Had to reword slightly to fit in the header. The original quote, from Andy Rooney:
I’m glad I didn’t say it first.
I’ve been thinking about this for the past week or so. I’m an atheist/agnostic, and generally opposed to crazy dogmatists of any stripe. At the same time, I find much religious literature/film/etc. fascinating. I loved The Last Temptation of Christ, and will probably see Mel Gibson’s Passion… if I can drag my Wiccan wife to the theater.
But I began to wonder: If I were Mel Gibson, how really, really uncomfortable would I be about making millions and millions of dollars from a movie about the death of Christ?
On the one hand, it seems kind of sleazy to make a buck off the torment and death of the Lord, a man who forsook worldly possessions and walked everywhere, likely begging for food and sharing all he had with those even worse off than he.
On the other hand, what could be a more noble pursuit than bringing the Good News to millions of people? What BETTER way to make money?
Still, the whole thing leaves a funny taste in my mouth, but it’s really a dilemma no different from that of doctors, school teachers, etc.–for some reason, when something someone does is generally selfless and meant to better humanity, they are EXPECTED to be COMPLETELY selfless. (I know I’m guilty of this knee-jerk reaction, too.) Which is unfair. If anything, they should be given MORE money for doing such noble work, right?
So, is it all right for people to profit from religion? How much profit is OK? Should Mel give every penny of his own profits to the church?
The Church has made vast amounts of money from the crucifixion of Christ. Is it that surprising that Mel Gibson would do the same thing?
Think about it. Do churches really need all the ornate decorations, immense buildings, etc? It has always struck me as something of a conflict with the whole “false idols” and “worshipping mammon” things to see churches so elaborately decorated.
“No one can serve two masters for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon.” Matt. 6:24
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them…” 2nd Commandment
Why should the Crucifixion–or any other religious topic, for that matter–be off-limits to any filmmaker? Passion Plays are an established tradition. And if money were Gibson’s main priority here, I think he could have slapped together another buddy cop action flick for a guaranteed profit and none of the accusations he’s been taking.
There are problems to be had with The Passion, but I don’t think this is legitimately one of them.
I have no problem with someone making money in any legal way. But the profits in debate here were never a slam dunk. In fact, if it hadn’t been for all the cries of anti-Semitism, this film could’ve died in obscurity and Mel could’ve been out the $25M (IIRC) he ponied up for the production.
You could ask the same of Michelangelo- he certainly made some money off of Christ’s live and death. Many movies have been made, many books have been written, paintings painted, and sculptures carved. Many were for the love of Christ, some were for money. Knowing what Gibson’s faith is, surely the compelling motivation is not financial. That he creates a work of art in devotion to Christ shouldn’t exclude his being able to make a profit.
I understand what you’re saying, John, but given ticket prices, you don’t think there are enough religious Christians and other curious people to put this film into the black? It’d only take a few million of them, and it’s a big country.
Advanced word is that the movie is getting lots and lots of buzz among evangelical Christians, who see it as the Next Great Piece of Propaganda™ in their efforts to save the unwashed masses. Supposedly, some churches are even planning to take kids as young as eleven(!) to see the movie, despite its excessive violence and anti-Semetic undercurrents.
If these folks – the ones who are the first to be offended whenever a movie about Jesus doesn’t meet their high standards (see The Last Temptation of Christ for example) – are enthusiastically throwing their money at Mel, I don’t see a reason why he shouldn’t be willing to rake it in.
That wasn’t my point; I don’t want to accuse Gibson of trying to make a quick buck. He’s clearly invested a great deal of personal sweat into making this film an ideological/artistic success–not just a moneymaker. I think he is doing this in regards to what he feels is a “higher calling”; I guess my question is, is it right for ANYONE to make ANY money off of such stuff? Even if the income is not the primary motivation?
Indeed.
Really, though, when is it OK for these folks to make money? It’s OK for “artists”, apparently, but is it OK for Jim and Tammy and the gang down at the 700 Club? What if Catholic Priests and other ministers did not live a simple life (in emulation of Christ), but were guaranteed a $100,000 a year salary, in addition to luxurious room and board, company cars, etc.? Would we look down on that? How is their making a profit from spreading the Gospel different from Gibson or Michelangelo?
It’s my understanding that when all is said and done, Gibson will have some $50 million dollars invested in filming and promoting this movie. I’m no expert on the movie business, but I would think he would have trouble breaking even were the movie to gross even $200 million, which would make it a major blockbuster. The distributors and theater owners have to make their profits, and the taxes he would have to pay on any profits, should there even be profits, would be huge. There are many better ways to put $50 million dollars to work earning money than this. I really don’t think he is in this for the money.
Mel’s religious convictions are pretty well documented. I doubt very seriously that making money is a signifcant factor here. At least one expert agrees with me on this.
But frankly, I don’t give a shit what his motives are. Here’s how I see it:
Mel has made some fantastic films in the past
The Passion story is one of the most enduring myths in Western Culture.
I’m a complete atheist, but I’m really looking forward to seeing the film
All right. No one can see what my fucking question is. Fine. Here we go:
PURELY HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION:
Bob, a religious man, makes a movie about the life and times of Christ. He puts up his own money, expecting to basically go broke in his quest to spread the word of God. To his surprise, the movie is a big hit, and he suddenly finds himself receiving more than $20 million net profits, plus the likelihood that the movie will play on TV every Easter for the next 30 years.
Is it OK for Bob to keep the money, buy a big fucking house, swimming pool, fast cars, etc.? Or should he feel obligated to give it all to the church/poor, in emulation of Christ?
Excessive violence is in the eye of the beholder – most people would consider a crucifixion excessively violent on its face, so it’s hard to accuse Mel of piling it on. And I’ve seen a lot more Jewish reviewers defend the movie than call it anti-semitic. Those worried about anti-semitism in the film seem to be a very small minority, even among non-Christians.
When Gibson made the move, he was far from assured of making a profit – he was more likely to have spent and lost millions of his own dollars. Is the OP suggesting that because the film will probably end up making a profit that he should – what? Give it all to the church or something? He probably tithes a good portion of his income anyway.
I’m having trouble making much of a distinction here. Most, if not all, of the posters on this thread have indicated they think he would be justified in keeping the money. It looks to me like you’ve already gotten your answer, even though the finer point you were trying to make was obscured by the phrasing of the OP.
Sorry, Toadspittle, I think I misunderstood you to. I would think Mel’s – or Bob’s – responsibility would be the same as that of any wealthy Christian. Now people will disagree as to what that responsibility is, exactly, but I don’t think it matters a whit where the money comes from (assuming it isn’t ill-gotten).
There’s another big movie coming out soon based on the Iliad. I’m sure that profit is the motive. I see nothing wrong with exploiting the entertainment value of ancient mythology for $$$.
I would actually have more respect for a pure profit motive than I would for Gibson’s apparent motive of abject proselytization. Gibson’s “message” in his movie is the same trite pitch for Christianity that we’ve all heard a million times before.
A lot of Christians will go to wallow in cheap sentiment. Non-Christians will go out of curiosity, and they may even enjoy it as entertainment but it’s not going to contain any more persuasive information than they’ve already heard so it isn’t going to turn them into Christians. Gibson will make his money back but he will not have converted anyone so his primary motive of evangelism, which I believe is sincere if not particularly admirable, will basically fail. The end result is that he will make money (I think the film will be a huge hit) and he will keep that money for himself. I also don’t think that’s any more wrong than profiting from the death of Achilles in the Troy movie.
Even if you want to talk about real history as opposed to mythology, movies have been made about all kinds of real life violence. Is it any worse to profit from the Passion myth than from the evry real holocaust? I don’t think so.
I almost added that to my last post. I would place it in exactly the same category.
I guess you’re right, Skammer. I incorrectly assumed that people, devout and non-devout, might think someone in this situation should give the money away–or at least think there was some sort of moral conundrum involved in profiting from it.
I would have to say the answer to your question, at least in my opinion, is yes it is okay. Let me say that since you failed specifically in which way or by what standard we are to use to determine the potential “rightness” or “wrongness” I am going to initially rely upon the Bible.
Evangelists make money off of spreading the Good News of the Lord Jesus Christ. Evangelists take an offering and keep a share of the offering. Paul received money from different churches. Pastors and Ministers make money from the congregation of the church in which they preach. Jesus in fact had money because Judas was the treasurer, so to speak since he held the money bag. However, considering Jesus did not work for a wage during his three years of ministry, was poor and born to a poor family, and his disciples were in a similiar or worse scenario, then it is reasonable to infer Jesus himself accepted money from the crowds he preached to or other admirers. The facts demonstrate that bringing the word of God to vast and distant lands or to a broader audience costs money. The traveling Evangelists incurs the costs of airplane tickets, lodging, food, and dry cleaning. To aid in abating these costs an offering is taken from the congregation in exchange for the expenses the evangelists incurred in bringing the distant congregation the Word of God. From a purely biblical point of view, Jesus’ commandment to spread the Good News to all people on the earth could not be adequately fulfilled without financial support from the people. Pastors and Evangelists are reliant upon their congregation for financial support. Missionaries are reliant upon a host of people for financial support. The Bible would have never been massed produced and disseminated to the degree it has by printing presses if the printing presses were not permitted to make a profit or money.
The point in all of this has to be the inevitable conclusion that if making money off of spreading the Word of God were wrong, then Jesus’ commandment to bring the Good News to all people would hardly be fulfilled in any meaningful and demonstrateable way. Evangelists would be few and far between if they continued to exist at all. Missionaries bringing the Word of God to distant countries would also be miniscule if not non-existent. So I think to be obedient to the Word of God and bring the message of Jesus Christ to foreign lands necessitates making money along the way by relying upon the congregation or those to whom the message is being delivered.
Mel Gibson is analgous to the traveling Evangelists, the Missionary, or the Pastor and Minister of a church. Mel Gibson simply has a “larger” congregation, which is in this case the entire Christian church. Yet, he is still delivering a message derived from the Gospels, just as Ministers, Missionaries, Pastors, and Evangelists do. He has incured costs in doing so, just as Missionaries, Evangelists, Pastors and Ministers do. His “offering” in this case will be the revenue generated to see his religious message translated through the medium of a movie. So I simply do not see anything wrong with Mel Gibson making some money from spreading the news of what Jesus Christ did for humanity. If so, then Paul, Peter, and the rest of the apostles which traveled abroad were wrong for taking monetary aids from their audience but biblically I do not think this is a tenable conclusion to reach at all, and so I do not think there is any “wrong” in what Mel Gibson is doing.
Well, you must be omniscient! How fortunate for the rest of us! To state and assert as an unequiovcal “fact” not one non-believer will become a Christian as a result of viewing this film is quite a claim! What crystal ball did you look into?