Is Mel's drunken diatribe newsworthy?

[Kelly the Dog]

oooooh, I see. So I could say that the media is controlled by Jews and be a-ok on the anti-semitism meter?

732798[/snapback]

No. Because that is not a fact. You could say there are a lot of Jews in the media and it would be okay. You could say there are a lot of hymies in the media and it would not, but simply because of the word hymie.

[KRC]

You're right on all accounts. Probably not worthy of much more than a couple days.

 

It is interesting, however, to me at least, to debate whether or not now there is a different message being sent in "The Passion of the Christ", now knowing it was made by someone who is seriously anti-semetic. On that I am not sure. Again, on first blush, I guess I would say no, it's the same regardless of who made it, and what they meant by it. Art is art. But it's an intriguing argument to me, and that worthy of discussion more than a moment. I could see both sides.

732765[/snapback]

 

The message he sent was the same. The difference is your perspective on the stituation.

[KRC]

There comes a point were an actor's fame also becomes a name-brand.

 

Independent of anything Mel Gibson may think privately, his name on

a movie marquis alone would sell millions of dollars of tickets. He is

a bankable name brand in his profession.

 

As news, his name brand may take a beating from this. Disney might

take a beating on Apocalypto - etc.

 

Mel has probably done a million things in his career to market himself as

a name brand and promoting himself as such (like any actor), and he has just given some of his own personality a little equal time.

 

Is it fair? I don't know.

732778[/snapback]

 

There is no question that he is a brand name. Disney will probably dump him (they may have already, I have not been following it). You also have to look at the publicity he has generated over this. There will be people protesting his next movie (and probably all subsequent movies). Would those protests backfire and bring more people out to see his movies?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

No. Because that is not a fact. You could say there are a lot of Jews in the media and it would be okay. You could say there are a lot of hymies in the media and it would not, but simply because of the word hymie.

732803[/snapback]

 

That's in effect what Jackson said about NYC. Said the place was run by Jews.

 

How is that different?

[cåblelady]

What Gibson said is far, far different, and far, far worse, blaming the world's ills on a people and a religion because he is a member of another faith. With clear hatred for them.

732796[/snapback]

Everybody that hates the Jews hate them because they are God's Chosen People. It's that simple. Really. Fire away.

[Kelly the Dog]

The message he sent was the same. The difference is your perspective on the stituation.

732804[/snapback]

On the surface, that is true. Technically, that is true. But I think you cannot look at everything that way, unless you are only speaking about art. Surely, the intent of someone has an effect on what is said. If your brother or friend says "you're an ****" and you know he doesn't think so because of your history, it is not the same as someone else saying "you're an ****". I think the message does change in almost all communication once new information is presented as to the background of the speaker. Art is a little different because it is meant to be interpreted in different ways, a different way for each individual viewer. You cannot tell me that what Michael Moore thinks and intends behind his garbage has an influence on how you or anyone else perceives it. It has a huge effect. If you didn't know Moore's politics, you may give it a lot more credence. But knowing he is a lying disingenuous slimeball, a different perspective is taken. The message is not the same.

[X. Benedict]

That's in effect what Jackson said about NYC. Said the place was run by Jews.

 

How is that different?

732812[/snapback]

 

If I remember correctly, he was in a political campaign (1984). And the context was that he was worried about the danger any comments or how a public platform on the Palestinians would play in New York.

 

I would have to fact check that - but I think that is what I remember.

[Kelly the Dog]

If I remember correctly, he was in a political campaign (1984). And the context was that he was worried about the danger any comments or how a public platform on the Palestinians would play in New York.

 

I would have to fact check that - but I think that is what I remember.

732818[/snapback]

What I remember is he said it in a private interview with a black reporter from the Post. He was talking about the fact he felt that some Jewish leaders conspiring against him in the election. Not that the city is run by Jews. But I could be wrong, too.

[KRC]

On the surface, that is true. Technically, that is true. But I think you cannot look at everything that way, unless you are only speaking about art. Surely, the intent of someone has an effect on what is said. If your brother or friend says "you're an ****" and you know he doesn't think so because of your history, it is not the same as someone else saying "you're an ****". I think the message does change in almost all communication once new information is presented as to the background of the speaker. Art is a little different because it is meant to be interpreted in different ways, a different way for each individual viewer. You cannot tell me that what Michael Moore thinks and intends behind his garbage has an influence on how you or anyone else perceives it. It has a huge effect. If you didn't know Moore's politics, you may give it a lot more credence. But knowing he is a lying disingenuous slimeball, a different perspective is taken. The message is not the same.

732817[/snapback]

 

I think we are splitting hairs here. Mel Gibson's intent has not changed. The message he sent when he release the film has not changed. Regardless of whether we are talking about art or not, his message has not changed. The only thing that has changed is how you have interpreted his message.

 

Let's use your example: If someone were to call you an **** and you have no history with that person, you would be offended. After you get to know that person and they call you an ****, you will see that it is a term of endearment. Has the original message changed (term of endearment) or has your interpretation of the message changed (offended to not offended)?

 

IMO, the message being sent is independent of the way it is interpreted. The same message can (and will) have different meanings to different people. Does that mean that he is sending out multiple messages? I would say no. He is sending out one message. The interpretations are numerous. This happened when he first released the Passion. Some people took it one way (anti-Semetic). Others did not see it that way at all. Has his message changed? No.

[Kelly the Dog]

There is no question that he is a brand name. Disney will probably dump him (they may have already, I have not been following it). You also have to look at the publicity he has generated over this. There will be people protesting his next movie (and probably all subsequent movies). Would those protests backfire and bring more people out to see his movies?

732811[/snapback]

Funny how money works. Disney is backing him. They don't plan to change a thing on his upcoming film (at least that is their stance today). The new prez of Disney, Oren Aviv, said "I've worked with Mel on several films over the years and we have a great relationship. We all make mistakes and I've accepted his apology to what was a regrettable situation. I wish him the very best on his path to healing." Simply because they don't want the film to flop. One thing to note, however, is that Gibson's company put up most if not all of the money on the movie, rather than Disney, so their investment is only on the marketing and distribution end, not shelling out 100 million in production costs.

 

EDIT: ABC did, however, cancel a project they had been working on with Icon (Gibson's company) about the Holocaust, saying we don't think we should be doing this with him at this point. But that project had been wallowing for two years without going forward and they had already been fed up with it. It was a seemingly easy decision not a difficult one.

[Kelly the Dog]

I think we are splitting hairs here. Mel Gibson's intent has not changed. The message he sent when he release the film has not changed. Regardless of whether we are talking about art or not, his message has not changed. The only thing that has changed is how you have interpreted his message.

 

Let's use your example: If someone were to call you an **** and you have no history with that person, you would be offended. After you get to know that person and they call you an ****, you will see that it is a term of endearment. Has the original message changed (term of endearment) or has your interpretation of the message changed (offended to not offended)?

 

IMO, the message being sent is independent of the way it is interpreted. The same message can (and will) have different meanings to different people. Does that mean that he is sending out multiple messages? I would say no. He is sending out one message. The interpretations are numerous. This happened when he first released the Passion. Some people took it one way (anti-Semetic). Others did not see it that way at all. Has his message changed? No.

732835[/snapback]

That is self-evident. Obviously the message cannot change. Even if Gibson only became anti-semitic after that film had been released. My question was whether I or anyone should perceive the film differently now than we did, knowing the new information. I see it both ways. It is what it is, and is just art, and the story exists on film to be taken by each person differently. The story of that film and the dialogue and the visuals remain constant. But does knowing it was made by someone who hates Jews make that message different, as in should I take that message different? I am not sure. Maybe we should, because maybe the slanty noses of the actors he hired (an accusation before) has merit and distorts the story. I think that's an interesting argument. I'm just not sure on which side I stand.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

What I remember is he said it in a private interview with a black reporter from the Post. He was talking about the fact he felt that some Jewish leaders conspiring against him in the election. Not that the city is run by Jews. But I could be wrong, too.

732826[/snapback]

 

You're each half-right. Interview with a black reporter from the Washintgon Post (not "private" - what the hell is a "private interview", anyway? ) Jackson thought that he could get away with referring to NYC as "Hymietown" in the interview because a "fellow brother" would never "sell him out". As it turned out, the reporter had more integrity than loyalty to skin color, and published the quote.

 

Jackson's "The Jews are conspiring against me" actually came after the article was published, and after he denied ever making the remarks. The reporter who printed them received death threats from the Nation of Islam for being disloyal to his race.

[RickW]

Everybody that hates the Jews hate them because they are God's Chosen People. It's that simple. Really. Fire away.

732816[/snapback]

 

I don't think that a racist need be religiously driven. There are a lot of reasons for racism (ignorance, jealousy, mental incompetence, etc.). The religious argument may have held more water 30+ years ago but today it is only one cause in many from my perspective. I expect there are a number of racially intolerant atheists.

 

Who knows why he said anything? Maybe he is a racist idiot or maybe he was a drunken moron who was so pissed-off at being caught that he attacked the police officer personally (weak argument, but possible nonetheless).

[X. Benedict]

What I remember is he said it in a private interview with a black reporter from the Post. He was talking about the fact he felt that some Jewish leaders conspiring against him in the election. Not that the city is run by Jews. But I could be wrong, too.

732826[/snapback]

 

 

You are correct: from Columbia Journalism Review July/Aug 1984 pg 32. :

 

"The precipitating incident was, of course, the disclosure that Jackson, in "background"

conversation, had called Jews "Hymie" and New York "Hymietown>" The presidentail canidates remarks appeared in the 37th and 38th paragraphs of a 52 paragraph Washington Post story written by Rick Atkinson, a white reporter, that ran on February 13.

After 13 days of denying and then expressing doubt that he had made the comments, Jackson .....finally apologized."

 

 

--------

 

The comments were made to Milton Coleman a black reporter that who was the source of Atkinson's "Hymie" dislosure.

 

Coleman had apparently not thought the comments were newsworthy- (or off-record) - and Atkinson picked them up secondhand. (ironically this all was taking place in the context of

the much soulsearching by black journalists in the wake of the Janet Cook Pulitzer

scandal at the Washington Post.

 

Obviously Milton Coleman thought the remarks were not important or in confidence -

but the Washington Post Editors were having a hyper-vigilant year.

 

Coleman later reported that the comments took place under the request by Jackson to

"Let's talk black talk."

 

Moral of the story: Sell out Jesse to your editor and you may get death threats from

Louis Farrakhan

[GG]

oooooh, I see. So I could say that the media is controlled by Jews and be a-ok on the anti-semitism meter?

732798[/snapback]

 

Get it right. Hollywood is run by gay Jews.

 

 

 

And once again, Parker and Stone are ahead of the curve by at least one year.

[cåblelady]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206560,00.html

 

Mel asks for help.

[meazza]

Everybody that hates the Jews hate them because they are God's Chosen People. It's that simple. Really. Fire away.

732816[/snapback]

 

More than the Italians I think not

[Orton's Arm]

There's a way of looking at this situation that maybe hasn't been considered. I watched "The Passion of the Christ," and I didn't see any ways in which the Gospel stories had been altered to make them anti-Semitic. "The Passion of the Christ" was a movie about deeply held Christian beliefs.

 

Upon releasing this movie, Gibson found himself attacked by a number of leading Jews. The accusations leveled against the movie were unfair, and maybe they infuriated Gibson. In a moment of drunken rage, the emotions these attacks caused could have led Gibson to say things he would later regret.

[Kelly the Dog]

There's a way of looking at this situation that maybe hasn't been considered.  I watched "The Passion of the Christ," and I didn't see any ways in which the Gospel stories had been altered to make them anti-Semitic.  "The Passion of the Christ" was a movie about deeply held Christian beliefs.

 

Upon releasing this movie, Gibson found himself attacked by a number of leading Jews.  The accusations leveled against the movie were unfair, and maybe they infuriated Gibson.  In a moment of drunken rage, the emotions these attacks caused could have led Gibson to say things he would later regret.

732923[/snapback]

So being attacked by "leading Jews" for his film would make someone not inclined to believe that "the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world" to then believe that to be true?

[GG]

Upon releasing this movie, Gibson found himself attacked by a number of leading Jews.  The accusations leveled against the movie were unfair, and maybe they infuriated Gibson.  In a moment of drunken rage, the emotions these attacks caused could have led Gibson to say things he would later regret.

732923[/snapback]

 

If you read on on your history, you will see that Passion Plays have generally preceeded a surge of violence against the Jews in old Europe. The accusations about the movie weren't about the movie not being factual, but that the movie would stir up latent anti-semtitism that usually followed the story.

 

Fortunately, US is not Europe, and the movie came and went. Who know's maybe this is Melly Mel's attempt at a new age sequel.