January 19, 2004 by s.z.

The Pope IS David Manning in Mel Gibson's Lethal Weapon 5: Jesus Returns (From the Dead) NY Times film critic Frank Rich has written a new piece about Mel Gibson's Jesus movie.  This one is about how the "Gibson's camp" is using a remark from the ailing Pope to help market their movie -- even though there are doubts about whether the Pope actually said what Steve McEveety, the movie's producer, claimed the Pope said.  So, maybe it ISN'T as it was. Pope John Paul II, frail with Parkinson's at 83, is rarely able to celebrate Mass. But why should his suffering deter a Hollywood producer from roping him into a publicity campaign to sell a movie? [snip] A week after the stories first appeared, the highly respected Catholic News Service also raised that question [of whether the Pope really gave the movie a thumbs-up], quoting "a senior Vatican official close to the pope" as saying that after seeing the movie, the pope "made no comment. The Holy Father does not comment, does not give judgments on art." I sought clarification from the Vatican spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls. His secretary, Rosangela Mancusi, responded by e-mail that "this office does not usually comment on the private activities of the Holy Father" and would neither confirm nor deny the pope's feelings about "The Passion." Rich mentions (again) that he hasn't been invited to see the movie, but that The NY Post obtained (stole) a copy of the film and showed it to five "denominationally diverse New Yorkers" (a Priest, a Rabbi, a film critic, a religion writer, and a Baptist "Post Reader" went into a movie screening . . .), and only the Baptist layperson wasn't bothered by the film's perceived anti-semitism.  And Rich denounces (again) the marketing of the film: So, John Paul's plug notwithstanding, the jury remains out. What can be said without qualification is that the marketing of this film remains a masterpiece of ugliness typical of the cultural moment, when hucksters wield holier-than-thou piety as a club for their own profit. For months now, Gibson and his supporters have tried to slur the religiosity of anyone who might dissent from his film's rollout. (And have succeeded, if my mail is any indication.) In The New Yorker last autumn, the star labeled both The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times "anti-Christian" newspapers for running articles questioning his film and, in this vein, accused "modern secular Judaism" of wanting "to blame the Holocaust on the Catholic Church," a non sequitur of unambiguous malice. This game of hard-knuckle religious politics is all too recognizable in the new millennium, when there are products to be sold and votes to be won by pandering to church-going Americans. The us-vs.-them religious one-upmanship is more about political partisanship than liturgical debate. Its adherents practice what can only be called spiritual McCarthyism, a witch hunt in which "secularists" are targeted as if they were subversives and those who ostentatiously wrap themselves in God are patriots. As Bugs Bunny said, "Of course you realize this means war." So, we have David Horowitz delivering this salvo: "Frank Rich, anti-Christian hypocrite, and enemy of artistic freedom."  And that's just the title!  In the first paragraph, David says: Rich's latest venom is directed at the Pope's endorsement of The Passion, which Rich attempts to turn into a commercial exploitation of the Pope by conniving Hollywood producers. Rich should have seen the film before indulging himself in drive-by character assassinations like this. Um, David -- a journalist can comment on the Pope's "endorsement" without having seen the film.  They are two separate things.  For instance, this is what John L. Allen, Jr., the Vatican correspondent for Catholic Reporter, had to say (without having seen the movie): I reported the pope’s reaction, meaning that John Paul believes the movie is a faithful depiction of the last 12 hours of Christ’s life as described in the New Testament, in a breaking news piece on the NCR web site on Wednesday, Dec. 17, at midday (see Pope likes Gibson's new film).  At virtually the same moment, the Wall Street Journal posted a column by Peggy Noonan in which she too quoted the pope, with the same words. Noonan cited the pope’s private aide, Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, as the source, relayed to her through the movie’s producer Steve McEveety; my piece quoted an unnamed senior Vatican official. I had not been aware of Noonan’s column, as I presume she was unaware of my report. The pope’s quote made the rounds of major news agencies, alternately citing the National Catholic Reporter or the Wall Street Journal. On Dec. 24, however, Catholic News Service quoted two Vatican officials, once again unnamed, to the effect that the pope had made no such remark. “The Holy Father does not comment, does not give judgments on art,” one official said to CNS. “I repeat: There was no declaration, no judgment from the pope.” So, who is telling the truth?  Why doesn't Vatican spokesperson Joaquin Navarro-Valls clarify things?  One possible explanation, according to Vatican sources, is that some individuals in the papal household were unhappy with the way the movie’s producers seemed to be milking John Paul’s reaction for publicity purposes.  Although the pope wanted the people responsible for the film to know he enjoyed it, he didn’t necessarily intend “It is at it was” to end up on posters and newspaper ads. Hence the silence has perhaps been styled to dampen commercial exploitation. Or, says Allen, it could just be that the Vatican "doesn't like to comment on the Pope's private affair" -- a policy which Gibson and company might want to consider. But back to why Frank Rich is an anti-Christian hypocrite, enemy of artistic freedom, and eater of fluffy, little puppies: The film is -- as I have said before (as one who has seen it) -- as close as art gets to a religious experience.  It is perfectly appropriate for the Pope to give The Passion the kind of imprimatur that will ensure that the maximum number of his flock will see it as well. Isn't it usually up to GOD to decide what is and isn't appropriate for the Pope to do, David?  And anyway, Rich wasn't talking about whether it was wrong of the Pope to endorse a movie, but whether a movie producer is using the passing comment of a frail, old man AS an "imprimatur," even if the man didn't intend it to be one ; and in fact, whether or not he actually said anything at all. Rich's ignorant attacks on this film personify the smear tactics and "McCarthyism" and book-burning he pretends to abhor. They also expose his hypocrisy. In the past Rich has defended attacks on Christianity such as the dung-rendered painting of the Virgin Mary on the grounds that they are works of art. So is The Passion, which should be accorded the same freedoms that Rich apparently reserves for trash that he happens to have seen and agreed with. I've never heard Rich say that the movie shouldn't be seen.  He has, however, denounced Mel's attempts to generate controversy to sell the movie.  He's not saying that it shouldn't be allowed to have an audience -- only that Gibson should let people view it AS a movie instead of the central cause of a Holy War.  And David, I don't think there is "Freedom to Not Have Media Critics Complain About Your Marketing Strategy" mentioned in the Artistic Constitution. But let us read what swooning Gibson fan K.Lo of the Kiddie Korner had to say: "SPIRITUAL MCCARTHYISM" [Kathryn Jean Lopez] What Frank Rich does when he doesn't get on a movie's preview list. In all his anti-Gibson & co. anger, he somehow manages to leave out details about organized campaigns against the movie, stolen scripts and such. Mel Gibson had an excellent reason to want to hear what a Michael Medved thought about the film (and, yes, the pope, too!)--remember that before selective screenings happened, there was just the anti-Passion/it's-anti-Semitic talk. And Kathryn somehow manages to leave out details (related by Rich) about Mel complaining about Jewish attempts to ban the movie BEFORE anyone had ever heard of it.   According to databank searches, not a single person, Jewish or otherwise, had criticized ‘‘The Passion’’ when Gibson went on O’Reilly’s show on Jan. 14 in January to defend himself against ‘‘any Jewish people’’ who might attack the film. Nor had anyone yet publicly criticized ‘‘The Passion’’ or Gibson by March 7, when The Wall Street Journal ran the interview in which the star again defended himself against Jewish critics who didn’t yet exist. (Even now, no one has called for censorship of the film — only for the right to see it and, if necessary, debate its content.) And yes, I'm sure Mel had an excellent reason to want to hear what a Michael Medved thought of it: because he wanted to know if any of the actors had ever did or said anything "liberal," which might ruin the film experience for Medved.  Of course, he wanted the Pope to see it so Peggy Noonen would have something to write about. But Kathryn has more to say: NYPOST PREVIEW [Kathryn Jean Lopez] A sidenote on that Rich piece: here's what I said at the time about it--the most interesting part was that the one non-professional, who did not go in with an ideological bias of some sort, praised it. I suspect we'll be seeing more of that than not come Ash Wednesday (when the movie is released): honest, open reactions to a new kind of movie with an eternal message. So, everybody who knew something about religion (including the Catholic Priest) had "an idealogical bias" which prevented them from liking it, leaving only the Baptist "average NY Post reader" to praise it.  Yup, that's the kind of endorsement that counts, not the Pope's apocraphycal one. And yes, it IS a new kind of movie: the first Aramaic action film/Holy Sacrament. See it this Ash Wednesday at a movie house of worship near you, or face Cardinal Biggles! 6:57:21 AM

comment [] trackback []

Start the Week the TownHall Way Robert Novak Howard Dean is slipping in the Iowa polls because he's an angry guy -- and they like their candidates NICE in the Midwest.  Dean's problems nationally started when he dismissed the importance of capturing Saddam Hussein. But his Iowa slide began, says one prominent Democratic neutral, on Jan. 11 in the town of Oelwein, when a Republican heckler called Dean "pompous," accused him of "mean mouthing" and then interrupted him. Dean erupted, shouting: "You sit down! You had your say! Now, I'm going to have my say!"   What Dean SHOULD have done, of course, is to have all the hecklers, protesters, and Republicans roped off in a "free speech zone" in another town.  Oh, and we ARE a lot safer since Saddam is captured.  Everybody knows that! (Except 54 percent of likely caucus participants.) Suzanne Fields Suzanne feels Al Franken's proposed radio show has him "going unarmed into a battle of wits and humor against Rush Limbaugh."  You see, conservatives are "winning the culture war" because all the funny, smart people like Dennis Miller are on their side.  As an illustration of their total lack of humor, the left compares Bush to Hitler and thinks that's funny! Mocking the horrors of the Holocaust has become a cottage industry in the dark corners of the anti-Semitic world, but who could have believed that in 60 years references to the Nazis would be played for laughs. 60 years?  Um, Suzanne, ever heard of To Be or Not To Be?  The Producers?  "Hogan's Heroes"?  MoveOn.org, an extremist advocacy group, held a contest for anti-Bush television commercials to be broadcast during State of the Union week, and posted two entries that likened the president to Hitler, and the ritual apologies for letting the Hitler ads slips through the "screening process" had hardly cooled before they stepped into their own waste again at an anti-Bush rally in Manhattan.  Comedian Margaret Cho laced her Hitler analogy with obscenities that aren't printable in a family newspaper (and would make a public toilet blush). She professed wonderment over why the Republican National Committee was so angry over two entries: "They're like looking for Hitler in a haystack. You know? I mean, George Bush is not Hitler. He would be if he ... applied himself."  Actually, I find that funny -- and it didn't make my toilet blush even a little.  I think Al should have Margaret as a guest on his radio show. Paul Greenberg Paul claims Martin Luther King as a conservative, then denounces the black leaders who have followed him (except the conservative ones). But today's darkness eludes touch. It goes to and fro in the land, and walks freely up and down in it, recognizing no racial or political boundaries. It tempts all. It's a kind of equal-opportunity bigotry. It ensnarls the courts in endless disputations that defeat good will. It substitutes educanto for learning, and quotas for simple justice, once again putting group entitlements before individual rights. It labels any black spokesmen who don't adhere to the party line - Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, luminaries all -traitors to their race.  Paul (and all other conservapundits), we've gone over this before: you lose all credibility when you start calling Clarence Thomas and Alan Keyes "luminaries."  If you can't find some smart, sane black conservatives to list, find some other subject to write about. John Leo Bush has betrayed both fiscal and social conservatism.  Leo haffs no son . . .er. President. Social conservatives work hard to elect a Republican president, who then tends to behave pretty much like a conventional Democrat on social issues.   And don't you hate it when that happens? Debra Saunders Debra, who just last month said she wanted Dennis Kucinich to be the Democratic candidate, now wants Kerry.  What a little trollop! I want a Democratic nominee whose wife's stock portfolio makes Veep Dick Cheney's erstwhile Halliburton holdings look like chump change. I want a wannabe first lady who, if the Bushies make light of her husband, retorts that the Bushies don't even speak French -- with her r's trilled. It's FUN to deride candidates because their wives speak French or dress sensibly (see Kathleen Parker's TownHall piece from Saturday).  It's even MORE fun when former President's wives can be called "Hitlery."  Hey, and that happened LESS than 60 years after the Holocaust! I want a nominee who fires top staff when he's down in the polls. It's especially choice when, afterward, his friends explain to the media that Kerry is always down in the polls, at least until the last minute, when he inevitably bounces back and sails to victory.   And don't you hate it when recent events seem to mock your mockery of a candidate's last-minute-bouncing-back ability?  I bet Debra does! So, TownHall.  Drink plenty of fluids, get some rest, and call me tomorrow if your condition hasn't improved.   4:34:33 AM

comment [] trackback []

The No Rushes Club         Rush Limbaugh tells a listener why he's upset over the way the sports media keeps dredging up his comments regarding McNabb, now that McNabb is having a great season: And as everybody knows, we all have dreams and desires and we all want to do new things, and it was one of my long-held desires to go into NFL media-wise.  And one of the reasons why is because as a consumer, when I would sit around and watch the Fox pregame show with those guys or the ESPN pregame show or whatever, it looked like everybody was part of a fraternity, having fun, it just looked like something that would be cool to be part of, and I love the game anyway, and it finally hit on me last night that what has really disappointed me the most is that I wasted a bunch of time respecting a lot of people.  A lot of people that I respected, I was wrong to do so.  I mean, a lot of people that I had on a pedestal, a lot of people that I thought, these are achievement-oriented, accomplished people.  And it turns out that the respect and the admiration that I had for them has been wasted and unwarranted, and that is a real disappointment, to be let down like that, really, really is.  I.e., "Why don't those stupid idiots let me in their crappy club for jerks?" We actually feel some pity for Rush - we see this lonely, socially awkward man watching the sportscasters with envy, noting how much fun they seem to be having.  He thinks that it would be SO COOL to hang out with them - it would almost like be like having friends!  And then his dream comes true and he finally gets admitted to the club, and it IS the greatest thing that he's ever been a part of, only he screws up (of course), and is unceremoniously kicked out a couple of weeks later.  It's an American tragedy, as told by our greatest dramatists, the Simpsons writers.  Sort of. We really, really hope Rush finds the fellowship he's searching for at NA.  2:22:41 AM