[the_pauley]

Have a look at this, and think what your money might end up funding, next time you shell out for a Mel Gibson movie...

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters/gibson2.htm

[Miyazaki]

This smacks of the Travolta "project" 'Battlefield Earth'.

Lets hope they don't get that distributor eh?

But then again, free speech and all that. I'd rather see it bomb than Gibson bleat about it being amazing but never being distributed. But then again it can't be worse than 'What Women Want', now can it?!?

[the_pauley]

Don't think Mel will be getting many movie offers from Spielberg, do you?

[Lex]

Originally posted by the_pauley
Have a look at this, and think what your money might end up funding, next time you shell out for a Mel Gibson movie...

What are you implying exactly?

I'm not sure how old that article is, but the name of the movie was changed some weeks ago to The Passion of Christ as there is already a film named The Passion.

The current debate which is raging in the USA is whether or not the Pope has endorsed the film... Apparently he was given a private screening and was quoted afterwards as saying "It is as it was". But this was then denied by his press secretary. But when pressed again the Vatican refused to deny that he had said it... It is all a big controversy in the USA at the mo anyway... Amazing how worked up people get about religion - Personally I think The Life of Brian is as it was

I'm non religious and id rather wait for a film to actually open and judge for myself than read a review, this film should be released as i abhor censorship and if after viewing u disagree with its political stance on a subject then by all means post a thread about it.

My feeling is that you simply have a crush on Mel and this is your way of getting over it, don't deny ur inner feelings go with it and tell the world how much u love Mel and hey Pauley i know this might be judged as sacrilege in your book but i didn't rate Citizen Kane.

[Lex]

Originally posted by FoxyMulder
i didn't rate Citizen Kane.

I hear Mel Gibson is directing the re-make starring Sylvester Stallone and Dame Edna Everage

Sounds like a good cast i hope they can get Kylie in it too to play the love interest, i hope they have some decent car chases and a big battle scene to finish it off with.

I'm also looking forward to the 2001 remake i believe its called 2030 A Space Orgy and will star Pamela Anderson it's also going to have an Alice In Wonderland dream sequence featuring some rampant rabbit, can only hope they spend zero on the clothes budget and lots on the bad CGI budget.

Let me just add that Sylvester Stallone was robbed of an oscar at the 1986 Academy Awards, his performance in Rambo - First Blood part 2 was among the best i have ever seen in a motion picture.

[the_pauley]

...Pauley i know this might be judged as sacrilege in your book but i didn't rate Citizen Kane.

Well that's Welles ****ed, innit?

Had a better idea for the "Citizen Kane" remake than my previous Will Smith idea. Adam Sandler!!! Ron Howard directing and Rosebud turns out to be his childhood sweetheart and they get married at the end and no one dies! Oh, and loads of CGI - and a robot...

What are you implying exactly?

Er... that Mel funds his Nazi dad's loony cult church, and that I would feel uncomfortable about ever laying out my dosh for anything with Gibbo's name on it. Which won't be a big sacrifice for me, as I've always thought he was a bit of a t**t anyway.

I'm non religious and id rather wait for a film to actually open and judge for myself than read a review, this film should be released as i abhor censorship and if after viewing u disagree with its political stance on a subject then by all means post a thread about it.

The movie wasn't really the point of my post - rather it was concerns about what money spent by me and thee on any Mel projects ended up funding.

My feeling is that you simply have a crush on Mel and this is your way of getting over it,

And I'd definitely love to have a crush on Mel - round about the windpipe would be nice. Then that nice old goose-steppin' dad of his...

BTW - found the above mentioned scary link when I was doing a "Braveheart" / Mel search. Frightening as to where the internet can lead you, eh?

Knew all about his dad's looney Catholic breakaway cult, and Melvin's funding of it, but didn't realise it was all quite so scary.

Loads of stuff on it all over the 'net - read and tremble.

Personally I think The Life of Brian is as it was

Closer to the truth than you realise Lexie.

It would appear it has it's distributor...

[wilber]

Looks interesting - I've been waiting for this for ages. I first heard about it well over a year ago and I've been following the controversy over the anti semitism. This article makes for interesting reading from a jewish standpoint supporting Mel:
http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0309260936.asp

I'm a Christian but I don't like the sound of Gibson Sr's beliefs, but I still think that I'll give the film a go

[the_pauley]

Interesting article, but I suggest you read it again if you think it offers support of Gibson or his movie.

It clearly offers no opinion on either, but rather the writer attempts to put forward an argument as to why his fellow Jews should not protest against the movie.

Nowhere does it offer either condemnation or support of Gibson or the film.

[seany]

What he was saying that there was hypocrisy amongst the Jewish community where they protest against any films that they deemed anti Semitic, yet done nothing about anti Christian films made by, or paid for by fellow Jews.

You have to remember that The Last Temptation Of Christ featured the exact same backlash and from people who had never viewed the film, this always happens when a subject matter is controversial.

[Lex]

Originally posted by the_pauley
Closer to the truth than you realise Lexie.

How do you know what I realise - I was being serious!

I could be wrong but I don't think there are any facts to suggest that Mel Gibbon funds Nazi training camps, just inuendo... Should the son be held accountable for the sins of the father?

[the_pauley]

If he's bankrolling those sins, then yes, he should be held accountable.

This saga gets scarier / better by the minute as one trawls the web. More looney Gibbo stuff:

Among his other delightful revisionist theories on the Holocaust, Gibbo senior reckons six million Jews were not exterminated, but rather Hitler had a secret deal with financeers to help secretly transport them to the Middle East where they were to fight Arabs.

The elder Gibbo reckons that Bin Laden and his chums got a bum rap for September 11th. States that the planes were flown by remote control by Jews into the Twin Towers. Also reckons they were empty and the passenger lists were faked. Seriously.

Gibbo senior and junior as well as believing all Popes since 1958 are in power due to a Masonic plot backed by Jews, also view the Vatican's decision in the '60s to celebrate mass in English as a betrayal of the Catholic faith. Only the Latin mass is allowed in their church. So in love with the Latin mass is Melvin that on special occasions he flies in a certain priest to celebrate private masses at the Gibbo family home. Doubly delightful as said priest has a record for the systematic abuse of dozens of young boys over a thirty year period. Nice...

[Lex]

Originally posted by the_pauley
If he's bankrolling those sins

That's a big "if" - where's your proof?

[the_pauley]

Er, that's why I used the term "if"...

[Lex]

Oh I see! Guilty by implication...

Have you ever considered applying to become a Spin Doctor?

[the_pauley]

This Sunday, 28 Mar 04, Channel 4 at 9pm.

"Mel Gibson: God's Lethal Weapon". Will be at the cinema watching the "Dawn of the Dead" remake while this is on, but the timer is set.

[the_pauley]

Lexie, this should be worth a look - Channel 4, Sunday March 28th, "Mel Gibson: God's Lethal Weapon".

[Miyazaki]

Just watched the actual film as I have downloaded it.

Thought it was very poor. Jesus was great, but the supporting cast was appauling, especially the devil, possibly the worst actor i've ever seen.

The Church of Latter Day saints have done a video about Jesus, and that was far better than this contrivance.

[STOWITBELOW]

I half watched God's Lethal Weapon, & think as usual there seems to be a Shakespearian production being made over 'The passion of Christ' I am not racist nor do I agree with any group being persecuted for religious beliefs. Mr G senior seems to be a bit touched. Mr G jnr would not bad mouth his father, despite being pressured to. It's a FILM, just because it's going to be on at the cinema does not mean it's fact or historicaly correct (no matter who says / thinks it is) They are always one sided, unless like Pulp fiction you see events from several points of view. I accept that sometimes films are more memorable than the facts (JFK for instance) but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water. It may or may not be any good, but IT'S A FILM.

[the_pauley]

You say that as if a film can never have an agenda or a philosophy behind it.

As I said in a previous post "Triumph of the Will" was a film, and that had the desired effect for much of the audience it was intended for, and played its part in the pretty devastating events that followed its release.

"Birth of a Nation" is a film, yet it pursues a racist agenda - even portraying the Ku Klux Klan as heroes and the former slaves as corrupt and evil. So successful and influential was it on its release that it was acknowledged as boosting the flagging popularity of a barely extant KKK.

You actually touch on the problem with Gibson's movie in your post when you say:-

...just because it's going to be on at the cinema does not mean it's fact or historicaly correct (no matter who says / thinks it is)...

That's precisely it - the film is far from historically correct, nor is it scripturally accurate. But the problem is that Gibson is insisting that it is totally "accurate", and the uncritical, fundamentalist hordes that are lapping it up several times a week at the US box office, buy that line.


Vatican II apologised to the Jews for centuries of genocide and persecution caused by the biblical/historical lie that portrayed them as "Christ-killers". Vatican II is seen by the Gibsons as a betrayal of the Catholic faith. And not just by the dad - junior is on record as calling it just that "...a betrayal...". Hutton Gibson is without doubt a rabid anti-semite. Mel Gibson is also on record as claiming that his father is the biggest single influence in his life and that he (the father) has never lied to him.

Father and son run their own far-right Catholic sect, founded on a rejection of Vatican II and all it represents. Mel Gibson belongs to and funds that sect and is currently building their first church.

Then he makes a movie that is his take on the events surrounding Jesus' death. Certain parts of the "...historically and scripturally accurate..." screenplay turn out to be sourced from the ramblings of two lunatic Catholic "visionaries", publishers of violently anti-semitic tracts - prone to receiving "visions" many revolving around a hatred of Jews (Christian babies being eaten at Jewish dinner tables, the "divine revelation" that Jewish priests built the cross in the temple and delivered it to the Romans, etc.).

And you think people are being needlessly concerned when they worry that Melvin might have a certain "philosophical" axe to grind?

[neilo]

and what is your axe to grind I wonder ?

[the_pauley]

and what is your axe to grind I wonder ?

Why do you "...wonder..."? My stance is perfectly unambiguous - no need to make it sound so mysterious like I have an undeclared agenda or something.

I don't like neo-nazis, Holocaust deniers, bigots, religious fanatics or their apologists and supporters. And I worry that my money plonked down for a movie might go to fund one or more of the above.

Anything wrong with that?

[STOWITBELOW]

I am aware of the power of advertising & film , however, I've watched Halloween yet sleep in my bed soundly. I've watched Blair Witch & am similarly unconcerned. I believe this wasn't always in America. My young daughter watched Scooby Doo but doesn't think there are talking dogs. She watched Elf though, but isn't too sure how true it was. The point Im making is the nearer it gets to an individuals perception of truth, & weaves in & out of the 'truth' then the harder it is to asses how accurate it is. I've watched 'infomertials' but don't need the writing at the bottom to tell me it's an ad. Unless you're very much older than I imagine, I doubt you can say with any real authority what happened to Christ........ So it's ambiguous how accurate it is. Let it be, IT'S A FILM. If it's selling some idea surely most people will realise when they watch it. If they don't like what they've heard about it, vote with your feet, & don't watch. But it's only a film!

[the_pauley]

I've watched Halloween yet sleep in my bed soundly. I've watched Blair Witch & am similarly unconcerned. I believe this wasn't always in America. My young daughter watched Scooby Doo but doesn't think there are talking dogs. She watched Elf though, but isn't too sure how true it was.

If you think Scooby Doo is a valid analogy in this instance, I worry for you.

If it's selling some idea surely most people will realise when they watch it.

Have you watched the US TV coverage of the furore surrounding this movie? Have you read any of the print media coverage? Have you seen the interviews with the fundamentaists and born-agains coming out of this movie? All they see is a bolstering of blind faith and unquestioning (emphasis on "unquestioning") belief. Any criticism of Gibson or the movie is in the eyes of many of these "true believers" seen as a blasphemy against God, The Bible and of course Ammurrrica!. I kid you not, it's scary. It has become a worrying rallying point for the fundamentalist right in the USA.

Not only that, but the movie is doing some of its greatest business in the staunchly Protestant Bible Belt states. They love it, yet are too blind / dim / uneducated to notice that it promulgates the most fundamentalist Catholic view of Jesus and The Passion.

Clearly a significant majority don't "...realise when they watch it...".

The point Im making is the nearer it gets to an individuals perception of truth, & weaves in & out of the 'truth' then the harder it is to asses how accurate it is.

So what's your problem? That's exactly what I'm saying about this film. It's Gibson's version of the truth, not historical fact.

Unless you're very much older than I imagine, I doubt you can say with any real authority what happened to Christ........

Exactly my point, and neither can Mel Gibson - the dangerous thing is that he is claiming it is truth. I really suggest that you concentrate on what my previous posts are saying. Read them really carefully. I agree with you on this.

Where we do part company is on the "It's only a film" line. It shows extreme naievete, and a lack of any understanding of history and the ends to which art, literature and, in the 20th Century, cinema have been valued as a propoganda tool and exploited by the unscrupulous (and the scrupulous for that matter).

Yes, practically everything that Hollywood turns out today is vapid mind smelting dross with nothing to say whatsoever. The danger is in assuming that everything is "only a movie" with no agenda or attendant philosophy.

I thought I stated it clearly enough in the previous post. I'll try again. This film is too closely tied to the person for it to be viewed out of context. The man and his father have such extreme politico-religious convictions that they view the Catholic Church as usurpers, traitors and heretics in residence, to the extent that he forms his own church.

Then he makes a "religious" film.

How large and bright do the warning signs have to be?

If a right-wing Moslem fundamentalist group financed and produced a movie about Mohammed there would be screams of "propoganda" from the rooftops. Why should a right-wing Catholic fundamentalist producing a movie about Jesus (let alone one who funds a breakaway church founded by his hate-mongering, anti-semitic father) be cut any more slack?

Lack of vigilance is a very dangerous thing.

[clancol]

[i]

I don't like neo-nazis, Holocaust deniers, bigots, religious fanatics or their apologists and supporters. And I worry that my money plonked down for a movie might go to fund one or more of the above.

[/B]

So don't go and see it.

I fail to see what the big deal is.
It only a movie Made by mel on the account of one of the gospels.
therefore can only ever be His version of what happened.


At the end of the day if someone wants to read a "sopported versions" of this story, all they have to do is pick up a bible.

There is that many versions/Translations of the gospels, that to try and please all would be impossible.

Let him without sin , cast the first stone

[the_pauley]

Let him without sin , cast the first stone

No problem - compared with a neo-nazi hate-monger, I'm Julie ******* Andrews.

Whoosh! (Stone flies through the air and strikes Hutton Gibson on head.)

I fail to see what the big deal is.

Second whoosh! (Point flies completely over forum member's head.)

So don't go and see it.

So how can I have an informed opinion on the flick? I don't like discussing movies I haven't seen. The problem was not "seeing the movie". The problem was in avoiding buying a brick for Dad and Junior's church.

Solutions:

1) Download it. My first solution to my dilemma.

But I really wanted to see it in the cinema, not on a crappy rip.

2) My ideal solution. Go to the AMC cinema in Manchester, buy two tickets for another movie ("Mona Lisa Smile" - sweet, because Gibson would hate that one - he has a problem with feminism too). The guy always tears the tickets at the top of the stairs leaving you free to wander, and then simply walk into the screen showing the Gibbon movie. Hey presto - you see the movie but no money for Melvin!

It only a movie Made by mel on the account of one of the gospels. therefore can only ever be His version of what happened.

I take it you think this makes sense. Trust me it doesn't. The first sentence also shows that you haven't been reading the previous posts carefully enough.

At the end of the day if someone wants to read a "sopported versions" of this story, all they have to do is pick up a bible.

Like I said, you really haven't been paying attention.

There is that many versions/Translations of the gospels, that to try and please all would be impossible.

Yes, but totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

[clancol]

Originally posted by the_pauley
No problem - compared with a neo-nazi hate-monger, I'm Julie ******* Andrews.

.

are you saying your a woman?