Mel Gibson, holocaust denier.

B-monkey, I think you'll find that Hollywood has been making very good money from portraying Christ on the screen. The earliest mention I can find in 1897. He's up there with Sherlock Holmes and Dracula as a good solid subject.


And I would have to also mention that Mel Gibson will never be a 'great' actor. He's good at sticking out the rugged solid jaw and looking heroic, but there's a distinct lack of range and nuance.

Mr. Stillwater gets it -- in the end, it's pandering for commercial success. Does anyone really believe Gibson doesn't what to make money from this film? Will he donate it to charity? Perhaps.

Range and nuance? He plays Mel Gibson in every film, even "Hamlet." The performance in "Signs" had enough feigned angst to supply Farmer John for years. It was painful to watch (not to mention when the aliens actually showed up, the film sank into a mire of mumbo jumbo). I enjoyed "Breaveheart" as an action adventure film but it had little depth and played fast and loose with history to make the character more important than he actually was. The Italian film "The Gospel According to St. Mathew" may be the closest to a definitive Christ film. It's obvious that true believers will likely fawn over this film but to me, it depersonalizes the whole concept of faith by having one person interpret what they believe is the "word of God." It's always been pretension sensitive, culminating in John Huston's laughable "The Bible." The egotism that the human race is unique in the Universe is enough to make me recoil.

If Christ came back to Earth today in the form of a Rabii and claimed he was the Son of God, he wouldn't be crucified -- what might happen has been discussed elsewhere in these forums. I guess it would depend on what kind of miracles he was able to perform and whether we thought he was Jesus or David Copperfield.

(I wonder if Cecil B. DeMille and the studios donated all the money they made from films portraying Christ or any other Biblical character. NOT.)

The point is not one studio wanted to put their name with this film.

I disagree with every one who thinks Mel Gibson is not a great actor. Forever Young, Sign (which I think is a great movie, I love the writing), The Man Without a Face, Mavrick, Braveheart, Ransom, Conspiracy Theory, Payback, What Women Want, The Patriot, We were Soldiers. Those are all the movies that he acts in that I love. I don't know where all the hating comes from but I don't think he is as bad as everyone wants him to be.

As for comerical success as an excuse for him not being a great actor, that is so lame. Just because he makes a lot of many at what he does has everything to do with how great he does it. They just don't throw money at people if they cannot do it. He can. His movies would not do so well if he acted the way you all think he acts. Because if he acted bad his movies would tank.

People are all in to the "indy" crap. It is the new "it" thing to like. Like the indy actor bla bla bla. I like indy movies but too much emphases is put on it. It is just like music. Underground music is so "great". Those people bash music on the radio. They only do that because they are jealous they are not that successful.

Like actors, athletes, or singers get blasted for moving out of their old neighborhood. People say things like, "He for got where he came from" and "sell out." Get over it. They are just mad they are stuck in the "hood" and someone had enough talent to escape that mediocre existence and they are mad that they didn't get to go. Quit hating on people who have the goods.

As for him and the money he will make on the movie, who cares. People make things for more reasons than money. When someone starts going around saying, "he is doing it for the money, he is just doing it to get so more money," well so what. You saying that makes me think that's all that matters to you. Because that is not the first thing that came to my mind when I heard he was making this movie, "oh he is doing it for the money?" What money? He is forking over 25 million of his own money. So he gets some money back from his investment woopdie doo. That is his job. Everyone making a big deal about this movie are only going to make more people want to see it. Remember Dogma and the stir over that? They didn't even have to run ads for that movie, if they wanted, because the news media was saying how the Catholic Church did not like this or that bla bla bla.

It is a real sore nerve when someone says something I like is stupid. I like Mel Gibson. Just because you don't doesn't mean you have to tell me that I am stupid for doing so. And I know no one said it, but it is implied. When someone goes off and lists why Mel Gibson is not a good actor when no one asked them to and after I said he was it is implied.

People have a hard time liking the job and hating the person. They start hating the person and hating the job. Like Russell Crow. I think he is a terrible person and would not even go up to him, if I saw him, and tell him he is a great actor because I do not like him one bit. But I think he is a great actor. I love Beautiful Mind. He is so talented but a terrible person. I think I am one of the very few who can distinguish between the two. Another is Tom Cruise. I think what he did to nichole kidmen was distasteful and uncalled for, but he is a great actor and I will not deny him that because he does his job very well. But as a person he lacks in every category.

The film only needed distribution -- Mel used his own money and Icon Productions, his own production company.

Mel came off better in "We Were Soldiers" than I've ever seen him before, even in "Ransom" and "Braveheart." All this is, of course, personal opinion and anyone put-off by his politics, his religious views or other personal matters shouldn't consider that against him as a filmmaker. The fact is not that the film will not make or make money but whether it is not good cinema regardless of possible drawbacks like inadequate distribution, lack of sub-titles (which will deter many from going) or over-the-top gore.

BTW, this is an Indy film.

au1929,
I agree with the ending of your post. We are all guilty for the death of Jesus. Because he had to die, just like he told his apostles, in order to descend into heaven and overcome death with resurrection. If he had come to earth in Italy, he still would have been crucified by the Italians or whatever country he might have come to. He did die for the sins of us all. Blaming the Jewish is going nowhere.

The movie is in a foreign tongue with no subtitles. What good is that?

True it is an indy film. Ooops.

I don't blame the Jewish for anything. But the Jews of that time did have bloody hands. There is no denying that.

It was Pontius Pilate who washed his hands of the blood and guilt of crucifying Christ. One putting their complete faith in the description of the event should note there is but meager historical evidence that it even occurred. It was considered insignificant at the time and trusting what was not written down but recalled hundreds of years later by a devout believer is dubious as historical text. That's another debate but it does cloud up this debate.

Mel's father believes in some radical and flawed notions that can be taken as like father, like son. I believe elsewhere in this forum that Mel has expressed some endorsement of his father's ideals.

Mel has re-edited the film -- that's what previews are for. Perhaps he has toned down the exagerration of the huge crowd of Jews that is not according to the Gospel and the excessive gore which is unnecessary. He's not noted for historical accuracy -- just read about the real "Braveheart." Whether he went into this venture not expecting to make back his money is a glaring question.

One last thing about Mel's acting -- I believe he succumbs to the error of introducing affectations into his performances that are his own and not faithful to the character he is playing. He certainly did it with his attempt at proving he was a serious actor in "Hamlet," an uneven performance that any serious actor who has played the part likely thought, "I'm biting my tongue."

BlueMonkey
.

Whether any of the myths concerning Christ were true or not I will not comment upon. However, I should remind you that the punishment meted out was typical for the time. He was among many who shared the same fate. Your statement is to say the least foolish.

The Roman leaders, Pontius Pilate and Governor Herod, who saw Jesus and talked to him regarding his charge said they can find no reason for his death. The Roman leader gave the accusers of Jesus a chance to release Jesus when he gave the Jewish crowd a choice to release Barabbas (a thief ) or release Jesus. The crowd demanded the release of Barabbas because he was a good guy even though he was a thief. The Jewish people did demand death for Jesus.

Actors. Take their script away and they know nothing whatever.
The Jews are God's chosen people. I love 'em.
I wish I were a Jew.
I'm just a hillbilly.

Are you guys still picking on my Mel?

I'm not an expert on any of this, but while the Jews rejected him, I thought it was the ROMANS who actually killed him?

Actually it was his DAD - the invisible cloud being could have sent some angels to save him from a horrible, slow death - makes ya wonder.

"Invisible cloud being"-I like that one.

Actually, it belongs to Bartcop - check it out!

Yeah, imagine centuries of hatred towards Jews for killing some dude who was predestined from the day of his birth to die for the sins of others. Talk about a wacky miscommunication.

Ruach,
Barabbas was a Zealot. The Romans called them sicarii because of the sickle-like daggers (Flavious Josephus likens the daggers to the Persian acinacae) they'd use to assasinate Roman soldiers, and citizens, including those Judeans that collaborated with and supported the Romans. They were terrorists.

About Jesus,
extra-New Testamental references to Yeshu(Jesus) are made in the Talmud, which describes his execution as being hanging.

About Jesus, the execution story, and the ADL,
Michael A. Hoffman II provocatively writes in Laughing at the Expense of the ADL:

http://www.hoffman-info.com/wire1.html



But surely, Hoffman's off-handedly dismissable as a mere self-hating Jew.

Yup, it takes a lot of faith to subscribe to the logic of much of religion.

Agreed InfraBlue, and despite some of our differences in opinion, I don't have that much faith for any religion, including the one I was born into.