MemeMachineGo!

Must be extremist wacko day at MMG. I like marine mammals better, but the wackos can't be ignored.

Mel Gibson is about as close to traditional Catholicism as I am, which is to say, not very (although in quite a different direction from mine). The more he voices his opinions in public, the more I think that he should stick to acting.

From the reviews I've seen of "The Passion of the Christ", it seems to focus much more on the physical suffering and very little on Jesus' actual religious message. If anyone should want to see a film about Jesus, I can highly recommend "The Last Temptation of Christ".

I'm fond of "Jesus Christ Superstar," Jimcat. The pink tank tops with Caesar's profile really completed the film for me.

(I actually mean this fairly seriously: while there are some crazy '70s lines, I found things like Judas's character quite illuminating as a kid -- provided a lot more depth than Sunday School. But "Last Temptation" was probably tainted for me by the drunkass friends who showed it to me in college.)

I've never seen the movie (or the play) of "Jesus Christ Superstar", but I'm quite fond of the music. Actually I like the mid-90's Atlanta version (with Amy Ray as Jesus and Emily Saliers as Mary Magdalene) even more than the original soundtrack. And listening to that music actually prompted me to go and read the Gospel of John all the way through for the first time since I escaped from Catholic high school.

Since I usually live in a cave as far as movies are concerned, I didn't see "Last Temptation" until two or three years ago. When it first came out, all I was aware of were the uninformed protests and the Peter Gabriel soundtrack. But having seen it relatively recently, the significance of its ideas are still fresh in my mind.

The point that made the biggest impact on me was during the future-life dream sequence, when Jesus sees Paul preaching about Jesus' death and resurrection. Jesus says to him, "But none of that happened! I never died, I'm alive now!" To which Paul replies that it really doesn't matter, he believes in Jesus' resurrection, and so do all the people he's preaching to. The message is bigger than the truth. I find that a useful thing to keep in mind, for believers and non-believers alike.

Sure, first you slam Arnie for his father's sins, then you slam Mel for his...Saying that his father gave him his faith, and he believes it, has little to do with his father's holocaust-denial, as denying the holocaust is a political belief, not a religious one. Saying that his father never lied to him, well...what is the context? Was Mel still talking about his faith? Further, people can be honest, and still be wrong. Saying that someone has never lied to you, is not the same as saying that you think they are infallible. As for what Mel has or hasn't said:

Regarding who killed Jesus: "The big answer is, we all did. I'll be the first in the culpability stakes here."

Regarding the Jews's role in it: "(Jesus) was a child of Israel, among other children of Israel. There were Jews and Romans in Israel. There were no Norwegians there. The Jewish Sanhedrin, and those who they held sway over--and the Romans--were the material agents of his demise."

Regarding the Holocaust: "Do I believe that there were concentration camps where defenseless and innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime? Of course I do, absolutely. It was an atrocity of monumental proportion."

Asked if the Holocaust represented a "particular kind" of evil: "Of course it did. Why do you need me to tell you? It's like, it's obvious. They're killed because of who and what they are. Is that not evil enough?"

Regarding the violence in his movie: "I wanted it to be shocking," Gibson said. "And I also wanted it to be extreme. I wanted it to push the viewer over the edge … so that they see the enormity — the enormity of that sacrifice — to see that someone could endure that and still come back with love and forgiveness, even through extreme pain and suffering and ridicule."

As for the movie's focus on violence and brutality, well, it's about the violent and brutal death of someone, so there you go. As an atheist, a God who can be both merciful and brutal makes more sense to me than the New Age god of undiluted love and kindness, as creation itself is both merciful and brutal. All of creation demands suffering and blood sacrifice; why wouldn't its creator?

But then, I thought "Last Temptation" sucked. But JCS remains high on my list of favourites--JC cutting loose in Gethesemane always gives me chills--even though, it seems to me, that movie is guilty of exactly the same kind of alleged anti-semitism as Mel's movie is being slammed for.

And then there's Godspell--the tv show Alias often cracks me up, what with Hippie Jesus playing the role of the prim hitman/spy Dad.

I freely admitted that bringing up Arnie's father having been a Nazi stormtrooper was a cheap shot. I don't think this is at all similar.

He belongs to the same religion as his father. He credits his father with teaching him his faith, and having never lied to him. His father's religious beliefs are obviously closely tied with anti-semitism. I am and was aware of the cavils you note about what his statement about his father could mean.

When asked if the Holocast occurred, he replied: "I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."

So, no, he's not denying that some Jews died in concentration camps. Lots of Holocaust deniers admit to that. Does he agree with conventional historians that millions died, or does he think the number's far smaller (and even a far smaller number could be described as "an atrocity of monumental proportion")? I don't know. If he does agree, there were far less circumlocuitous ways to do so than given above.

Again, from what he has and has not said, he gives me the impression of agreeing with his father, but being far more circumspect.

I was making no comment about the movie's brutality and violence or its alleged anti-semitism -- for all I know, I'd consider the accusations of anti-semitism to be unfair -- I haven't seen it. The reason I stated for not seeing it did not relate to whether the movie was anti-semitic.

If he makes a straight and explicit statement disagreeing with his father's Holocaust denial and
anti-semitism, I'll apologize. I don't doubt he's going to be pressed on this point in the weeks to come. If he continues to dodge the issue, I'm not going to feel bad about continuing to believe he's not someone I want to support in any way (something for which I apply a less stringent standard of evidence than proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.)

It's just, to me, "holocaust-denier" is a fairly serious accusation. The Nazi holocaust stands in my personal reality as the very fulfillment and definition and proof of evil. People who deny its existence are, in my experience and observation, range from the pathologically ignorant to the straightforwardly delusional to the actively malevolent. But I personally like a little more evidence before I hang someone.

His circumlocution could just as easily be about not wanting to publicly slam his father, whom he obviously loves, as anything else.

And pater's faith isn't obviously, or necessarily, closely tied to his holocaust beliefs--well, they may be tied in pater's head, or may not be, but they aren't necessarily intrinsically tied together in anyone else's--one can be a conservative Catholic without being a holocaust denier, just as one can be a holocaust denier without being a conservative Catholic. They have been tied, historically, in many people's heads, but haven't been in many others, and aren't necessarily. There may be things in the testaments that can be taken out of context and used as justification for anti-semitism--though the overall message has to refute it--but there's nothing, as far as I know, that deals with Nazi Germany. These are two separate issues: 1)the literal truth of scriptures and the divinity of Christ, and 2)how many Jews the Nazis killed. It's possible not even Mel's father considers his beliefs about the holocaust to be part of his faith. I've known conservative, fundamentalist Christians who consider the act of putting one's own political opinions on a par with one's religious faith to be blasphemy, pure and simple; they are fallible, God is not. Mind you, those may be rare birds.

Mel could eat the food at his father's table, without drinking the poison.

Having thought about Gibson's Holocaust comments for a while, this occurs to me. Despite the current well-founded worries about authoritarianism, we still have freedom of thought as well as freedom of expression in this country. Questioning the history of the Holocaust may be factually wrong, like believing that the Earth is flat or that two plus two equals five. But it doesn't become morally wrong until one starts publically expressing that belief and trying to convince others of it. And that's what Gibson's wording looks to be trying not to do.

Maybe he holds a controversial opinion, and was just making sure to give a factually true answer without offending those who don't share that opinion. That's not a bad thing in my estimation.

I'll agree that "Holocaust denial" is something worthy of condemnation. But I'll stop short of judging someone for "insufficiently enthusiastic Holocaust confirmation".