Mel Gibson & the 'Passion' Attacks

By James Hirsen
Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2004

A NewsMax Report

On Feb. 25, Mel Gibson's epic film "The Passion of the Christ" will appear on thousands of movie screens across the nation. The cinematic launch will occur despite unprecedented attempts to alter its content and thwart its release. The Left Coast Report presents some of the lowlights of the past year in hopes that the heroic resolve and artistic vision of the film's creators can be fully appreciated.

Headlines (Scroll down for complete stories):
1. Genesis of a Smear Campaign
2. Unscholarly Conduct
3. Suppression of Expression
4. The Piracy
5. Virtual Hate
6. Poison Pens
7. 'The Passion' and the Pope

1. Genesis of a Smear Campaign

It all started in January of last year.

Mel Gibson appeared on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor."

The famed actor-producer-director let the world know that a print reporter was nosing around his family and friends trying to dig up dirt.

The reporter was freelance journalist Christopher Noxon. He wrote a hit piece that focused on Gibson's 85-year-old father. The article mischaracterized Mel's beliefs and those of his dad. It also tried to label the film as fringe propaganda.

Noxon's dirt-digging expedition might have been related to his family's interest in the same Malibu site where Mel Gibson was building a church.

The plot thickened as another group planned a full Gibson assault.

2. Unscholarly Conduct

With the help of an individual dubbed in an e-mail "our Deep Throat," a group of academics, who are part of what is known as the interfaith movement, got hold of a stolen early draft of a confidential script.

Using ideas and notes from the pilfered preliminary screenplay, the group generated a so-called confidential report that twisted the film's message.

Somehow the report landed in the hands of the news media. A number of its authors appeared delighted to have their criticisms aired in public, despite the fact that the report was based on incomplete, dated, confidential and pirated material.

In addition to theft, it seems that falsification was also part of the unscholarly game. The group tried to pawn itself off as an official body of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), but the USCCB subsequently issued a statement denying a connection with the anti-Gibson group.

Boston University's Paula Fredriksen has been a particularly high-profile player in the anti-"Passion" drama. She has referred to Scripture as "a kind of religious advertisement." She has promoted the idea that the Gospels "proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the Christian message through the device of using Jesus of Nazareth as a spokesperson for the evangelist's position."

On Dec. 22, 2001, the Washington Post delivered a sort of un-Christmas present from Fredriksen in the form of a comment about the trustworthiness of the New Testament. The Post quoted her as saying, "I can't think of any New Testament scholar who takes [the Gospel accounts of Jesus' birth] to be historically reliable," adding that most scholars believe that Christ was not born in Bethlehem.

It appears as if Fredriksen and friends could be on a mission to deconstruct the Gospels. They prattle on about "progressive interpretation" and "historical context" when it seems that what they really want is a rewrite of the Good Book. Could it be that their real beef with Mel has to do with the fact that he based his movie on the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

"The Passion" saga continued as film-snuffing sights were set on a potential distributor.

3. Suppression of Expression

In an effort to persuade Rupert Murdoch's Twentieth Century Fox to decline distribution of Gibson's film, New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind scheduled a press conference and demonstration. The event was supposed to take place in front of News Corp.'s Manhattan headquarters.

Twentieth Century Fox usually distributes Gibson's movies, but gave a thumbs-down on "The Passion."

As the New York Daily News reported, other Hollywood studios were also less than enthusiastic about taking on the project produced by Icon Productions.

Additionally, the New York Times rubbed salt into Icon's wounds by describing the film as chronicling "in bloody detail" the last hours of Jesus' life. It also called it "potentially inflammatory" and "not commercial enough for a high-profile mainstream studio like Fox."

In typical Gibson fashion, Mel and the crew gripped the wheel, rode out the bumps and were successful in finding a distributor.

Unfortunately, more trouble lay ahead.

4. The Piracy

In November of last year, the New York Post illegally obtained a pirated videotape of the Gibson film. Although this revelation is extraordinary in its own right, it's what a major newspaper did with the tape that made ignoble cinematic history.

Months before the film's scheduled release, the Post displayed the grainy second-generation videotape to its own assembled panel of critics. Four of the five reviewers who were present slammed the film in the pages of the paper.

Oscar-winning director Sydney Pollack put feelings into words in this way. He told E! Online News, "If I had made that picture, I would have felt raped."

Evidently the shenanigans weren't just outrageous, they were also illegal. The Los Angeles Times reported that federal authorities launched a probe.

Gibson and the folks at Icon had more head and heartache to endure.

5. Virtual Hate

Also in November, Anti-Defamation League held its annual meeting in New York.

ADL National Director Abraham Foxman let loose with one of the ugliest assaults on Gibson that had occurred to date. He said, "I think he's infected - seriously infected - with some very, very serious anti-Semitic views."

These words spewed forth from the leader of an organization that purportedly stands for tolerance.

Ironically, instead of modeling a virtue, Foxman ended up demonstrating exactly what hate speech sounds like.

In January 2004, uninvited ADL officials registered for a Christian pastors' conference where Gibson's film was set to be shown. They used the fabricated name "The Church of Truth" to gain entrance to the event.

After seeing the film, ADL denounced Gibson's picture as a "painful portrayal" and a "commercial crusade to the church community."

Most recently, Foxman requested that Gibson attach a disclaimer (drafted by Foxman) to the film denouncing any bigoted interpretation of his narrative.

No similar disclaimer has yet been submitted by Foxman for the spurious and insulting remarks he made about Gibson.

At the same time Mel and his mates were dealing with ADL matters, they were also experiencing an insidious print blitz.

6. Poison Pens

It seems that New York Times arts columnist Frank Rich felt the need to gear up the sleaze machine several times over to generate innuendo.

In his Aug. 3 column, Rich got stuck in sludge-slinging overdrive. He wrote that Gibson and his organization had been "baiting Jews," Matt Drudge was a "token Jew," traditionalist Catholics were a "fringe church," Rupert Murdoch was a "conservative non-Jew," Peter J. Boyer's article "sanitizes" Mel's father, Bill O'Reilly was "being paid" to defend Gibson, and Gibson spokesman Alan Nierob "plays bizarre games with the Holocaust." (Rich evidently missed the fact that Nierob is a second-generation Holocaust survivor and a founding member of the U.S. Holocaust Museum.)

Rich even tried to take a swipe at me. He claimed to "decode" a section of my book "Tales from the Left Coast," where I supposedly have "a fetish of repeating Bob Dylan's original name."

In September, the Jayson Blair understudy heaved more rubbish in Gibson's direction. After a Vatican official (who happens to be on the short list of papal prospects) raved about the movie and dismissed concerns over bigotry, Rich evidently decided to change his focus. Instead of going after the Passion product, he'd try attacking the Passion process.

He wrote, "Intentionally or not, the contentious rollout of 'The Passion' has resembled a political campaign, from its start on 'The O'Reilly Factor.'"

Getting little traction with that one, Rich tried to jump into a story that involved a higher authority.

7. 'The Passion' and the Pope

On Dec. 17, Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal reported that Pope John Paul II had seen Gibson's movie and said, "It is as it was."

Noonan had been given a written confirmation for the quote from the pope's official spokesman via e-mail.

The same day, National Catholic Reporter's main man at the Vatican, John Allen, reported the identical quote and attributed it to the pontiff. An unnamed senior Vatican official confirmed the quote.

The following day, Reuters joined in on reporting the pope's quote and cited an unnamed Vatican source.

The Los Angeles Times received its own independent corroboration for the story on Dec. 19.

On Dec. 24, Catholic News Service's Cindy Wooden claimed to have talked to "a senior Vatican official close to the pope" who said that the pontiff never said those words.

On Jan. 9, Allen reported that he had double-checked his original source and that the pope did indeed say, "It is as it was."

Enter once again Frank Rich of the New York Times.

On Jan. 18, Rich tossed more journalistic mud pies. He accused Gibson and Steve McEveety of using the pope to make money.

The next day Catholic News Service reported that the pope's secretary said that "the Holy Father made no declaration" about the film.

Two days later, L.A. Times columnist Tim Rutten apparently signed up to be Rich's Left Coast colleague. He wrote a vile piece that began, "A good Hollywood publicity campaign does not stumble over technicalities - like the truth. Still, it takes a particular sort of chutzpah to put a phony quote in the mouth of Pope John Paul II."

Actually it takes a particular sort of chutzpah for a columnist to forget to check his own paper's records before he writes on a subject.

On Jan. 23, in a news article, the Times admitted that "last month, the ailing pontiff was quoted as having said after a private screening of the film 'it is as it was.' Asked Dec. 19 whether the quote was reliable, Vatican press secretary Joaquin Navarro-Valls told the Times 'I think you can consider that quote as accurate.'"

The truth is that, from the beginning, Icon has had written authorization to go public with the pope's statement on "The Passion of the Christ." My sources have enabled me to confirm the graphic nod with my own eyes.

After stories began to emerge that questioned whether the quote was for real, Icon's McEveety immediately e-mailed the official Vatican press secretary and offered to discourage use of the quote. Navarro-Valls responded with an e-mail, which not only reaffirmed that use of the quote was fine but advised McEveety to use the phrase "again and again and again."

Even the New York Times on Jan. 20 wrote, "One prominent Roman Catholic official close to the Vatican said today, 'I have reason to believe - and I think - that the pope probably said it.'"

So what we have here are four respected news organizations getting independent verification, and Icon Productions getting confirmation, authorization and encouragement, to use the pope's "it is as it was" statement.

The way I see it, the Icon team has held fast to the truth and suffered the stripes with amazing grace.

The Left Coast Report thinks that, because "The Passion of the Christ" and its people have managed to survive insults, stolen scripts, threats of demonstration, pirated prints and dire predictions, the continuous triumphs are no mere coincidence. The more appropriate term to use would be providential.