I have been becoming increasingly disgusted by yellow journalism like this. I wonder-is this kind of smear piece common for this newspaper? With a title like �Passion at the forefront of religious bigotry�, you�d expect the author, Phillip Adams, might try to find a firmer demonstration of bigotry on the part of Mel Gibson then he has. But it seems he�s restricted to insisting on a connection between Hitler and the Christian faith and making snide comments about the content of the film:
Experts in the film business tell me that cinema returns will be matched by the revenue from DVD sales. Apparently Gibson will be able to claim a premium price, not only from the faithful but also from those into sadomasochism. Moreover, The Passion will have a very, very long shelf life.
Much has been made of the fact the film is extraordinarily violent, as if this were new in the annals of Christian narrative. Piffle; for centuries, artists have churned out images of what amounts to religious pornography - paintings and sculptures of the crucifixion that are lip-lickingly lurid.
Furthermore, Mr. Adams, in writing this smear piece, is determined to prove a connection between Mel Gibson and Nazism:
Gibson's father, Hutton, is as fundamentalist as any ayatollah, his rantings identifying Catholic popes with the anti-Christ. He makes no bones about the Jews' responsibility for killing Christ and happily associates with the likes of Frederick Tobin of the Adelaide Institute, who has taken over from the League of Rights' Eric Butler as Australia's most notorious anti-Semite. Photographs of Gibson Sr and Tobin have been ricocheting around the internet for months, as the two Holocaust deniers slap each other on the back.
When cross-examined on this aspect of his father's beliefs, Gibson Jr warns journalists: "Don't go there!" But that's exactly where we have to go, given that what his film says about the crucifixion ties in to thousands of years of anti-Semitism. Which culminated in, yes, the Holocaust. The very same Holocaust that his dad denies. What makes this film different is its contribution to religious conflict. As The New Yorker's David Denby says: "Gibson's timing couldn't be more unfortunate: another dose of death-haunted religious fanaticism is the last thing we need."
Reading that, you think there�s a definite connection, don�t you? But let�s examine the evidence:
Notice how the author fails to give any citations whatever. Also, the sloppy use of emotionally loaded terms: �fundamentalist�; �ayatollah�; �rantings�.
Not being Australian, these names mean nothing to me. However, this is again sloppy. Where are the sources for these supposed statements? There is quite a bit of room for things to be taken out of context.
I sure am not seeing any sources here. Also, I wonder: does Mr. Adams realize how easy it is to fake a photograph?
And there could only be one motive for not wanting to discuss this, right? Can�t we have any complete quotes given in context?
Oh, and:
As an antidote to Gibson's dreadful film, it's time to re-release The Gospel According to St Matthew, made by Italian film-maker Pier Paolo Pasolini. Malcolm Muggeridge, who drew the world's attention to Mother Teresa, regarded it as a masterpiece, although he was somewhat shocked when I told him that Pasolini was (a) homosexual, (b) a communist and (c) an atheist. Pasolini's film is not about Christ on the cross but Christ as the radical -- and he was played by a small, dark, intense young man with a hooked nose, not by a six-footer with blue eyes. The contrast between the two films could not be more dramatic or instructive.
After all, the best people to get at the meaning of the Bible are not Catholics but atheists. I can�t judge this film as I haven�t seen it, but all the same I am very skeptical about its value considering the ringing endorsement from such a person as Mr. Adams.