What Makes Mel Gibson the Authority?

[Marsie]

The 30 million dollars he put up to make the movie. What’s the old saying? “The game’s a lot more fun when you own the ball.”

[furt]

@Lobsang

I think we atheists should all go and see RotK again just to restore it’s status.

You think someone should tell him Lord of the Rings was written by a devout Catholic and based on his beliefs?

[rhinostylee]

@Jess

Well, what on earth makes you think that “all atheists” give a toot about restoring RotK’s status? I’m an atheist and I sure don’t.

Well, what on earth are you talking about? I’m an atheist as well, and I also could “give a toot” about restoring RotK’s status. Maybe you should re-read my post. I was simply stating that the OP’s original statement was hardly “typical narrowminded polarized rhetoric,” and to say so is an over-reaction.

[Lobsang]

@furt

You think someone should tell him Lord of the Rings was written by a devout Catholic and based it on his beliefs?

(bold word added by me - is it what you meant)
Irrelevant. I have nothing against religous people. I just think LotR is truly deserving of the ratings. Not Passion of the Christ which got those ratings almost totaly out of media hype. It’s quality as a film probably has virtually nothing to do with it.

[Lobsang]

whoops. I re-read your wording and that extra ‘it’ shouldn’t be there.
(I thought you said ‘who based’ not ‘and based’)

[Apos]

Um, Tacitus was Roman, wasn’t he? Or do you mean “no contemperaneous Roman records, such as driver’s licenses, library cards, tax returns, rap sheets”?

Tacitus was not contemporary, and furthermore, his report doesn’t seem to be citing historical information, but rather repeating what he’s heard Christians say they believe. Old Jose’ is really a more important source.

[emarkp]

@Lobsang

I have nothing against religous people. I just think LotR is truly deserving of the ratings. Not Passion of the Christ which got those ratings almost totaly out of media hype. It’s quality as a film probably has virtually nothing to do with it.

Ah, and LotR’s popularity had nothing to do with hype? Frankly I think RotK was the weakest of the three, with FotR as the strongest (and most faithful to the source material).

It’s funny, because most of the people I know (including myself) who watched and liked “The Passion” are precisely the people who liked Lord of the Rings, for similar reasons.

If you want to talk about the quality of a film and not sound foolish, you may want to see the movie first. I continue to be amazed at how many people are willing to review a movie they haven’t seen. The movie IMO is a masterpiece. It’s quality as a movie is very good, and as a work of adoration, excellent.

@Reader99

syndicated columnist charles krauthammer contends that very little support for gibson’s perspective is found in the bible, and that the anti-semitic tone is the result of gibson’s deliberate choices which follow from his apparent beliefsa

You know, until I read this I really respected Krauthammer. But this is just plain loopy. It’s the same kind of bizarre logic that holocaust deniers use:

From the Krauthammer column:
Three of the Gospels have but a one-line reference to Jesus’s scourging. The fourth has no reference at all. In Gibson’s movie this becomes 10 minutes of the most unremitting sadism in the history of film. Why 10? Why not five? Why not two? Why not zero, as in Luke? Gibson chose 10.

Krauthammer doesn’t appear to understand the decision. He just lobs questions at it. Let’s play the same game: Why does he not answer his own question? Did he not do basic research about why the scourging might be important to Christians?

Here’s a wild guess–maybe it had something do do with Isaiah 53:5:

But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.

He might have figured that out from the movie (if he’s seen it) since that was the very verse on the screen at the opening of the movie.

Continuing:

In none of the Gospels does the high priest Caiaphas stand there with his cruel, impassive fellow priests witnessing the scourging. In Gibson’s movie they do. When it comes to the Jews, Gibson deviates from the Gospels – glorying in his artistic vision – time and again. He bends, he stretches, he makes stuff up. And these deviations point overwhelmingly in a single direction – to the villainy and culpability of the Jews.

Krauthammer begins with the one change in the story that I did notice but embellishes it–I didn’t think the council-members watching were cruel to watch the scourging, just watching to make sure the Romans followed through. Indeed, I got the distinct impression that even they were disgusted with the level of cruelty exhibited by the Romans. Then he patently lies by suggesting there are many more examples. Why not list these deviations? In the actual movie, Gibson added sympathetic Jewish characters which are not in the Gospels or are not sympathetic characters. Members of the council who object to the proceedings, Simon of Cyrene who defends Jesus, and Veronica (the woman who gave a napkin to Jesus to wipe his face–Catholic tradition, but not in the Gospels).

At the end of the article he walks straight into tinfoil-hat country:

The most subtle, and most revolting, of these has to my knowledge not been commented upon. In Gibson’s movie, Satan appears four times. Not one of these appearances occurs in the four Gospels. They are pure invention. Twice, this sinister, hooded, androgynous embodiment of evil is found . . . where? Moving among the crowd of Jews. Gibson’s camera follows close up, documentary style, as Satan glides among them, his face popping up among theirs – merging with, indeed, defining the murderous Jewish crowd. After all, a perfect match: Satan’s own people.

Here’s a clue-pill: Satan appears four times (drum roll) next to Jesus. The reason he’s shown in the crowds is because Jesus is surrounded by crowds. In fact, that scene is reminiscent of the final scene of Braveheart where Wallace is being tortured and sees an image of his dead wife in the crowd. Was Gibson showing the audience that Wallace’s dead wife was really a member of the English crowd cheering for Wallace’s torture? That those were “her” people?

The appearance of Satan literally in the story was to show the mental and spiritual struggle Jesus was going through. I guess it was too artsy for Krauthammer. Either that or he didn’t bother to see the movie (like so many others). How massively disappointing.

Finally:

using every possible technique of cinematic exaggeration, gives us the pre-Vatican II story of the villainous Jews.

Here’s the obvious lie. Anyone who’s seen this knows that Gibson put in the sympathetic characters I listed above. And the only reference I can see in Vatican II about the ‘blood-libel’ was the statement in Matthew 27:25 where the Jews are quoted as saying: “Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.” Gibson removed that subtitle for the release of the movie.

[SkeptiJess]

@rhinostylee

Well, what on earth are you talking about? I’m an atheist as well, and I also could “give a toot” about restoring RotK’s status. Maybe you should re-read my post. I was simply stating that the OP’s original statement was hardly “typical narrowminded polarized rhetoric,” and to say so is an over-reaction.

My apologies, rhinostylee – I should have quoted lobsang’s original comment (“I think we atheists should all go and see RotK again just to restore it’s status.”) rather than your response to another poster.

As for lobsang’s follow-up regarding the relative quality of “Passion” vice the LotR trilogy, I can’t speak to that – as I said, I haven’t seen any of the movies in question. However, I do know that not all professional reviewers have claimed that “Passion” was lousy – Ebert gave it 4 stars, I believe – and not all professional reviewers have claimed that LotR was brillant – Oscars notwithstanding, I know I’ve read reviews of these movies calling them dull, unwieldy and, perhaps fittingly for this discussion, over-hyped. Quality is a pretty subjective thing – particularly taking into consideration the fact that “Passion” cost a fraction of the price of even one of the LotR movies. And hype surely has at least as much to do with how well any movie does overall than quality does.