blatantly anti-Semitic.
But Davila unearthed the transcript of the O’Reilly interview. Here’s what Rich left out of the ellipses,
O’REILLY: Is it [Passion] going to upset any Jewish people?
GIBSON: It may. It’s not meant to.
I think it’s meant to just tell the truth. I want to be as truthful as possible. But, when you look at the reasons behind why Christ came, why he was crucified, he died for all mankind and he suffered for all mankind, so that, really, anybody who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability.
As Davila notes, Gibson is not saying that the Jews have some special collective responsibility for Jesus’ death, but rather that Jesus’ death is the fault of everyone who sins (which in itself is a bizarre idea, but not an anti-Semitic one).
Not only does this sort of distortion violate what few ethical principles are left in journalism, but it also could/will backfire. I think there are plenty of good reasons to be concerned that Gibson and his movie might be anti-Semitic. Making quotes up like this, however, will simply further turn the debate away from the facts of the movie and Gibson’s beliefs and on to a debate about how the largely secular media filters and presents religious ideas and views.
Jonah Goldberg and Religion
Conservative writer Jonah Goldberg had me laughing out loud today at what I assume is his unintentionally amusing take on something I could care less about — the controversy over Mel Gibson’s film about Christ (now another Lethal Weapon film — that would be an abomination). Goldberg criticizes part of a New Republic story on Gibson’s film, writing,
Still, the New Republic piece suggests Gibson does have a lot to answer for. He claims time and again that he’s simply sticking to the “historical record.” Frederiksen offers some interesting stuff I didn’t know about how mixed the historical record really is. There are major — and often irreconcilable — differences among the various versions of Jesus’ death in the Gospels. More important, Gibson relies on the writings of Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich as a “historical” source. But Emmerich, born in 1774, was one of several Nuns who claimed to see visions of the Passion. To use her visions — not her “research” mind you, but her visions — as a historical source isn’t any more legitimate than using Elijah Muhammed’s visions for a film about Mohammed’s life.
Yeah, and then the next thing you know people like this start thinking the visions are from God, and then that they speak for God. Then they attract followers who insist that these are the only true visions from God and before anyone know what happened you’ve got a full-blown religion complete with holidays that have to be neutered for our secular age.
The Goldmember Controversy
I’ve participated in a number of Internet discussion about the Austin Powers: Goldmember movie and there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about how and why Sony was able to force the movie’s producers to change the name and pull all the marketing material for the movies (at least temporarily).
First of all, this is not a trademark issue, even though Sony is obviously not pleased with the the parody of Goldfinger. If you want to make a spy spoof film and call it Goldmember, I doubt Sony would have much of a leg to stand on in a trademark lawsuit (though it might be able to harass you with nuisance suits and make it unprofitable to continue).
One of the few good things the MPAA has done is figure that its members probably have better things to do than file trademark lawsuits back and forth with each other. So companies that are members of the MPAA can register film titles with it. This costs $300/year plus $200 for every 10 film titles.
What do you get for your money? Well, say you register the film title “Jack of Spades.” No member of the MPAA can release a film with that title without securing your permission first. Suppose instead I decide to make a movie called “Ten of Diamonds” which you think is a bit too close to “Jack of Spades.” Rather than sue each other, we are bound by our agreement with the MPAA to go into arbitration that will settle the matter.
If you follow the movie trade closely, you’ll occasionally see movie studios paying other studios, filmmakers, etc. serious dollar figures to obtain the rights to a certain movie name — Disney, for example, reportedly paid $600,000 just to use the title “Ransom” for its Mel Gibson film of that name.
Its just domain name squatting, Hollywood style.