comment #1

tholl-yung says ...

It's an option/editorial and it doesn't have a byline. Can you please share with me/us what that means, from a professional journalism point of view.

comment #2

Jeffrey Overstreet says ...

So, Roman Polanksi can carry on shady shenanigans, and never apologize or show any remorse, and we celebrate him and his work. Mel Gibson, who clearly grew up in interesting conditions, gets drunk and says things that he aggressively repents for, publicly, pursues reconciliation, and the appropriate response is BANISH HIM TO OBSCURITY!

I. don't. get. it.

Don't get me wrong... I've never been a big Gibson fan. Hated Braveheart, thought The Patriot was just sensationalized revenge. And while I call Jesus "Lord," I was more aggravated by Gibson's "Passion" movie than anything.

But the singling out of Gibson as deserving of some special level of public-opinion hell, when he's part of an industry in which celebrities say and do embarrassing things every week without apology, it smacks of something quite different than discernment. It smacks... yes... of prejudice... a stripe of prejudice for which no one seems inclined to apologize publicly. As far as that goes, Gibson's a step ahead of his critics.

comment #3

Dave Polands Gut says ...

We'll see if those "principles" last when theres money to be made. My guess? Not for a second.

comment #4

christian says ...

Nothing more pathetic than intolerant liberals.

comment #5

BowieGirl400 says ...

Thank You T.H. Ung! My thoughts exactly! Roman Polanski did something far, far worse... yet years later he's rewarded with an Oscar.

comment #6

NYCBusybody says ...

Banish a man to obscurity for a stupid comment that he's since strongly repudiated and vowed to actively change and seek help on?

Ah, the tolerance of the left marches on...

comment #7

tholl-yung says ...

Op/eds are written by nameless staffers who represent the institutional voice of the paper, and thus carry no byline. It's a great piece on celebrity, so glad you pointed to it, Jeff. And your wrap around works as a great companion piece to the David slam. It's so judeo vs. christian, it's hillarious. Gotta know? in person, DP visited you in the hospital? wow...

comment #8

caslab says ...

Um, is it possible that some of us can think that both Roman Polanski and Mel Gibson are reprehensible people?

Why must every discussion in American culture turn into an either/or situation based on our politics?

This is a bullshit argument: Are you on the bigot's side or the rapist's?

Fuck them both.
I don't like people who fuck kids.
I don't like people who hate Jews.

Maybe that makes me "intolerant" but I don't see how that shit is tolerable to begin with.

comment #9

Josh Massey says ...

I don't want to hear any of these people complaining about the blacklist ever again.

comment #10

NYCBusybody says ...

Caslab,

Polanski committed a CRIME, and rather than face up to that, fled the country and has since been forgiven and feted by most of Hollywood.

Gibson commited a bigoted act, yes...which he has faced up to, owned up to, vowed to change, and ASKED for forgiveness from those he offended.

Big difference.

comment #11

FNG says ...

Bottom line is this: Mel will survive. His career will survive. This latest indiscretion will be a small footnote when his final bio is written. Along with his past controversies with anti-Anglo-ism (The Patriot, Braveheart) and homophobia (Bird on A Wire, public comments) this latest (and worst) f**k-up, will, in the end, not bring him down. Mel is money. Plain and simple. Makes it for studios, whether as director, producer or actor. Mel has made a ton for himself too. Even recently surpassing Harrison Ford as the wealthiest actor in the world. As for the general public: He hasn't hurt their feelings. Why should people care whether the LA times, Rabbi Hoffman or Rob Schneider think or believe?

comment #12

tholl-yung says ...

BowieGirl400, you got the wrong person, I love Roman Polanski.

comment #13

tholl-yung says ...

The only thing that will matter is if A-Poc is any good. I'm allowed to have my doubts and speculate he hit the bottle cuz he didn't like the movie he made.

comment #14

tholl-yung says ...

Jeff, face it, you're very Rabbi-ish yourself you just have more flair.

comment #15

caslab says ...

NYC:

I don't give a shit what most of Hollywood feels about Polanski. I don't use them as my moral yardstick. He can win an Oscar every year for the rest of his life and it won't change the fact that he fucked a kid. But holding up this kid fucker as an excuse for Mel Gibson's behavior is bullshit.

Mel Gibson is a drunk-driving, bigoted asshole. Sure, he wants forgiveness and he's so sorry about driving drunk and hating all the Jews and he wants to change so that people don't see him as the drunk-driving Jew-hating asshole. Who wouldn't?

The point is, we don't have to circle the wagons because one of these guys happens to make movies we like or votes the way we do. It's our responsibility to cut them both the fuck loose.

comment #16

NYCBusybody says ...

I'm not holding up Polanksi as an excuse for Gibson's behavior. They were far different behaviors, for one thing. Both reprehensible in my opinion, but far, far, different.

I suppose what this really comes down to is if we as a society are willing to give people a second chance if they repent and ask for it. I generally support the "liberal" idea of rehabilitation and willingness to be tolerant and open to offering a second chance.

comment #17

north holly says ...

the issue isn't what's a crime and what isn't. polanski is a foreign director with very little influence over the general public. his getting an award at the oscars didn't give a single person the idea that they might get away with raping someone. and i'm going to say that 99 percent of americans have no idea who he is. gibson is an international star with an amazingly high profile and (previously at least) a tremendous amount of respect and adoration from the public. blaming jews and speaking hateful thoughts has the potential to do great damage and perpetuate false beliefs and negative stereotypes for years. it's not a question of legality. no one is saying his remarks should get him locked up. but he's tremendously influential, which makes him much much much more dangerous than roman polanski ever was or will be. to not see that is to not want to see it.

comment #18

tholl-yung says ...

Forget about Polanski, the angle of the piece is celebrity -- O.J., Michael Jackson, Mel. Mel's path will be similar to Clinton, bo hoo. He's gonna look like a fool no matter what he does, he should relish obscurity. And I repeat, that's been his plan -- build a church compound and hide away -- not if, just when.

comment #19

caslab says ...

"I suppose what this really comes down to is if we as a society are willing to give people a second chance if they repent and ask for it."

Sure. None of us are perfect. We all make mistakes.

"I generally support the "liberal" idea of rehabilitation and willingness to be tolerant and open to offering a second chance."

I do too. At the same time, I generally support the "conservative" idea of accountability. And I think that goes beyond saying he's sorry . . . Gibson is going to have to deal with this for the rest of his life, and I think that's fair.

I've known a lot of bigots and alcoholics. I'm even related to a few. In both cases, the worst thing one can do is to pretend that the problem is fixed and isn't a problem anymore. Stuff like this never goes away. It can get better, but it never disappears.

So, it's fine to turn the other cheek. But it's best to keep that eye open.

Fortunately, I've never known any kid fuckers, so I don't know if that works the same way. But as you say, it's very, very different. And, as far as I'm concerned, unrelated.

comment #20

NYCBusybody says ...

I agree in accountability too, caslab, and also agree that one should always have to keep an eye open on Mel.

I guess the question now is, HOW cynical should one be? And how best to square both:

A) Wanting to hold Mel accountable for his despicable actions, while at the same time

B) Wanting to have an open-minded, forgiving mentality towards him, and skeptically but hopefully hoping he will really work to change? After all, racism is a learned behavior, not a biological trait. It CAN be unlearned, but not easily.

And where does "banishment" fit into the a/b dichotomy?

comment #21

caslab says ...

I don't know Mel Gibson personally, so I wish him the best as a human being. I hope that he can come out of this mess a better, healthier person.

But as a movie watcher, I'm not really interested in seeing him around anymore. Mel Gibson is an all right actor, but he's not a chameleon . . . he's a celebrity brand. When that brand, like Tom Cruise, becomes tainted as "batshit crazy" . . . he's useless. His acting career is finished.

His directing career may be another story. Maybe he can bounce back and bring something to the table that will make people forget his behavior, the way THE PIANIST made some people "forgive" Polanski. I don't think that APOCALYPTO is that movie, but I definitely believe he may have it in him.

This sort of thing is tough for film lovers. It's the question that comes up all the time . . . can you separate the art from the artist? I love CHINATOWN. I love THE ROAD WARRIOR. But I think Roman Polanski and Mel Gibson are assholes. How can I reconcile this?

Ultimately, I don't want to give these guys my cash anymore. The cash I've given them unknowingly supported their respective kid-fucking and Jew-hating ways. At the same time, I'm not perfect either and sooner or later I might break down and see one of their new films because it looks fucking great.

comment #22

J. Huff says ...

Thanks for posting, Mr. Overstreet...someone I really respect is on these boards, what do you know? And very nice review of Bruce Cockburn's latest...

But your comments on Gibson are dead on. It seems that the media is dead set on destroying Christians, specifically outspoken ones that aren't leftists.

comment #23

Nicol D says ...

Again, who in Hollywood has the moral authority to 'banish' or 'blacklist' Mel Gibson?

I have no doubt the blacklist is already taking place and that is why people are silent. You never announce a blacklist when it happens, you just do it.

The hypocrisy of the people who say they no longer like Gibson because he is a 'hater' is unbelievable.

Do you also hold the same standard to people like Tom Hanks or Natalie Portman who have put their names on bigotted, hateful films towards Catholics and Christians.

What about Johnny Depp, who admired Marlon Brando who made visciously anti-semitic remarks in his career? Is he blacklisted too? Where does it end? Howabout Bryan Singer for using Brando footage in Superman Returns?

Do you care about Don Simpson who raped and beat girls with coat hangers? Will you watch Bruckheimer films? Where do you think the Bruckheimer fortune came from; his partnership with Don Simpson. Think twice before you watch that rerun of Top Gun or Pirates 3.

If Hollywood 'blacklisted' everyone who committed transgressions or associated with people who did, then the industry would have shut down when Jimmy Stewart died.

And anyone who has ever made money from, made movies about, or enjoyed Hollywood films that mock and ridicule Christians, Catholics, Gays, Blacks, Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, Asians, etc. can shut up with your sanctmonious condemnation of Mel Gibson.

You have no place at the table in this discussion.

Hypocrites.

comment #24

tholl-yung says ...

Jeff gets all huffy over an op/ed piece when all he does all day is express opionion and editorialize. A statement was made at his sentencing a few days ago that he'll make public service announcements. The op/ed asked what does it take to get excommunicated from the church of celebrity? It's a think piece, does anyone want to see Mel grovel -- why can't he suck it up like a man and take the lumps. He should say what's really on his mind and do what he wants.

comment #25

mitch says ...

I made a comment a while ago in response to Jeff being labeled a homophobe. My comment was...so what? He can be what he wants (for the record, I don't think Jeff is a homophobe).

If Mel hates Jews, so what? That's his prerogative. As long as he's not inciting violence or badness or attempting to falsify evidence against or attempting to force others into believing that which he hates, he can think and speak as he chooses. I'll let the 'free' market decide his celebrity fate. To me, the REAL danger comes when Mel's no longer 'free' to think the way he chooses.

comment #26

jeffmcm says ...

I'm amazed by the hypocrisy of people calling others 'hypocrites' when they themselves are inconsistent and morally opportunistic. Mel's defenders are coming to his side out of political sympathies and trying to muddy the issue, to wit: in a free society anyone has the right to not associate with anyone they do not wish to associate with. Is this is a 'blacklist'? Then I guess blacklists aren't so bad.

comment #27

jeffmcm says ...

PS: I'm sick of the myth that The Da Vinci Code and V for Vendetta were 'bigoted' movies. Bad or mediocre perhaps but that's it. Please stop spreading inflammatory lies.

comment #28

J. Huff says ...

Da Vinci Code, yes, bigoted. Sorry, any movie that says the church has been lying about its most important figure since its inception is bigoted against Christianity. V For Vendetta, on the other hand, no, not bigoted without some severe reading into the subtext.

comment #29

Nicol D says ...

"Please stop spreading inflammatory lies."

It hurts your cause for me to bring up bigotted garbage like DaVinci and V when you're trying to take the moral high ground and tar someone as a bigot, doesn't it?

I am not a perfect person. I have plenty of flaws...and that's my point.

For an industry that regularly makes money off of visciously denigrating many groups (not just Christians or Catholics although they seem to get the brunt of it) to now act pious is a load of bunk.

Similarly you glibly refer to a blacklist as being nothing but a choice of who to associate with; would you say the same if it was said about someone who was Jewish, gay, black etc.

Was the McCarthy blacklist okay too? Remember I did not start this; people like Schneider, Emanuel and Pascal did.

Gibson effed up bigtime...as do we all. He's human...so are you.

Really JeffMCM; I know we have many differences of opinion but for you to write with a straight face that you are sick of hypocrisy but DaVinci and V are not bigotted trash, shows such a lack of perspective and partisanship that I have to wonder if you are not the sparring partner I thought you were.

I mean, especially DaVinci. If that is not anti-Catholic than I guess one would have to conclude that there has never been a piece of art made in the history of man that was anti-Catholic.

And Amy Pascal greenlit it. And she called for a blacklist of Gibson. Which brings us all full circle.

comment #30

Jeffrey Overstreet says ...

Newspapers drop cartoons about Mohammed for fear of offending Muslims. That's because they know Christians are less likely to get violently angry. Thus... it's open season on Christians in the cartoons.

I'm not saying Christians should rise up in violence of course... just that there's a double standard. Tolerance is the buzzword of the age, and somehow Christians are disqualified from its graces. When I raise this question, I often hear an excuse: "Well, Christians are the majority so..." And this exposes the depth of the intellect behind such an argument.

Oh well, there are far more accomplished Christian filmmakers to celebrate than Mel Gibson. But still, the stench rising from the Gibson-bashing articles tells us more about those who write them than the figure they revile.

comment #31

Jeffrey Overstreet says ...

Oh, and J. Huff, thanks!

Yes, I've been a big fan of Mr. Wells for years and years, dating back to even before he showed up on Kevin Smith's site. I often cheer right along with his rants about sub-standard filmmaking.

And I always flinch when he makes gross generalizations about Christians, because it's one of the few times I really see his blindspots. Sure, there are some loony "Christians" out there, but to make such generalizations is as unfair as condemning all Democrats because of a few bad apples. Or Republicans. Or drivers of cars. Or users of cell-phones. Or drivers who use cell-phones.

Wait, I take that back. I *would* support a blacklist of those who drive while using their cell phones. ;)

comment #32

jeffmcm says ...

Nicol, nobody agrees with you that Da Vinci Code is anti-Catholic. It's a bad movie full of bad history but it is bigoted. I honestly don't think you know what the word means, so full of paranoia and self-pity that you are.

And there is a huge difference between blacklisting somebody based on their race or ethnicity and blacklisting somebody because of their views. In fact it almost makes me think the anti-Communist blacklist was acceptable (except that it was typically based on lies and not on verifiable facts as with Gibson).

comment #33

jeffmcm says ...

(insert a 'not' between 'is' and 'bigoted'. Whoops!)

comment #34

jeffmcm says ...

Oh, the underlying point is hypocrisy. The fact is, Nicol, the only reason you are rushing to Gibson's defense is because he's on your 'team', aka Catholics with pre-diluvian beliefs. Please stop lying and pretending otherwise.

comment #35

le corbeau says ...

I'm so glad to see that the usual flamewar sprouted and ignored Jeff's real question, which is:

Shouldn't the LA Times be ashamed to be that far behind the media cycle on a local story?

Shouldn't LA be ashamed that its only major paper is so irrelevant?

comment #36

mitch says ...

jeffmcm,

I, for one, agree with Nicol. As does J Huff. Please stop trying to spin this as though Nicol's the 'only' one that finds it bigoted.

From what I can read, it's really 3 to 1 (in this thread) in finding The Da Vinci Code as bigoted.

comment #37

jeffmcm says ...

Okay, so three people are wrong instead of one.
You're not Nicol so I assume you can have a reasonable discussion. I fail to see how a allegations of the institutional church being deceptive translates into 'hating' the entire class of believers. It's like saying that, because I believe the American government lied about something, (just for the sake of argument) that therefore I am anti-American. Or that if Martin Luther King had been caught plagiarizing speeches that it meant that anyone attacking him for it was anti-Black.
Am I missing something here?

comment #38

J. Huff says ...

JeffMCM -

Your argument has a fatal flaw in that assumes that the allegations made by The Da Vinci Code have any standing in fact. There are countless books out there that debunked Brown's thesis long before the movie was made. Continuing to spread lies about the "institutional church," as you called it, can be considered slander at very least. But it goes to a regular pattern of Hollywood acting in a bigoted fashion against Christians based on spurious evidence.

To take your example, let's say there was evidence of MLK's plagarism. One could report that evidence and make a judgment about it without attacking him personally. But if we were to make the argument parallel to the situation with The Da Vinci Code, it would be a situation where MLK had been vigorously defended by scholars and even his opponents against charges of plagarism and yet someone made a motion picture all about how he stole his texts from lesser-known preachers. One would have to question the motives of that film and whether or not there was some form of bigotry attached.

Just ask yourself this: if I made a film that pictured Mohammed sleeping with whores and lying about his identity, even though there is no evidence he did so, do you think it would reflect any anti-Muslim bigotry?

comment #39

Nicol D says ...

"...aka Catholics with pre-diluvian beliefs."

Gee JeffMCM, does this stereotype you have of Catholics fall into the same bigotted past worldview of 'greedy Jews who hoard cash' or 'lazy blacks who eat watermelon'? Do you believe those racist stereotypes as well?

That you would use the phrase 'pre-diluvian Catholics' in a post where you are trying to prove DaVinci Code is not anti-Catholic shows a lot about your own world view.

You have zero cred now. Zip, nadda, zilch.

Not surprised you have this bigotted view, just surprised you were so sloppy in letting it come out.

You usually are a little bit of a better debater than that.

Oh well...have a good night. And be sure to lock the door. You wouldn't want a diseased 'pre-diluvian Catholic' to break into your house and harm you while you sleep. I hear they are pretty nasty and roam the countryside waiting to eat people...along with Jews and blacks of course.

Sheesh...how do you live with such beliefs. Gibson effed up, and you are no better.