Has Mel Gibson been hanging with Alger and Cyrus?

[B-Man]

Gibson's 'Passion' to Open in 'Select' Theatres Only

If you live on the west side of Manhattan, on most of western Long Island, or in Beverly Hills and you want to see Mel Gibson's controversial new movie "The Passion of the Christ," you will be out of luck.

When the film — which some critics are calling anti-Semitic and inflammatory — opens on February 25, it will be in very select theatres only.

Even though the makers of "The Passion of the Christ" are touting its 2000 screen premiere, the movie's website and another website, moviefone.com, tell a very different story.

For example, in the borough of Manhattan in New York City, the film will play in a handful of out-of-the-way-theatres — one in Times Square, two in fringe areas of the East Side, one second-run theatre at Broadway and 100th St. and one in Harlem. There will be one screen below 34th St, and none from 42nd St. to 96th St. on the West Side. This excludes all prestige venues like the Ziegfeld, the Paris, the Beekman, and Sony Lincoln Square.

Theatre-goers will also be hard-pressed to find "The Passion of the Christ" in Nassau County, Long Island on either the south or north shore, or in affluent Westchester County, New York.

The pattern, for the most part, highlights black neighborhoods and poor neighborhoods. For example, all the Magic Johnson theatres in the country will show the movie, as will multiplexes in urban centers.

Gibson obviously thinks there's a potential problem in Chicago, where "Passion" will be on only two screens. Otherwise, Chicagoans will have to go to the suburbs.

The same goes for the wealthier and trendier parts of Los Angeles such as Beverly Hills and Century City. Those who are curious will have to seek their "Passion" in odd places, in out-of-the-way cineplexes. You won't be able to see it at the Beverly Center, for example. But four theatres in economically less desirable San Jose, California will show the film.

All of this seems designed to keep "The Passion of the Christ" out of neighborhoods that are considered Jewish, upscale, or liberal.

On the other hand, Tennessee is targeted for "The Passion of the Christ" with eight locations in Memphis and four each in Nashville and Knoxville. The number of theaters in many more states like Florida, Kentucky, Alabama, and Oklahoma is high, especially in rural areas. In Florida, for example, Jacksonville and Tampa — more northern and central cities — will have "Passion" on four or more screens, while typically Jewish areas like Boca Raton will have it one screen if at all.

In Miami, where there's a huge Catholic-Cuban population, "The Passion of the Christ" will play in ten theatres. In Houston and the Dallas-Fort Worth areas of Texas, there are the same number of theatres or more. Texas, in fact, will offer the most opportunities in the country to see the film.

Newmarket Films, which is distributing the movie, seems to have picked a pattern that concentrates heavily on the south and the Midwest, focusing on the Bible Belt and locations where "The Passion of the Christ" will meet with the least resistance. West Virginia will have about three times as many theaters as Rhode Island, for example. Vermonters have three theatres while their more conservative next-door neighbors in New Hampshire, a state equal in size, will have twelve.

Calls to Newmarket and to its public relations firm were not returned to this column yesterday. But in the positioning of "The Passion of the Christ," Gibson has consciously created a divisive atmosphere for the presentation of his film. For example, he has screened the movie widely for groups on the religious right while avoiding all mainstream groups, as well as film critics for fear of poor advance word.

"The Passion of the Christ" has come under intense criticism for being anti-Semitic from many groups Jewish and otherwise as well as journalists who've seen advance prints. In the current issue of Newsweek, reporter Jon Meacham also accuses director Gibson of completely changing historical references to suit his own agenda in an article called "Who Killed Jesus?"

Meacham writes: "To take the film's account of the 'Passion' literally will give most audiences a misleading picture of what probably happened in those epochal hours so long ago. The Jewish priests and their followers are the villains, demanding the death of Jesus again and again; Pilate is a malleable governor forced into handing down the death sentence."

The battle over "The Passion of the Christ" is coming quickly now, and I for one am sorry that Gibson and Newmarket chose to keep it out of places where they though the reception would be less than positive. Everyone should have the chance to this film and decide for themselves if Gibson has done the right or wrong thing with his $25 million.

What will be interesting is seeing how the annual Oscar party given by Gibson's agent, Ed Limato, at his palatial Beverly Hills home will be received two days after the movie's premiere. And then there are the Oscars, where Billy Crystal is no doubt thinking of clever ways to spoof the movie.

[MMMMMM]

Good post.

Interesting but not surprising, I guess. Just maybe, part of the marketing strategy is to show the movie first where it will get the best reception, before (hopefully) moving on with momentum to more liberal areas. Don't know how movies are marketed or if this might be a viable strategy.

On what grounds does Meacham make the claim below, I wonder?

"Meacham writes: "To take the film's account of the 'Passion' literally will give most audiences a misleading picture of what probably happened in those epochal hours so long ago. The Jewish priests and their followers are the villains, demanding the death of Jesus again and again; Pilate is a malleable governor forced into handing down the death sentence." "

It certainly may be debatable as to what exactly occurred at that time, but that the priests and their followers sought Jesus' death, with Pilate being at least somewhat reluctant, does fit with the Biblical versions of what happened. In the absence of information to the contrary why should that be presumed wrong? I'm curious as to why Meacham would say that probably gives a misleading picture of what happened.

People who would blame or hate today's Jews for what certain Jews did almost 2000 years ago don't know how to think. Clearly, people today cannot to be blamed for what their distant ancestors did--and it was not even all Jews back then that did this, just certain ones. Also, the individual Romans who played a part in this bear blame as well. Whether there is something to the larger religious interpretation in certain circles, that all humankind bears blame for this due to the fact that we all have some corruption or evil in our nature, I don't know.

Anyway I look forward to seeing the film. This is about one of the most important and influential events in human history, and something that is worthy of deep thought. I cannot claim to be a Christian (at least in the common sense), but I do think that Christ's sacrifice exemplifies the greatest love and forgiveness in the face of enormous ignorance and horrific cruelty. If more people were to emulate Christ by practicing forgiveness more often, the world would be a far better place.

[ThaSaltCracka]

IMO a lot of people fear this film and mostly because they are worried about how people will feel after seeing it. I see a lot of secularists in America sweating in their shoes.
I personally can't wait for the film to come out, I have heard it is a powerful movie. Something this powerful could have an effect of a religious revival in America. The claims that the movie are anti-semetic are rediculous, nobody thinks the Jews are responsible for Jesus death, and I think they are worrying to much that people will think that way. That won't happen.
Now as for the Newsweek article, I am about half way through it, I'm a busy man. Anyways I definitly get a slanted view from the author, although to his credit he does make some good points and cites some good references, but while reading it, it was apparent from the start the author was against the film.

It certainly may be debatable as to what exactly occurred at that time, but that the priests and their followers sought Jesus' death, with Pilate being at least somewhat reluctant, does fit with the Biblical versions of what happened.
Meacham explains this with some historical quotes from early historians, so check it out if you are interested.

[andyfox]

"The same goes for the wealthier and trendier parts of Los Angeles such as Beverly Hills and Century City. Those who are curious will have to seek their "Passion" in odd places"

-What makes you think we don't already do this? Oh, the stories I could tell . . .

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[George Rice]

There may be some truth to what you say, but it's not unusual for a film to open in a limited fasion. It cost mega-bucks to print all those copies and they may want to see how it will be received.

In Manhattan it's opening in Clearview Chelsea West, Kip's Bay (rated best in the city by TONY), Loews 34th Street and Union Square Stadium 14 (among others), which are all top houses. It's opening in all four theaters here on Staten Island, which most films don't (a lot of catholics here). They may be "thin" is some heavily jewish areas, but I don't think it's as bad as you think.

As for the thearters you quoted, the Ziegfield has only one screen, the Paris plays mostly French films, and the Beekman is basically a concert hall (unless there is another one which is a movie theater). Also, a lot of big films don't play in Sony Lincoln Square. I am surprised it's not in one of the two big 42nd street thearters, though.

By the way, I think the Lowes 84th Street is on Broadway, so there would be one on the upper west side.

[Cyrus]

We knew that when someone dares to criticize Israel's government (or the actions of fanatical Zionists), he is called an anti-semite by the likes of B-Man. Now we learn that even when someone simply quotes the Bible, he will be called an anti-semite by the likes of B-Man. So, if Mel Gibson wants to make a movie with Biblical stories he should know that this is forbidden if it doesn't cast a flattering light to Jews --- never mind that Jesus was supposedly a Jew himself!

I don't know if one should laugh because there are still people who take the Bible so seriously (so literally) or because there is really no end to the idiocy and the paranoia of the fanatical supporters of Israel.

...Hey, Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice has a Jew as protagonist, who sports lots of ugly stereotypes about Jews. I guess we gotta censor Shakespeare.

[Chris Alger]

The argument that forceful criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic is unbelievably cynical but sort of ingenious. The equation trivializes anti-Semitism and allows it to flourish as a result. As it grows Israel chauvinists can then point to desecrated synogogues and cemetaries to argue for more screwing of the Palestinians.

[MMMMMM]

Generally speaking, Chris, I happen to agree with this your statement:

"The argument that forceful criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic is unbelievably cynical but sort of ingenious."

...although for future clarity's sake I would prefer that the word "necessarily" be inserted between "is" and "anti-Semitic", so that the sentence reads:

"The argument that forceful criticism of Israel is (necessarily) anti-Semitic is unbelievably cynical but sort of ingenious."

Also, I would suggest that this would also apply quite well to another arena:

The argument that forceful criticism of Islam is (necessarily) bigotry, is unbelievably cynical but sort of ingenious.

Interestingly, CAIR is especially fond of using this tactic.


P.S. I do not believe that B-Man's intent with this post was to employ the tactic you describe. Also, his post is a copied article.

[nicky g]

"P.S. I do not believe that B-Man's intent with this post was to employ the tactic you describe. Also, his post is a copied article. "

I think Chris was referring to the post's title.

[John Cole]

Why not release the film in prestige areas? Well, as my good friend Archie Bunker might have said, "It's easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a camel than a needle to enter heaven."

[Gamblor]

So, if Mel Gibson wants to make a movie with Biblical stories he should know that this is forbidden if it doesn't cast a flattering light to Jews --- never mind that Jesus was supposedly a Jew himself!

Nope. The ballyhoo is about a movie that purports to be the truth, yet displays events that the Catholic Church long ago accepted to be false (i.e. that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus). Given that Gibson's father is a rabid Holocaust denier (his argument: it takes an hour to burn a human body, 6 million is impossible), it is certainly possible that this movie's intention is to incite Catholics and I suppose all followers of Christ to hatred of Jews.

That is what makes it anti-semitic.

I happen to believe it's what happens when you give an idiot in a radical cult $10 million dollars.

That Jesus is Jewish is irrelevant, because the laws in "his" religion today consist of the results of whims and powers struggle of the modern Church. Flame away.

...Hey, Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice has a Jew as protagonist, who sports lots of ugly stereotypes about Jews. I guess we gotta censor Shakespeare.

Again, I have no problem with a stereotype. After all, if people weren't in some way similar to it, it wouldn't exist. But to extend that by default to all Jews is the same as saying all blacks is monkeys.

Or Ay-rabs is terrorists.

[MMMMMM]

Fox accused of twisting facts on 'Passion'
Catholic leader shows film not selectively distributed, as charged
Posted: February 14, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

The head of a Catholic group challenged a Fox News online column that criticizes Mel Gibson for "selectively distributing" his film "The Passion of the Christ" to avoid upscale, liberal and Jewish areas.

William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, however, insists Fox News columnist Roger Friedman has his facts all wrong.

Friedman, after detailing where he believes the movie will be shown, says Gibson "consciously created a divisive atmosphere for the presentation of his film."

The Fox contributor said, "All this seems designed to keep 'The Passion of the Christ' out of neighborhoods that are considered Jewish, upscale, or liberal."

Donahue responded:

"Roger Friedman says the movie will be shown in two Chicago theaters; in fact it will be shown in seven. He says it will not be shown in the L.A. neighborhood of Century City; in fact it will be shown at the AMC in Century City.

"He says it will not be shown in the 'wealthier and trendier parts' of Los Angeles; in fact it will be shown in Marina del Rey, Burbank and Santa Monica. He says it will not be shown in New York's Upper West Side; in fact it will be shown at 86th and Broadway. He says it will be shown only in the 'fringe areas' of the Upper East Side; in fact it will be shown at 86th and 3rd and 64th and 2nd.

"He says it will be shown at one theater below 34th Street; in fact it will be shown at three. He says it will be hard to find in Nassau County, Long Island; in fact it will be shown in seven theaters there. He says that theater-goers will be 'hard pressed' to find it in ‘either the south or north shore’ of Long Island; in fact it will be shown in towns like Glen Cove and Port Washington on the north shore and Merrick and Seaford on the south shore.

"He says those who live in Westchester will also find it difficult to see the movie; in fact it will be shown in Larchmont, New Rochelle and Yonkers. And so on."

Donahue suggested, wryly, "taking a course in Geography 101 might cure some of Friedman's problems, but it would not be enough."

"That's because his forced conclusion suggests something else is at work: To say that Gibson is intentionally keeping the film away from Jews and the rich is not only flatly wrong, it smacks of malice," he said. "We look for Fox to correct itself."

Friedman cited the movie's website and another website, moviefone.com, as sources for where the film will be screened.

He said the pattern for the film's distribution, "for the most part, highlights black neighborhoods and poor neighborhoods. For example, all the Magic Johnson theatres in the country will show the movie, as will multiplexes in urban centers."

Newmarket Films, which is distributing the movie, Friedman said, "seems to have picked a pattern that concentrates heavily on the south and the Midwest, focusing on the Bible Belt and locations where 'The Passion of the Christ' will meet with the least resistance."

Friedman said his calls to Newmarket and to its public relations firm were not returned.

Noting the charges of anti-Semitism against Gibson and the film, Friedman writes: "The battle over 'The Passion of the Christ' is coming quickly now, and I for one am sorry that Gibson and Newmarket chose to keep it out of places where they thought the reception would be less than positive. Everyone should have the chance to see this film and decide for themselves if Gibson has done the right or wrong thing with his $25 million."

The columnist said it will "be interesting in seeing how the annual Oscar party given by Gibson's agent, Ed Limato, at his palatial Beverly Hills home will be received two days after the movie's premiere. And then there are the Oscars, where Billy Crystal is no doubt thinking of clever ways to spoof the movie."


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37119

Naturally, John, I'm curious as to what your good friend Archie Bunker might have said about "Fair and Balanced" in this instance /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Chris Alger]

There's a subtle difference between criticizing state policy and group defamation. E.g. "Israel is guilty of terrorism" versus "Muslims are more inclined to commit terrorism than other people."

[MMMMMM]

"Nope. The ballyhoo is about a movie that purports to be the truth, yet displays events that the Catholic Church long ago accepted to be false (i.e. that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus)."

Well the Pope saw the movie and reportedly said: "It is as it was."

I would surmise that saying "the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus" would be wrong, but that saying "those Jews were at least in significant part responsible for the death of Jesus" would be correct.

"Given that Gibson's father is a rabid Holocaust denier (his argument: it takes an hour to burn a human body, 6 million is impossible), it is certainly possible that this movie's intention is to incite Catholics and I suppose all followers of Christ to hatred of Jews."

Better if you leave someone's relatives out of it, IMO.

"That is what makes it anti-semitic."

No, that is something that could make it more likely that it might be anti-Semitic--if that is the case, even.

"I happen to believe it's what happens when you give an idiot in a radical cult $10 million dollars."

Whatever...I don't know much about Gibson, nor precisely to what you refer as a "radical cult."

"That Jesus is Jewish is irrelevant, because the laws in "his" religion today consist of the results of whims and powers struggle of the modern Church. Flame away"

I agree here to a considerable extent. And if the Christian religion had held to the original teachings of Jesus, none of the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity or Catholicism would ever have taken place.

"...Hey, Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice has a Jew as protagonist, who sports lots of ugly stereotypes about Jews. I guess we gotta censor Shakespeare."

Good point, censorship is bad and is becoming more prevalent worldwide.

"Again, I have no problem with a stereotype. After all, if people weren't in some way similar to it, it wouldn't exist. But to extend that by default to all Jews is the same as saying all blacks is monkeys."

Of course, and how tragic that many people don't understand this very simple principle.

[MMMMMM]

You make a valid point re. the subtle difference, although I would argue that if the facts actually bear out the statement, it wouldn't be defamation but rather statistical analysis.

Anyway if you want the last word on this tangent feel free, since I do not wish to change the focus of the original thread too much, and because you and I are very likely to debate something similar in some other thread before too long, anyway;-)

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I see a lot of secularists in America sweating in their shoes.


[/ QUOTE ]

My shoes are off and my feet are on the coffee table, stinking up the room as usual.

[ QUOTE ]
I personally can't wait for the film to come out, I have heard it is a powerful movie. Something this powerful could have an effect of a religious revival in America.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been praying for a revival in America for years. Perhaps it will now come to fulfillment.

[ QUOTE ]
The claims that the movie are anti-semetic are rediculous, nobody thinks the Jews are responsible for Jesus death, and I think they are worrying to much that people will think that way. That won't happen.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a grievous error. You can get any number of people to believe just about anything you can think of. This has been proven over and over again. Most recently by the likes of Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, any number of Popes, Cardinals or Bishops, Pat Robertson, George Bush, the up and coming John Kerry, not to mention the itinerant Baptist preacher howling at a large summer revival meeting in an old tattered gospel tent. Such quacks and demagogues have been around preaching nonsense since humanity started living in large settle groups and learned the art of language.


[ QUOTE ]
.....does fit with the Biblical versions of what happened.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible is not a history book.

-Zeno

[Taxman]

I smile every time I hear that slogan. My favorite incident was when Fox sued Al Franken over the subtitle of his latest book ( A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right). The lawsuit was subsequently laughed out of court. Fox is free to do whatever they want of course, but it's laughable that they continue to try and maintain the pretense of impartiality.

[Cyrus]

"It's what happens when you give an idiot in a radical cult $10 million dollars."

I guess with just one million there would be no damage, huh?

By the way, I have no idea about Mel Gibson's personal beliefs but I do pay attention when you call a certain organisation "a radical cult". Takes one to know one, see.

[Gamblor]

By the way, I have no idea about Mel Gibson's personal beliefs but I do pay attention when you call a certain organisation "a radical cult".

Mel Gibson's new film matches his mindset (http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000033.html)

Takes one to know one, see.

Haven't heard that one since elementary school.

[MMMMMM]

Gamblor, that linked post or article appears very high on opinion and low on facts.

I don't know anything about what sect Gibson belongs to, and the page does not enlighten us much in this regard.

In my opinion, a general rule can be observed in the workings of organized religion: the more "organized" any religious movement becomes and the more it "grows", the more it tends to stray from the original teachings and focus. This can be observed in Christianity, and in Buddhism--and, I would guess, in Judaism as well (perhaps you could inform us somewhat in this regard).

I tend to be suspicious of the most mainstream religious movements anyway. Perhaps this has something to do with my tendency to instinctively distrust anything which would appeal to the largest number of people. Perhaps it is also because commercial and political considerations tend to corrupt even the most noble beginnings, increasingly as they grow.

Although I grew up in a predominantly Jewish city, I don't know much about Judaism, really. I would bet however that the most basic teachings are the most important and that the innumerable "add-ons" could largely be dispensed with without too much loss, and perhaps even with resulting greater clarity. This I suspect is also true of most religions, and of most ideologies with merit.

Therefoe if Gibson belongs to a less popular sect which holds less of the frippery in esteem, and more of the meat, I would suspect that it might be a better sect. I'll have to do a little research but it wouldn't surprise if this were so.

[ThaSaltCracka]

that is a terrible article

[MMMMMM]

perhaps the worst article posted here yet ;-)

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Nope. The ballyhoo is about a movie that purports to be the truth, yet displays events that the Catholic Church long ago accepted to be false (i.e. that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus). Given that Gibson's father is a rabid Holocaust denier (his argument: it takes an hour to burn a human body, 6 million is impossible), it is certainly possible that this movie's intention is to incite Catholics and I suppose all followers of Christ to hatred of Jews.

That is what makes it anti-semitic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Attacking this movie as anti-semitic is doing more to incite anti-semitism than anything likely to be in this movie. Many will view the attacks on this movie as being anti-christian; they will resent those doing the attacking.

[ QUOTE ]
I happen to believe it's what happens when you give an idiot in a radical cult $10 million dollars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mel Gibson is a traditional Catholic. His beleifs mirror mainsteam catholicism, the way it was 50 years ago. If it is correct to call traditional catholics cult members, than its probably correct to say the same of orthodox Jews.

Stu

[The Dude]

Gamblor,

I am in a unique position to add to this conversation, because I may be the only poster who has actually seen the film. Mel Gibson visited my University two weeks ago and screened the final cut in its entirity.

For a full commentary, see my post in this very same forum (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=541962&page=0&view=expand ed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=). I will comment on one aspect right now, though.

I say this to hopefully give you some peace of mind. Not only is the film not anti-semitic, but there is nothing in the film that could even be reasonably misconstrued as such. Even those going into the film lookin for something to gripe about will come out disappointed.

[Gamblor]

Mel Gibson is a traditional Catholic. His beleifs mirror mainsteam catholicism, the way it was 50 years ago. If it is correct to call traditional catholics cult members, than its probably correct to say the same of orthodox Jews

Was referring to the beliefs of his father, who I'm sure in some small way has affected the beliefs of his son.

[Gamblor]

It's not the anti-semitic (or non-anti-semitic) nature of the film that


But after a few thousand years of it, you wonder why they might be a little over-sensitive?

That's like beating your kid every day then complaining why they cry when you pick up a baseball bat for your weekly game.

[Gamblor]

It's not the anti-semitic (or non-anti-semitic) nature of the film that scares me.

It's the potential for the events to be misconstrued by less-educated members of our society (as they usually are).

But after a few thousand years of it, you wonder why they might be a little over-sensitive?

That's like beating your kid every day then complaining why the kid cries when you pick up a baseball bat for your weekly game.