Tag: Mel Gibson

Posted on

I am an Important Person

They cite my favorite piece of sociological data: In 1950, thousands of teenagers were asked if they considered themselves an “important person.” Twelve percent said yes. In the late 1980s, another few thousand were asked. This time, 80 percent of girls and 77 percent of boys said yes. David Brooks, NY Times, July 18, 2010

That’s a fascinating piece of information. If it is to be taken at face value– and I’m not sure it is– our society would seem to be in big trouble. Our kids think it’s all about them.

The social workers and therapists rise as one in a chorus of outrage: but everyone is important. This is great. This is progress. Finally, we have society in which most of us have positive self-esteem.

And I think that is probably correct, if regrettable on some level. Have you ever worked with someone who had low self-esteem? It can be unpleasant. Sometimes a person with low self-esteem can be a bit paranoid and resentful and lacking in initiative– because they are afraid of screwing up. People with healthy self-esteem seem to me more willing to take initiative, trust their own judgment, and expect good results.

Brooks connects this stat to Mel Gibson–he of the infamous drunken tirades– even though Gibson is from the humble generation, the low self-esteem group. In fact, I think Brooks has it all wrong. A lot of Gibson’s fury probably derives from his low self-esteem, not from his ego. This is a man who has to demand respect from people, because, deep down, he knows he will never be able to earn it on his own merits.

And I note the adventures of Carl Friedrich Goerdeler and the Mendelsohn Statue in Leipzig (May 22, 1930–March 31, 1937).

Who was this strange, puzzling man, who advocated the destruction of Poland, the ascendancy of Hitler, .. and, most mystifyingly, the preservation of a statue of the composer Felix Mendelsohn in front of the Gewandhaus concert hall in Leipzig? He traveled around the world warning everybody about the danger of the Nazi regime, while begging foreign governments to respect Germany’s desire to regain control over their colonies, and the Sudentanland. He spent hours trying to decide which of the Hohenzollerns would occupy the throne once he had personally removed Hitler.

Posted on

Elmer Gantry 2006

Larry Ross is a PR man. He is a spin-master. He is a man who makes a very good living selling his ability to manipulate and control the mass media..

If Larry Ross had been around in 33 AD, perhaps Jesus himself might have ended up as one of King Herod’s top advisors, instead of on the cross. Larry Ross might have pointed out that the comment about tearing down and rebuilding the temple in three days would not go over well.

And Jesus doesn’t mean that the Pharisees are actually hypocrites. He means that some Pharisees hold views which could lead to misunderstandings if not received within the correct context.

And if he hadn’t been able to stop Christ from actually speaking those mistakes, he might at least have stepped in front of Jesus and declared to the crowd, “What the lord is saying is that, metaphorically, he hopes that all of us can renew our spirits after divesting ourselves of the residue of our sinful inclinations.”

Reporter: Does your client claim to be the son of God?
Larry Ross: I think that all Jews will be able to draw their own conclusion about who the messiah is once all the facts are in and the prophecies have been examined by qualified scribes and Pharisees.

Larry Ross has worked for Billy Graham and helped him straighten out the general public after tapes showed that he thought Jews were ruining the country. I say he had to straighten out the general public, which had perhaps obtained the erroneous impression that Billy Graham had said something offensive.

The idea was not to admit that it was offensive and that Graham– and Nixon– had held racist beliefs. No, no, no– the correct idea is that Billy Graham, a long time ago, used unfortunate language to make comments he could not remember having made but which, taken in the correct context, and understood within the larger framework of Billy Graham’s ministry, really shouldn’t disturb anyone. So I did nothing wrong, I don’t admit I did anything wrong, but if you think I might have done something wrong, that’s your problem.

Just as I am, without one plea. No no no! My client means that he approaches God as a humble man who may have made mistakes in the past but only wishes to devote himself now to end abusive sinfulness and it’s tragic effects on individual salvation.

Mel Gibson hired Larry Ross to help market “The Passion”. He chose wisely. Larry Ross had already had the distinguished opportunity to promote “Veggie Tales: The Movie” by getting Pastors to view it first, and then promote it within their congregations, before promoting to the general public and allowing movie reviewers to see it. Veggie Tales. Jesus Christ. It doesn’t matter which.

He had one clever idea. He got Mel Gibson to record messages that could be send to Pastor’s recording machines while they were likely to be out. That way, a pastor could casually remark to a member of his congregation: “Yeah, got another message from Mel Gibson the other day. Geez, the guy won’t leave me alone. Maybe I will show his film in church next week, just to get him off my back…” That’s Christian PR.

Ross has also worked for controversial evangelist/faith-healer Benny Hinn and Promise Keepers and the makers of the film “Left Behind”. And his biggest star, Rick Warren, author of the “The Purpose-Driven Life”.

When asked by a New York Times reporter if he had ever made a mistake, he couldn’t think of any. Of course, he also denied, at first, having provided Benny Hinn Ministries with the benefits of his expertise.

I’m not sure anybody really cares that some of our so-called religious leaders make use of modern, cutting-edge public relations techniques in getting their message out. The argument would be that using the best methods to save souls for Jesus is a good thing.

But then, how difficult is it to turn around and beseech our young people not to compromise with the values of “the world” but stand firm and true and faithful to the values of the gospel? If the Christian values and Biblical principles are enough, why on earth would you need a spin doctor? If you really believed they were– you wouldn’t. You just wouldn’t. So if you tell young people not to surrender to the ways of the world while you’re consulting your spin doctor, you are a hypocrite.

How credible is the gospel message itself, if we know that it is now being test-marketed?

How credible is Graham when he responds to this documented exchange with Nixon with “I don’t remember the conversation”? Is it really possible? Even if he has forgotten this particular conversation, is it possible he could have forgotten that he hated the Jews? Or that he loved the status and the glory of visiting the White House?

Billy Graham’s conversation with Nixon about the Jews.

This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain,” the nation’s best-known preacher declared as he agreed with a stream of bigoted Nixon comments about Jews and their perceived influence in American life.

You believe that?” Nixon says after the “stranglehold” comment.

Yes, sir,” Graham says.

Oh, boy,” replies Nixon. “So do I. I can’t ever say that but I believe it.”

“No, but if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something,” Graham replies.

Mother Theresa had a lawyer.

Billy Graham’s remarks, followed by  rather distressing attempt to suck up to Nixon after a prayer breakfast.  Can you trust anybody nowadays?  No  Can’t trust the website above either.  If it worries you, try the BBC instead..

Marginal stuff..

Posted on

Mel Gibson’s Bloody Fetish

I can’t tell you yet what I think about the film– I haven’t seen it. But I can tell you something about what I think about the controversy so far.

First of all, the thing that is most curious about it all to me is that the film is extremely gory. Everybody who has seen it has commented on that: lots of blood and lots of sound effects of blood and flesh being ripped and thunked and beaten. This is part of Hollywood’s tradition of using ridiculously unrealistic sounds to add intensity to scenes in films that are otherwise “realistic” (like “Panic Room”). I’ll be listening and asking myself why Gibson would film the story in Aramaic and Latin with sub-titles– to preserve realism– and then use extremely fake sound effects.

I don’t mind if the purpose of the gore is to make the film realistic. Amen to that, brother– let’s have a realistic execution. But I thought about the fact that thousands and tens of thousands of people were executed by crucifixion by the Romans, including, of course, the legendary Spartacus. So if Gibson’s point is that Christ died a horrible, mind-numbingly painful death, well, so did many others. What’s so remarkable about this story?

Well, what’s so remarkable is that Christ suffered for all of humanity’s sins. That means his suffering was greater than that of the others who were crucified. But you can’t really show that, can you, by showing the crucifixion in excruciating detail. You can only show that with some kind of creative genius, with some kind of image or event that suggests to the viewer a suffering beyond all imaginable suffering. Gibson, apparently, shows us all the suffering that you can create with special effects. It’s like Cecil B. DeMille’s “10 Commandments”. The crossing of the Red Sea is visually spectacular but the film itself is pointless and trivial.

Maybe that artistic moment is there, in the film. I’ll look for it when I go to see it later this week.

The other thing I noticed is that many churches are promoting this film. In fact, a lot of Christian web sites are promoting it too, along with posters and “ecards” and nail necklaces and other stuff. You would almost think that Gibson is using the church to make a profit on this film. Maybe it’s true. Maybe it’s not true. But when you observe the way this film is being …. well, marketed… it is clearly at least enmeshed with the idea of making money.

Now I don’t mind if Gibson makes enough money from paying customers to cover his expenses for the film. But when free tickets are given to church leaders and promotional materials are distributed at the Sunday service, it strikes me as a little unseemly. What’s going on here? Gibson’s film production company is not a charity. The money that it collects from paid attendance goes to pay Gibson’s expenses, and then to provide a profit for the film’s investors– Mel Gibson. It is not a charity, but people are being asked to promote the film as if it was a kingdom cause.

That’s a U.S. thing, of course. You see it all the time: web sites on Christianity with links all over the place to books and tapes that you can buy. That’s not religion: that’s commerce.

Why are you going to see the film? Because it’s a worthy work of art that deserves your attention? Or because it helps promote the gospel? If it’s because it helps promote the gospel, what gospel exactly is it promoting?

Not the one I know of.

And the fact that he only previewed it for conservative Christian audiences, is an item of concern. I like free and open debate.

Finally, of course, the big issue. Is the film anti-Semitic? Some Jewish critics have objected to the inclusion of the line “his blood be upon us and our children” delivered by the Jewish high priest. But that line is in the bible.

You can argue that even though that line is there, it might have been incumbent upon Gibson to leave it out, out of sensitivity to Jewish people who have, after all, suffered somewhat at the hands of devout Christians who took that line a little too literally. Here we can’t help but aware of the fact that Mel Gibson’s father denies that the Holocaust even happened, and Gibson himself refuses to distance himself from those views.

It’s like the word “nigger” in Huckleberry Finn. But I object to the Disney version of Mark Twain’s classic that removed the word. It was an anti-historical gesture. And so I would object if Gibson left it out for the same reason.

After seeing the film, there is not much I would change here. The controversy is rather beside the point: the film really isn’t all that good. It’s fine at times, and generally well-acted, but the obsessive constant gratuitous display of blood-letting becomes tiresome and dramatically pointless.