Gary Dretzka
Leonard Klady
David Poland
Ray Pride
Patricia Vidal

December 7, 2003

WHAT IS MEL AFRAID OF?
The Passion Of The Christ's Surprising Public Premiere
_________________________________________________________

Mel Gibson finally screened his film, The Passion Of The Christ, for the public this weekend. Given the filmmaker's concern about The New York Post analyzing the film's potential to be seen as anti-semitic based on a pirated tape of the film, you would figure that he made sure to screen the film for people who were similarly troubled with piracy. Given that he is concerned about the film being reviewed prematurely, you would figure that he would make sure to screen the film for people who respect the idea of embargo dates. Given that he has delayed screening the film for Pope John Paul II on the premise that the movie is not yet compete (as of December 1), you would figure that he would make sure to screen the film for someone who is taken seriously enough in the industry that the Pope could wait.

He didn't show it to the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, which supported Terry Gilliam in his fight to get a clear release of Brazil when Sid Sheinberg's Universal was dragging their feet.

He didn't show it to the New York Film Critics Circle, which has gotten behind some of the most difficult films.

He didn't show it to the National Society of Film Critics, which has a rather dry tone as a group and could surely keep it under their collective hat.

And he didn't show it to the Broadcast Film Critics Association - which had already offered to present the writer/director with an award for his bravery in making this film if Gibson would screen the movie for the group's membership with a firm embargo in place - so that members could get behind the award with full knowledge of what they were supporting.

On Sunday, December 7, Mel Gibson screened The Passion Of The Christ publicly for the very first time for the 206 ticket-buying patrons and assorted guests of Harry Knowles' Ain't It Cool News Butt-Numb-A-Thon, and followed the screening with an hour-long Q&A with the audience.

Yes. The Harry Knowles whose last pronouncement on piracy was that his readers should be free to see, read and review all and any pirated materials, even if Knowles and other AICN staffers knew that the pirated materials were an inaccurate representation of the final product. In that case, the pirated material was the in-process copy of The Hulk that was floating around the web. Knowles not only published those blistering reviews of the unfinished work, but Marvel's Avi Arad rewarded him with a private screening of the film before any press screenings occurred.

Yes. The Harry Knowles who believes that press embargoes are irrelevant.

Yes. The Harry Knowles who gets better access to this movie than does Pope. (Mind you, press reports suggest that Mr. Gibson is not a big fan of the modern popes.)

The choice of Ain't It Cool News as the launch site for The Passion Of The Christ is only somewhat curious. DreamWorks famously did an AICN screening of Gladiator with the expectation of overwhelmingly positive reviews from the group. And, indeed, that was exactly what they got. What The Passion gets from AICN, we will see.

The BFCA, a group of which I am a member, is made up mostly of people who attend junkets on a regular basis and is as much a part of the publicity machine as any group of film journalists that could be assembled. Yet, just days ago, BFCA was told that only two representatives of the group could see the film in anticipation of an award. BFCA membership felt that such a backroom deal was unacceptable. No such trouble with screening the film in Austin.

One has to wonder, what does Mel Gibson have to hide? Why has he repeatedly chosen to show his film to media which, with the exception of Michael Medved, has never worked in the business of film criticism? And how can he and his representatives ever point an accusing finger at The New York Post's coverage of The Passion after they have chosen to use Ain't It Cool News, a site that literally encourages piracy, as a key landmark in the history of the film?

I do not support anyone's efforts to stop, slow or in any way retard the promotion or release of The Passion Of The Christ. I believe deeply in the artist's right to produce a work about any subject with any point of view they so choose. That is the only way to insure free speech, whether it means defending childish stupidity, violence or racism.

But I do believe that even something that begins with honorable intent can turn rancid and hypocritical. I can believe that Mr. Gibson honestly felt that he was under attack by certain groups and that he had to counter that attack. But as time has passed, he has stopped responding and taken the role of the aggressor. I'm not sure that it is fair to judge anyone by the "turn the other cheek" standard of the New Testament. But it is all too easy for righteousness to slip into self-righteousness.

No one can really object to New Line sending Lord of The Rings: The Return of The King to Austin, along with Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh, since AICN is a key site for the fanboys and Harry has developed a good relationship with those filmmakers over the last five years. In fact, Jackson and Walsh took special care of the hometown New Zealand press to make sure that they saw the movie first and that American critics were embargoed until the New Zealanders got a chance to have their say. That's a lovely gesture, I think.

But what was the goal the Gibson hoped to achieve? Gibson's publicist, Alan Neirob responds, "The Austin screening is consistent with the extensive and successful grassroots campaign on the film, which will continue through the Feb. 25 release of the film and thereafter. In no way does this reflect the screening the NY Post did. This one was with an authourized print of the film supplied by the filmmakers themselves, as opposed to an illegal, bootleg/pirated version of the film. Every effort was made to ensure that the print never left the hands of the filmmakers, and there were no opportunities to illegally copy the actual print of the film. This tactic was used similarly in the past with films like Lord of the Rings."

Can't Gibson see that the result has to be to further alienate the many professionals who want to support his film and its future? Can't he see that a few liberal champions of his film would overwhelm a parade of angry diatribes about anti-semitism? The best defense is a good offense… a good offense.

Hypocrisy, especially hypocrisy using religion as a shield, is a bad offense… whatever side it is coming from.

- David Poland

Update 12/08, 10:04am - I pulled this story off of MCN for a dozen hours or so, on the advice of one friend who felt that it smacked of sour grapes. Of course, some AICN people assume that anything negative in their world is a product of nothing but sour grapes.

After some thought, I have decided to republish this piece, since I feel more strongly about it after further consideration. Whatever the motives. Gibson's defense of this movie is becoming undeniably political. He has the advice of some of the best publicity minds in Hollywood and his actions have all the spin of top notch Hollywood crisis gamesmanship. Unfortunately, unlike "just some movie," Gibson's movie is attached to a higher ideal... and by taking the Hollywood route, his reflected actions seem relentlessly hypocritical.

Months from now, the movie will be released, will likely be a significant success, a sure money maker and maybe even a major awards candidate a year from now. I have said it before and I continue to feel that I will be a great supporter of this film. But I cannot support this unique and uniquely grotesque road to release. - DP