How far did the Gibson apple fall from the tree?

[FS*]

It's pure sensationalism. The media has no business dragging family and related personal issues into the spotlight.

Whether the man is misguided, senile or whatever, this is a private issue between father and son.

[DanS]

Well, to be fair, his father dragged the family into the spotlight, not the press. Giving interviews, etc. But of course, Mel Gibson is not his father.

[Arrian]

I'm rather glad I'm not famous. The stuff my father says!

He's 78 yrs old and loves to push buttons. Especially mine, but a reporter would do.

-Arrian

[Edan]

Well, for me, the jury's still out on Mel Gibson. There is this disturbingly vague statement by Mel:

'You're going to have to go on record. The Holocaust happened, right?"
Peggy Noonan asks of Mel Gibson in the Reader's Digest for March.

Gibson: "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."

which not only tries to cast the holocaust as just any other "war is hell" evil of war, and doesn't specifically state that there was a planned operation to commit genocide and no mention of death camps, there have also been comparisons made to some holocaust deniers who admit that Jews died in concentration camps but who claim that the number of dead Jews is like 20X too large.

Given that he's trying to be "on the record", you would think he would try to avoid being vague.

and of course, in light of the first post in the thread:

Of
his dad, Gibson says, "My dad taught me my faith, and I believe what he
taught me. The man never lied to me in his life."

But like I said, for me, the jury's still out... Maybe Mel will try harder not to be vague the next time he's on the record...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Suggest you look at their concerns.

Providing it is faithful to the Biblical account I fail to see how it could be portrayed as anti-jew especially in light of the fact that Jesus is a Jew, unless of course one would go about argueing that the Synoptic Gospels are Anti-Jewish.

Besides only an unreachable idiot would assume that one act 2000 years ago, would justify hatred of a group of people today.

[DanS]

Maybe Mel will try harder not to be vague the next time he's on the record...

Why would he want to be more specific? He's no historian. He's a filmmaker, Jim!

[MLeonard]

I'm giving Mel the benefit of the doubt until I see the movie. My grandfather was Jewish and I was raised Episcopalian so I feel like I'll have a fairly balanced view of things when I see the film, especially since I've just started studying the Bible in my classes. It's all fresh in my mind!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Providing it is faithful to the Biblical account I fail to see how it could be portrayed as anti-jew especially in light of the fact that Jesus is a Jew, unless of course one would go about argueing that the Synoptic Gospels are Anti-Jewish.

Many do feel the account in the Gospels is a heavily Romanized account designed to shift blame from the Romans for executing Jesus to the Jews. John, especially, is a very Hellenized version of the story and does the most to further this perception.

Besides only an unreachable idiot would assume that one act 2000 years ago, would justify hatred of a group of people today.

We are talking about anti-Semites here, not exactly a group known for its brainpower. Just look Gibson's father's stupidity.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Many do feel the account in the Gospels is a heavily Romanized account designed to shift blame from the Romans for executing Jesus to the Jews.

True or not, that is his source material and I'd be suprised if he was willing to stray too far from it.

[Edan]

Originally posted by DanS


Why would he want to be more specific? He's no historian. He's a filmmaker, Jim!

except when it comes to this movie - he's aparently both.

[Ben Kenobi]

Jewish people who have seen it coming out and saying it reeks of anti-Jewishness might be helping that case.

So because one group believes that the portrayal is anti-semetic makes it so?

[Edan]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Providing it is faithful to the Biblical account I fail to see how it could be portrayed as anti-jew especially in light of the fact that Jesus is a Jew, unless of course one would go about argueing that the Synoptic Gospels are Anti-Jewish.[/qb]

Well, politics and religion frequently mixed back then - it's certainly feasable that the works were biased to try to distance Christianity from Judaism.

And stuff like "His blood by on us and our children" certainly ain't helpful for interfaith relations.

As to the movie's biblical source, from what I've read, some scenes from the movie are based on the writings of a 19th century nun.

Besides only an unreachable idiot would assume that one act 2000 years ago, would justify hatred of a group of people today.

Well, bigots aren't generally known for their rationality....

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So because one group believes that the portrayal is anti-semetic makes it so?

Who said that was the case?

[MrFun]

I saw a brief interview on CNN a few days ago, where a Jewish rabbi explained that the Jews who are protesting against this movie are doing a disservice to their own people by blowing this out of proportion.

[Arrian]

Anything at all like the Christian idjits who protested Dogma without actually seeing the film?

Of course, PotC appears to be a serious attempt, whereas Dogma was irreverent in the extreme (with a little bit of serious message thrown in).

-Arrian