Jewish Link Mexico and Israel – The iconic Hollywood actor of great successes for 40 years, the superstar of an entire era, one of the heavyweight names in contemporary cinema, the legendary “Max” from Mad Max (1979) or the impulsive detective “Martin Riggs” in the iconic 80s/90s franchise “Lethal Weapon”, he is undoubtedly a world celebrity for better and for worse, as if he were a living version of “Doctor Jeykill and Mr. Hyde” .
Gibson is acclaimed and celebrated, as well as repudiated and despised by millions, among whom we can add many Jews, who, as a group in an almost uniform way, vomit the charismatic picture of the protagonist of the comedy “What women want” for two things: his role as director of “The Passion of the Christ” (2004) and for his infamous and shameful arrest in 2006 where the confirmed label of “anti-Semite” was awarded to him by the vulgar tabloid, biased and uninformed media that made him Gibson’s image and career is hell… But the Actor and Director who gave life to the Scottish hero William Wallace, is he really an anti-Semite?
New York is in the US… not in Australia
Mel Gibson was born in New York, but is usually defined as “Australian” especially by the cheap tabloids (is there another kind?) that ran and continue to run for almost 20 years the “note” of Gibson’s alleged “anti-Semitism” as if it were “current” and even worse “true”; these mainstream tabloids, biased and sensationalist to the max, who control the “narrative” of Hollywood immorality, totally subservient to a radical political agenda that has nothing to do with cinema, have failed to do at least mediocre research – to discover that today’s anti-hero that they hate so much, or are paid to hate, is not Australian but a son of the big… apple, as well as a fervent Catholic, this being frowned upon today by rotting Hollywood and the pro-atheist political liberalism and trendy socialism: just look at the current offer on the billboard, where the attack on the traditional is everywhere, therefore the attack on people of faith, believers, is something increasingly common in today’s Hollywood.
This is not a minor fact and in this particular case less. The actor was born in New York. The Gibson family moved to Australia when Mel was a teenager, studied college and drama at the National Institute of Dramatic Arts there, was cast in the role of “Max” in a low-budget Australian movie called “Mad Max” which It was a worldwide hit launching the actor’s career to the stars. As this is not a biography of Mel Gibson, his film career is not the most relevant right now.
“Mel” already with a prolific career that had made him a mega star of the seventh art that includes international awards as “best actor” by the Australian Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences or holder of two “Academy” awards in Hollywood , the dark side of Gibson came to light.
Gibson is the son of a radical Catholic who has made statements that can be classified as anti-Semitic or even denying the holocaust, but that is his father, not Mel. The USA is still a free country (it seems) and there is still something called “free speech” (under attack) that allows old Hutton Gibson, father of the star and his 10 brothers, to think and say what he wants. want, even if they are horrible things; and no, we are not obliged to agree, words do not harm, believing otherwise is a very current emotional fragility.
Hutton is not Mel, are we responsible for what our parents, uncles, brothers or dogs say / bark? The tabloids love to blame Mel for his father’s puerile remarks, but that’s not fair coverage. Context is everything and Mel Gibson was accused and “tagged” out of context.
2004 “The Passion of the Christ”
This very well shot movie by Gibson who is a talented director and story teller is about the last days of Jesus and his arrest by the Romans. Historically it is known and it is logical to understand that part of the Jewish people followed Jesus, if not who? Jesus and his followers were Jews in the land of Israel, in his country, called “Judea province” by the Roman invaders at that time and historical moment. (Islam and “the Palestinians” didn’t exist yet, which is weird because these nice Arabs claim to be the original settlers of that region.)
Jesus for Rome was one more troublemaker, and for the Jewish clergy an “uncomfortable” person who put them in conflict with the Romans and members of the same clergy. Jesus who had a movement of the poor and growing, while the clergy were not poor; here was a socio-economic conflict little explored when talking about this topic, if not avoided. Even so, the Jewish clergy had the difficult task of mediating with Rome, the invading power in the region. The country of the Jews had lost its autonomy and was under military invasion by the most powerful empire of the moment, that is to say: the Jewish clergy did not really have power, they were between a rock and a hard place. Rome was in total control, not the Jews. Rome with and by its laws and soldiers, prosecuted and arrested, tortured, sentenced and murdered Jesus of Nazareth, not “the Jews”.
It is true. Most of the Jewish clergy did not support Jesus or his growing movement; the clergy preferred not to provoke Rome or contradict the violent and powerful invader, this being an ignored aspect. Rome was in charge. The social tension was rising, so Jesus was left alone, even the Catholic version ensures that the Romans seized Jesus and violently tortured him and then put him on a cross, crucifixion being a common torture of the grotesque Roman repertoire of punishments.
The Romans did not follow orders from the Jewish clergy but from the Roman governor in the region. The same version ensures that the Jewish clergy agreed that Jesus was committing the crime of blasphemy and that gave “Rome a free hand” to eliminate the leader of a movement that was beginning to worry them. Remember that the Romans did not get involved in religious issues, theirs was the collection of taxes, labor, land and materials, so they reached agreements with the religious leaders of the nations they subjugated. In this case Rome tortured and exhibited Jesus as they exhibited themselves to the enemies of the Empire. And Mel Gibson’s film based on Catholic historical texts, not history, realistically delves into the last days of that great being: Jesus of Nazareth called “The Passion”.
Years before and years after Jesus, there were hundreds of pro-Jewish movements, some claiming to be from the “Messiah”, more than one proclaimed themselves that way, others did not, and they were to combat the Roman presence in the region with violence, and logically they were placated. with great force by the Latin invader.
“The Passion of the Christ” is based on the point of view of a religion, which does not pretend to have the patent of the truth, nor does it ask or force anyone to believe in its precepts, therefore it is incoherent to criticize the film from the point of view of other religions or with historical rigor. The texts that Gibson used to write the film are centuries old and are public knowledge, which the protagonist of “Maverick” did not invent. The people who were offended by this director’s very successful film apparently know nothing about the formation of the Catholic Church, about the first Christians who were all Jews, as well as about their persecution, and later about the Jews as such by Rome.
There are Catholics and historians who question the historical veracity of the film, as happens with any film that touches on historical issues. There are those who say that it does not adhere to the scriptures and others who say that it does, Gibson has argued that “-…I tried to be as truthful as possible so as not to contradict the scriptures and that gave me the opportunity to fill in certain gaps in the narration based on the logic of the story”-. The reality is that if someone wants to know about historical data or events, it would be best to consult specialized books, or study the subject with reliable sources and not through a movie, no matter how well supported it may be, at least not exclusively.
In the bad comedies “Father of the Bride” with Ben Stiller, Robert De Niro, Dustin Hoffman, etc., the family dog (Jewish) is a pet named “Moses” and no one was outraged or accused the producers of the film as “anti-Semites” for example, and there are hundreds of these examples of this type.
The film from before its release was accused of being anti-Semitic (without being seen); ironically, they were given the same “treatment” as Jews for centuries: smears to provoke them to be hated without evidence, just for bad publicity. In other words, those who accuse Gibson and his film of being “anti-Semites” acted and act exactly like the anti-Semites, only with a different theme. Such was the negative publicity that “20th Century Fox” withdrew as a distributor of the film to avoid being in the scandal that was already on the horizon, even warning that -it would be best not to distribute the film because it would be problematic-. And yes, but only for marketing and business reasons, not because they were worried that someone or any group might be offended. Obviously the enemies of Gibson and his faith in Hollywood were already working on how to sabotage the film.
The film was reviewed by Catholic and Jewish authorities, including the Anti-Defamation League, before release, addressing “complaints” about the possible promotion of anti-Semitism that the film was supposed to do. And there were moments of the film spoken in Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin, which raised some eyebrows causing concern.
In itself there were 6 points that the inter-religious team in charge of reviewing the film agreed to put into consideration: (and that only represent an opinion, that of the team in charge and not necessarily “the truth”). The points in question were about the second presentation of the Jews as violent enemies of Jesus, about errors in the historical aspect and consideration for the official Catholic opinion and interpretation. The Anti-Defamation League argued that the film: “Presented negative stereotypes of Jews” and Catholic priests questioned certain parts of the script that were considered “founders of historical anti-Semitism”, suggested avoiding using the arguments that have provoked, according to these “anti-Semitism for centuries ” (promoted by the catholic church during those centuries and not by the common people, obviously not the current status of the catholic church).
The review presented recommendations to prevent the film from being “controversial”, however the enormous publicity of the supposed anti-Semitism of the film, made the film anti-Semitic even before the premiere, whether or not it was, the damage was done, the “anti-Semitic” label ” was put to him by popular culture, not by evidence and as we all know: defamation is the pillar of the press, and in the middle of the show: the norm.
A text seen as “problematic” and that was suggested to be removed from the film says that -the blood of Jesus will fall on his descendants- according to the scriptures, and that it has been used and interpreted by anti-Semites as if it were a curse against being Jewish, which justified their contempt, rejection and violence for many centuries, however, Gibson, Catholic priests and even Jews have argued that this passage does not represent a condemnation or “curse” or anything against the Jews but – against all men there even contemporaries (whether Jewish or not)” – and that this is the position of the contemporary Catholic Church. Even so, the audio of that scene in Hebrew/Aramaic remained, but the subtitles in English and other languages were removed by Gibson to avoid misinterpretations. But it does not work.
The opinions, beliefs and points of view expressed by the author in the opinion articles, and the comments therein, do not necessarily reflect the position or editorial line of Enlace Judío. Authorized reproduction with the following mention: ©️EnlaceJudío
We wish to thank the writer of this post for this incredible web content
Mel Gibson: Neither Australian nor Anti-Semite – Part 1