Vorkosigan

Layman --

are you sure the script was stolen? Fredriksen's account seems to suggest that they got hold of the script from Gibson through Icon sources. Further, she specifically points out that the charge of theft of script is a canard attributable to (who else?) lawyers for Icon, as part of the larger spin, attack, and disinformation campaign aimed at discrediting these critics.

"These two assertions--that the script was purloined, and that the final film is quite different from the script--have been endlessly repeated in numerous follow-up stories in Reuters, the New York Daily News, and elsewhere. NewsMax.com even had the chutzpah to insinuate that the scholars had leaked their own "supposedly confidential report" to the news media."

She adds in direct rebuttal of the "stolen" charge:

"In light of Gibson's and Icon's contact with Fisher prior to receiving our report, their first assertion--that we were working with a stolen script--is at least disingenuous. Gibson himself may not have formally "authorized" our reviewing his screenplay. But he certainly knew what we were doing. He had cleared Fulco to function as the point man. And, through Fisher, he had been in contact with us. Also, the initial condition of confidentiality could only have come from his side. Icon did not decide that the script had been "stolen" until they learned of our response and did not like it."

This writing is scholarly reserve and restraint. The script was certainly not "stolen." The whole thing was a setup by Gibson to distance himself from the consequences of NT criticism -- plausible deniability. If the critics like it, he would be covered with glory, and if they said it was trash, then he could claim they didn't see the real script, and anyway they didn't have his permission. I'll bet the whole strategy was laid out before hand. You're a functioning lawyer, Layman. Don't you know a setup when you see one?

Vorkosigan

Layman

Absolutely. Which is why the NCCB returned their versions.


No, it does not.

I know what she charges. And her defensiveness reinforces the fact that she is aware that the manuscript was stolen.

Come on. You guys are letting your usual anti Christian bigotry cloud your judgment. Would Icon give the ADL and NCCB early manuscripts of an incomplete film without some signing of confidentiality? Of course not.

She admits the manuscript was not provided by Icon. It was stolen. And that Gibson had point people to deal with those who were worried about anti-semitism in a Jesus film is unsurprising. Nor is there any reason to suppose that all those who have raised the spector had stolen manuscripts. Many have voiced such concerns without having seen the stolen manuscript.

Accusing Gibson's film of causing anti-Jewish attacks in Poland and Spain and hoping God takes judgment on Mel is scholarly reserve and restraint? Do you have any integrity or do you just write this stuff with no conscience. Few scholars I know wish the wrath of God on movie producers who don't makes films as they wish they would.

PF: When violence breaks out, Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to.

When, not if. And, Gibson will have to answer to God.

In what way are these comments scholarly? Or restrained?

Good grief. How pathetic.

It certainly was stolen. If they signed for an authorized copy let them show the documents? They can't. Because they had no authorization.

All baseless speculation contradicted by their own admissions. Do you really think Gibson is naive enough to think that an ad-hoc committee by the ADL is going to like a film made by a traditional Catholic based on the gospels?

The manuscript was stolen. The NCCB realized they got caugth with their hand in the cookie jar and have returned their scripts. Others apparently have refused to do so.

It amazes me how certain you are about things you are truly ignorant regarding, Vork.

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman
Absolutely. Which is why the NCCB returned their versions.

I know what she charges. And her defensiveness reinforces the fact that she is aware that the manuscript was stolen.

But Layman, she says specifically that the charge of theft is "false." So she is not "aware" that it was stolen. She gives a somewhat detailed account of how the manuscript came to be reviewed.

Come on. You guys are letting your usual anti Christian bigotry cloud your judgment. Would Icon give the ADL and NCCB early manuscripts of an incomplete film without some signing of confidentiality? Of course not.

Yes, that was Fredriksen's point. Here's what she says:

In light of Gibson's and Icon's contact with Fisher prior to receiving our report, their first assertion--that we were working with a stolen script--is at least disingenuous. Gibson himself may not have formally "authorized" our reviewing his screenplay. But he certainly knew what we were doing. He had cleared Fulco to function as the point man. And, through Fisher, he had been in contact with us. Also, the initial condition of confidentiality could only have come from his side. Icon did not decide that the script had been "stolen" until they learned of our response and did not like it.

Two points she clearly made (1) the script was not stolen even though they had no formal permission from Gibson and (2) the fact that confidentiality was required is an argument in support of (1). In other words, you're making her case for her. How could Icon demand confidentiality on a stolen script? The whole thing is a scam, Layman.

She admits the manuscript was not provided by Icon. It was stolen.

No, it was provided by Icon's point man, Fulco. The scholars were set up in a publicity stunt....

And that Gibson had point people to deal with those who were worried about anti-semitism in a Jesus film is unsurprising. Nor is there any reason to suppose that all those who have raised the spector had stolen manuscripts. Many have voiced such concerns without having seen the stolen manuscript.

No kidding. It's a touchy subject. And the manuscript was not stolen. So unless you have evidence that it was stolen, this slander will have to cease. Has anyone been charged in this "theft?" No, because there was no theft.

Accusing Gibson's film of causing anti-Jewish attacks in Poland and Spain and hoping God takes judgment on Mel is scholarly reserve and restraint?

Here is what Fredriksen says:
Anti-Semitism is not the problem in America that it is in the rest of the world. (The hateful e-mails that we have received have been balanced by others, from church leaders of inter-faith efforts across the country, expressing their support and their concern.) But I shudder to think how The Passion will play once its subtitles shift from English to Polish, or Spanish, or French, or Russian. When violence breaks out, Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to.

Is this worry justified? Yes. Does she express hope that Gibson will suffer God's judgment? No. She expresses her belief -- same as yours -- that God judges humans when they commit sin.

Do you have any integrity or do you just write this stuff with no conscience.

Layman, I have not attacked you or your religion in this manner in this thread. Please stop.

Few scholars I know wish the wrath of God on movie producers who don't makes films as they wish they would.

Since she didn't wish the wrath of God on him "for making a film the wrong way" but because of its possible effects on anti-Semitism among Christian populations in Europe and elsewhere, I do not know where this comment comes from.

When, not if. And, Gibson will have to answer to God.

In what way are these comments scholarly? Or restrained?

Why yes. Think of all the other things she could have said about Gibson, but refrained from saying. For example, just think of the colorful language that could have been used to describe the tactics of his lawyers. This same point was made by the team's report that I linked above:

In this era, when ancient Christian antisemitic motifs are being recirculated widely because of international conflicts, any Christian producer of a dramatic presentation of the death of Jesus has a considerable moral responsibility.

I quite agree.

It certainly was stolen. If they signed for an authorized copy let them show the documents? They can't. Because they had no authorization.

No problem. Let Icon file charges. Why not? Because there was no theft. Because Gibson let them have a script as part of a publicity-generating set-up. Fredriksen was right about one thing. They were naive. As the team wrote:

Since our evaluation was completed, media reports have made public the claim of Icon Productions that the script we reviewed was unauthorized. Our knowledge at the time of our review was that persons associated with the production, including Mel Gibson himself, were aware that this evaluation was being done and had agreed to receive it.

In other words, they reviewed the manuscript legally forwarded to them from higher-ups in good faith. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please forward it.

All baseless speculation contradicted by their own admissions. Do you really think Gibson is naive enough to think that an ad-hoc committee by the ADL is going to like a film made by a traditional Catholic based on the gospels?

Nope. That's why I think it was a publicity stunt. "Look at the Catholics and Jews persecuting my film!" he can say now, and generate even more sales. A neat set-up, completely amoral. No doubt dreamed up by the lawyers now putting out disinformation that apparently have fallen for hook, line, and sinker.

It amazes me how certain you are about things you are truly ignorant regarding, Vork.

LOL. Evidence that the manuscript was stolen? For example, how was Icon able to get scholars to agree to confidentially examine a document which was stolen? And why would eight scholars of integrity agree to examine a document they knew was stolen? And why did accusations of theft occur only after the negative review was forwarded? And if the documents were stolen, how was it that they were forwarded from the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (UCCSB). Did the UCCSB steal them, or what?

Tell you what. You can make your case a lot more strongly if you can show me that a claim of theft was made during the review process and long prior to the release of the negative review. In fact, no accusation of theft was made until May 16, although the script had been reviewed three weeks earlier, over Easter. In other words, a month went by, during which the Ad Hoc group communicated its results to Icon, but no accusation of theft was made.

We're looking at a publicity stunt, Layman. Anyway, why are you so emotionally invested in this? Do you think that Fredriksen's fears are unreasonable?

Vorkosigan

Toto

The Los Angeles Times has taken a critical stance on Gibson and his theology:

"Passion" shaping up as Gibson's lethal weapon {unfortunately only available with a paid subscription to the LA Times or $4.95/mo fee.}

the_cave

For all I know, the film is in fact disturbingly anti-Semitic. However, the fact remains that almost no one has bothered to either actually say it is or not, or EVEN TO DESCRIBE THE POTENTIALLY ANTI-SEMITIC CONTENTS.

The Klinghoffer article that Vorkosigan cites in the OP is the FIRST mention I have seen of any potentially anti-Semitic elements in the film.

The most irritating thing about the Friedriksen article was, she does not anywhere come out and say what it is that one might find offensive. Read it carefully (if you're a subscriber, that is, though you can sign up for a free trial if you like); she doesn't describe even one scene from the film that could either be construed to be anti-Semitic, nor does she in fact make this claim, or even suggest it, for even one element of the film that she does describe. She merely makes dark insinuations about what the film "might" or "could" do to rouse up anti-Semitic reactions. [edited from: "so to rouse up"!! Whoops.]

(While I'm at it: "dress-rehearsals for the Shoah"?? Friedriksen's certainly entitled to her opinions, but perhaps unelaborated historical interpretations like this should be kept out of supposedly objective journalism until such time as they are more widely accepted. I suppose I could be wrong to say that.)

the_cave

The LA Times either needs to hire better fact-checkers, or someone somewhere needs to provide an explanation. The WSJ has previously reported that Mel Gibson attends a perfectly orthodox Catholic church (the same that Martin Sheen attends, I believe). Yes, many of his family members attend forbidden Tridentine masses and are Sedevacanti. But to my knowledge, Mr. Gibson doesn't.

Look, I'm not really trying to defend the guy, but he's being attacked by people who have NEVER SEEN THE FILM IN QUESTION, using false and ad hominem attacks. Can we maybe just wait until it ACTUALLY COMES OUT until we critique it?

Toto

Gibson has allowed selected conservatives to see the film, but none of his critics. (It appears to be part of his marketing plan to keep the opposition fuming.)

Cal Thomas liked it

Claims he is a Traditionalist Catholic

I haven't seen a reference to the WSJ article, and the idea that Gibson is a Traditionalist Catholic seems widespread. (Is Albert Cipriani still around?)

Doctor X

For what it is worth, I watched Bill O'Reilly to see if anyone wrote in correcting his claims about Tacitus and Josephus. He had this person on--she did not do well answering rather relaxed questions. She continually cited John as if it was an accurate history.

Enough!

Let him release the film.

See what it does.

Let the chips fall where it may.

This is beginning to remind me of Malcom Mugeridge and others condemning The Life of Brian without having seen the film.

--J.D.

Vorkosigan

Such unelaborated interpretations should be kept out....especially if one has signed a confidentiality agreement not to mention them in public, as Fredriksen and the others have.

Vorkosigan

the_cave

...sigh...well, they tied their own hands, that's all I can say...