catapult magazine

“I wanted to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick. I want to kill his dog.”

—Mel Gibson, responding to a critical film review of “The Passion” by New York Times columnist Frank Rich

It should be stated that when asked about this quote during the Diane Sawyer interview, Mel Gibson stated that the context was in jest, but that he did apologize to the guy’s dog.

Did you see Gibson in the Diane Sawyer interview? I thought he presented himself very well. The above quote is an interesting comment, but outside of its context makes little sense and isn’t very helpful when trying to understand the controversy surrounding this film. I’m withholding comment until I can actually see the movie.

yes, i know i took the quote out of context. i wasn’t really posting it to address the controversy surrounding the film, either.

i just found it pretty ironic that a person who has just spent a considerable amount of time and money on a film about Christ would react, even if it were in jest, to ANY critical comments in such a way.

i’m glad that gibson apologized to the dog, though.

Oh yeah. A really good Christian would NEVER, EVER, make an exaggerated comment about another person in a private conversation, especially when that person has insulted one of his close friends.

It sounds like Rich probably had it coming. That doesn’t mean that I think it was the most mature way to act, though.

here are some articles i looked up on this whole thing to help me contextualize gibson’s statements a little:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/115475p-104184c.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34497

kristinmarie:

i seriously thought about responding to your critique in the same manner gibson responded to his critics, but i felt uncomfortable just typing it, even to someone whom i consider a close friend (someone i can joke with). i can see saying something like, “i’m gonna kill that guy,” in jest, but the whole quote? so, no, i don’t think a “good christian” should use such graphically violent language lightly.

gibson’s comments don’t seem to have been made in private conversation, but i couldn’t find any direct evidence of that.

the attack against gibson’s family that seemed to upset him most was the allegation that his father is a holocaust denier. but, quite frankly, his father is a holocaust denier. gibson’s response was: “He never denied the Holocaust. He just said there were fewer than 6 million.” well, essentially, that’s what a holocaust denier is (deniers claim that only about 300,000 jews died during WWII, none of them from systematic genocide—see http://www.ihr.org/ for more).

and, though rich probably shouldn’t have attacked gibson’s father in the first place (he certainly has an overly-liberal bias), people are right to be concerned that “the passion” will evoke anti-semitic backlash. anti-semitism is on the rise in europe and the claim that the jews are responsible for Christ’s death has haunted christianity for centuries (and doesn’t seem to want to go away). in fact, one of the reasons the german church didn’t stop hitler in the buildup to war was that they were still blaming the jews for the death of Christ.

so, i guess i’m simply saying that i have objections to this particular quote on a number of levels. i’m trying not making any judgments on the film, however, until i have a chance to see it myself.

i might have gotten a little off-track there. i was just trying to point out why so many people have been worried about this film.

which, in turn, makes me wish that gibson could have made some more appropriate comments regarding frank rich. because, if the film is good (which i’m expecting, due to a recent review in a respected journal—http://www.ransomfellowship.org/M_Passion.html), i’d like to watch it without the kind of mental baggage these remarks have given me.

The film is good. By about two minutes in you will not be thinking of anything except what is happening on the screen.

I read it was going to be shown in Latin and Aramaic without subtitles. Is that still the case? I admit I had sort of written the film off due to all the hype/hysteria both pro and con, but now I’m curious. It’d be a fascinating exercise to watch it back to back with Scorcese’s Last Temptation of Christ which I’ve also never seen.

For a really wonderful movie about Christ and the Church try finding a copy of Denys Arcand’s Jesus of Montreal. It’s about a group of actors who are hired to do a production of the passion play, which the church then tries to shut down after the actors are “too honest” in their reponse to what they learn about Christ. It’s definitely not orthodox theology, but it’s fascinating all the same.

Jest or no, private or no, Gibson’s remarks were just stupid. He should realize that with all the controversy surrounding this movie he is going to be under intense scrutiny. Major P.R. blunder.

another article dealing with gibson and his critics: http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/commentaries/passion-prejudice.html

Here’s a critic calling the film pornography. It’s really worth reading.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040225.wpassion0225/BNStory/Entertainment/