How is that hypocritical?
That he take such a staunchly Christian view on one topic while ignoring those that are inconvenient (as mentioned, making a fortune from movies glamorizing sex and violence).
OTOH, I don’t think he owes the ADL, JDL, or any other group tuppence by way of his movie’s content. As a Freedom of Speech/Expression issue, it’s a open and shut case.
Has he ever come out and said that he agrees with conventional church teachings on premarital sex (there’s nothing wrong with glamorizing marital sex…hell, it could use some glamorizing)? As for violence…I don’t recall anything in the Bible that forbids violence. If I remember my Old Testament, the Biblical God gets quite violent, quite often.
With the religious views he put forth, he is a hypocrite.
He has movies with pre-marital sex, which goes against the views he has discussed holding.
He learned with some gay teachers who he looks down upon and derides. That would make him sound like a user or at the least, an opportunist with a sleazy streak.
And here are the requested cites for Gibson’s views:
http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/rnb/archives/00002610.html
http://www.lovematters.com/melgibson.htm
http://internetdump.com/users/glbtlasvegaslive/mgletter.html
Since when does every character an actor plays have to mirror that actor’s worldview, lest that actor be branded a hypocrite? No one outside of Kirk Cameron seriously believes that. **
I’m not sure where you get this. He dislikes that some of his teachers were gay, but there’s nothing to indicate he doesn’t respect their professional skills or that he wasn’t helped by their tutelage. I can look back at many excellent teachers I’ve had over the years who nevertheless had one characteristic or another that I disliked; that doesn’t make me a “user” or an “opportunist.”
Again, I would ask you to cite for me where he said he has religious convictions against premarital sex.
Surely you are not saying that anything that occurs in a movie is personally supported by the people who make the movie??
Does Steven Spielberg support shooting Jews?
Does Tom Hanks support being a murderous gangster?
Does Glenn Close support stalking and murder?
Does Kathy Bates support kidnapping and torture?
Does Anthony Hopkins personally advocate cannibalism?
I mean, you’re invoking surely the dumbest criticism I’ve ever seen. Portraying something on film does not mean you believe it’s okay to do it in real life. Do you think Kevin Spacey is actually a murderer, or supports murder?
Mel Gibson is a staunch supporter of Catholic teachings.
Catholic teachings are against premarital sex.
Make your own syllogism.
In case you didn’t quite catch it, the heroes in SCHINDLER’S LIST were the people who DIDN’T shoot Jews. In fact, letting you in on a little inside secret here, some of the heroes were Jews themselves.
Tom Hanks’ character in ROAD TO PERDITION is meant to be a conflicted person who receives redemption by his death in a very biblical “he who lives by the sword” sort of way.
Glenn Close and Kathy Bates’ characters were both the ANtagonists, not the PROtagonists of their movie. Hannibal Lecter could go either way, but to the best of my knowledge Anthony Hopkins has never touted his sanctimonious views.
Mel Gibson’s characters have ALWAYS been the protagonists and ALWAYS been shown as “the good guy”, whether in the LETHAL WEAPON series or that mangling of history known as THE PATRIOT (aka LETHAL MUSKET) or the con-artist in MAVERICK any of his other pieces. All of his protagonists live lives at sharp odds with the lifestyle he preaches, and rightly or wrongly there are few more powerful shapers of mores and norms than blockbuster motion pictures. He earns eight figure paychecks for glamorizing a lifestyle he claims to think is wrong; to me that makes him a hypocrite. YMMV.
Catholics, being individual, sentient beings don’t march in lockstep with every teaching of the church. My wife is a Catholic, as is her whole family, and they believe varying things. It is quite possible for someone to believe the restrictions against homosexuality and not accept that premarital sex is evil.
Catholic teachings also say Vatican II was legitimate.
Mel Gibson thinks Vatican II was not legitmate.
Ergo, your first premise is simply wrong.
The reason being that he is actually MORE restrictive and conservative in his mindset. Unless the reason he thinks Vatican II is wrong is because he believes in free-love and lots of violence, he’s still a hypocrite.
Kevin Spacey has not gone on record with views that would make his roles counter to a belief he has.
Depicting sex and depicting murder are two different things.
That you suggest that Spielberg as a jew would support shooting jews, even because of Schindler’s List is beyond ridiculous to suggest.
Your comparison is hollow and quite the stupid rebuttal that holds no weight against my supposedly stupid argument.
Yet you can’t come up with any cite that says he thinks premarital sex is particularly sinful and you most likely can’t come up with any version of the Bible that doesn’t contain a shitload of violence.
Obviously you either didn’t read anything from the above cites, OR… you simply are ignoring the content.
Methinks the “writer” doth protest too much.
As I recall the character of Jesus, who is the subject of the film, he wasn’t a particularly zealous advocate of violence. There was that whole “I come with the sword” line, but I think the “love thy neighbor” and “turn the other cheek” quotes are at variance with “REVENGE!”, but I’m not a theologian.
Yes, that’s always what people say when they can’t counter an argument.
The point of turning the other cheek was to not seek revenge for insults. This was the same Jesus that chased the moneychangers out of the temple with a whip, after all.
But all that is beside the point.
The point is, just because you and I may disagree with Gibson’s beliefs (and I DO disagree with them) doesn’t mean he’s a bad person for having them. There is no call to be insulting religious people simply because you don’t agree with their beliefs. There is room for honest disagreement without acrimony.
Surely we can safely assume that Mr. Spacey does not support murder, even if he is not on public record as saying so.
How? Isn’t depicting murder just as offensive and violent a thing to depict on screen? How is depicting sex any more “hypocritical”?
Of course it’s ridiculous. That’s exactly my point. And it’s ridiculous to suggest that Gibson supports all the behaviours demostrated by the characters he has portrayed in films. You see, it’s called ACTING. The idea is that he pretends to be someone he is not.
The fact of the matter is that suggesting Gibson is a hypocrite for having premarital sex in his movies is absolutely, unquestionably stupid. It is unfathomably illogical to suggest that a person is hypocritical for acting out behaviours AS AN ACTOR he opposes in real life. Actors are ACTING. They’re not actively espousing the behaviours they act out. In fact, in a great many cases, actors are asked to portray characters who hold views extremely opposed to the views the actor personally espouses. Actors have won Oscars and great critical acclaim for such roles. Gibson engaging is premarital sex in a movie and opposing it in real life is not one iota more hypocritical than Rod Steiger being a racist in a movie (In The Heat Of the Night) when he is staunchly anti-racist in real life, or Alan Alda playing a lecherous chauvinist in a TV series when he is a feminist in real life. Funny that nobody criticizes those men for those contradictions.