TIMESMEN WITH CAUSES:

The Times: Mel's cross to bear: Though dedicated to fairness, the New York Times has relentlessly lashed Mel Gibson and his hit film and denigrated its defenders. (Peter Bart, 04/25/2004, Variety)

The "correction" was buried under the news summary of the April 16 New York Times, and it was somewhat arcane, even by Times standards. Contrary to an earlier report, the correction said, Mel Gibson did not "deploy" TV talkshow hosts like Bill O'Reilly to urge audiences to see "The Passion of the Christ." Gibson discussed his movie with them, but did not "deploy" them.

The distinction between discussing and deploying may seem pained, but the Times has found its entire experience with Mel Gibson to be a painful one. Prior to its release (and prior to anyone on the paper seeing it), the Times declared "The Passion" an outrage and threat to social harmony. After its release, the Times quoted the predictions of unnamed power brokers in Hollywood that Gibson would be blackballed by the film community, his career ruined.

As predictions go, the Times' entire litany could stand major "correction." Despite the fact that Frank Rich compared it to "a porn movie," by the end of its run "The Passion" could rank second only to "Titanic" as the highest-grossing movie ever made. Further, there have been no signs of anti-Semitic outbreaks tied to the film's release -- not even in places like France and Argentina.

As for Gibson, there's no indication that his viability as an actor or filmmaker has been compromised. Indeed, Hollywood reveres success, and Gibson's personal take from his film -- somewhere north of $400 million -- will surely be history's biggest. That makes Gibson not an outlaw, but a Hollywood folk hero.

It is not my intent here to indulge in Times-bashing. I spent eight very happy years on the Times staff, and I respect that paper's unique role in our journalistic establishment.

Still, the Times has vastly stepped up its coverage of pop culture and, in doing so, seems to be bending its normal rules of journalistic fairness. "The Passion" is a prime example.

First came a rather bizarre piece in a March 2003 issue of the Times' magazine profiling Hutton Gibson, Mel's obscure father. Depicted as clearly a nut, the 84-year-old Gibson disdains Vatican (news - web sites) doctrine, denies the Holocaust, and connects every political assassination to a conspiracy theory. To be sure, he has no involvement in the activities of his son; indeed, Mel often confides to friends his utter exasperation with these flights of paternal weirdness.

Why did this man merit a major magazine profile? Stay tuned. Publication of the magazine piece was followed by a fusillade of columns by Frank Rich, the brilliant critic-turned-polemicist, who clobbered the younger Gibson week after week for acts against humanity. Clearly, the star's biggest transgression was his failure to invite Rich to an advance screening of "The Passion." Indeed, Rich claimed no one had been invited except for right-wing weirdos (I was invited, though I may not qualify on either count).

To Rich, it was an open-and-shut case that what Gibson had created was anti-Semitic propaganda. The Times' overall coverage seemed designed to support this view. Stories from the Times' Hollywood bureau declared that studio chiefs would no longer work with Gibson, citing Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen of DreamWorks among those who "expressed anger over the film" -- a claim that resulted in another "correction."

Not to be outdone, the Times-owned International Herald Tribune published an antagonistic review of "The Passion," calling it "a violent cartoon, not a serious film." The piece was written by an obscure producer named Marie-Christine de Montbrial, who runs a company called SkyDance Pictures.

About as successful as their gay marriage and women at Augusta crusades.

MORE:
Kill Bill... Or Else!: Quentin Tarantino on opening night fever, postpartum depression and the descent from Mt. Everest (John Powers, 4/21/04, LA Weekly)

Is there any movie around you wish you’d made?

If I had done the opening 10 minutes and opening credits of the Dawn of the Dead remake, I’d be very proud. And believe me, I was against remaking George Romero — that was sacrilege. I don’t think I would have the mania to make The Passion of the Christ, but I’d be proud of the results. Those are the only things playing around right now that are terrific.

So you saw The Passion of the Christ?

I loved it. I’ll tell you why. I think it actually is one of the most brilliant visual storytelling movies I’ve seen since the talkies — as far as telling a story via pictures. So much so that when I was watching this movie, I turned to a friend and said, “This is such a Herculean leap of Mel Gibson’s talent. I think divine intervention might be part of it.” I cannot believe that Mel Gibson directed it. Not personally Mel Gibson — I mean, Braveheart was great. I mean, I can’t believe any actor made that movie. This is like the most visual movie by an actor since Charles Laughton made The Night of the Hunter. No, this is 15 times more visual than that. It has the power of a silent movie. And I was amazed by the fact that it was able to mix all these different tones. At first, this is going to be the most realistic version of the Jesus story — you have to decipher the Latin and Aramaic. Then it throws that away at a certain point and gives you this grandiose religious image. Goddamn, that’s good direction!

"What controversy? The dude made a movie about Jesus in a country that's largely Christian—a very traditional movie—and it's made over $200 million in two weeks. There ain't no controversy, people. That's a hit."
-Kevin Smith, director of the religious comedy Dogma and the recent film Jersey Girl.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 4, 2004 7:20 AM