Do you have proof he blamed hollywood and jews?Because in all of the interviews ive read he says that he understands why studio executives did not want to be part of the film and that the talks with them was polite.

I was a little overzealous there, I admit.

I will say that The Passion of the Christ controversies really started in the public eye as a reaction from Mel and appearance on the Oreilly factor in January of 2003. Before then, there wasn't much else, but since then there was a steady, steady increase.

http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/passion2.htm

In fact, it's actually the first news item (the oldest) on this page. The entire public campaign for Passion of the Christ started out as a defense. I have no doubt in my mind that they went to people like Oreilley because they could say the things about Hollywood and the media that Gibson himself didn't want to say.

My entire point here is that the controversy behind Passion of the Christ is not one sided. It's not JUST liberals going after Mel Gibson for him making a movie that he admits (see above) might make Jews upset. Both parties used the cultural divide to sell and exploit this picture to push their own agendas, and Mel Gibson was definately part of that.

Getting back to the point, this whole biz about Jim Cavaziel and Mel Gibson being "blacklisted" is, in my view, nothing but self martyrdom done on both Gibsons and those that are so wrapped up in their conspiracy theories of anti-Christian Hollywood (like Oreilley!). There is absolutely no proof out there that either of them have suffered from making this film and more than Halle Berry suffered from making Catwoman, in fact Cavaziel is far more famous now then he was two years ago.

The Contreversy started when the NY post stole an unfinished script of the film and had scholars and rabbi's review it.and then it escalated when the NY post ilegaly got a stolen copy of the unfinished film.Yes Gibson used the contreversy to sell the film(most filmakers do that)But he wasent the one that started it.

Thanks for that link,see,it was a guy who sold his story to the NY times that started it.And that article is biased,its a guy reporting what he believes happened,its not all true what he says.

Check this part:
Although the Gibson people have claimed that it was the scholars who leaked the report, they seem to me simply to have been blowing smoke. The scholars would hardly have gone to Zenit as their preferred media outlet.


and this:
To sum up, as of last March, the media forces arrayed in regard to Gibson's Passion were, on one side, Noxon's New York Times Magazine article and Rabbi Hier, and, on the other, a clutch of conservative Gibson defenders on TV, in print, and on-line. And then onto the field marched a collection of academics - the notorious scholars' committee assembled by Eugene Fisher of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, or USCCB.


If, to wrap up, I can be permitted a personal hypothesis, I would say that, beyond whatever pure spiritual and artistic goals he may have, and beyond getting people to see his movie and recouping his investment, Gibson should be seen as having an ecclesiastical agenda to bring the Church back to a traditionalist understanding of what it was before Vatican II. This has necessarily involved some complicated political moves, and in particular it has meant working with conservative individuals and organizations inside or closely associated with the Church. The Passion of the Christ has been so far served as a marvelous tool, though how effective it will ultimately prove to be is anyone's guess. But as I have followed the twists and turns in the showing of the film - the versions with certain provocative scenes included and the versions with those scenes excluded - it has occurred to me that there will never be a single, final version of Gibson's version of the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus. In the contemporary manner, with DVDs of many movies now comprising new director's cuts, and including racy scenes apparently left on the cutting room floor in order to secure an R rating, The Passion of the Christ will go out into the world in different forms: a multiplex version for the general public, a "blood curse" version for anti-Semites, and perhaps other versions as well. Who knows, there may even be a Vatican II version - but I seriously doubt it.


Pretty biased talking by that guy,he makes Gibson the bad guy through all the article.

Well if you want to talk about "what started it" you can say it all "started" when Mel Gibson decided to make this movie. I'm talking about how the controversy behind this movie got exposed to the mass audience, and when it started to polarize. The one that really started the "controversy" was Mel Gibson going to people like Oreilliy and exposing his paranoia. Until that time, there may have been New York Times story, but nobody really cared. It definately wasn't national news. He has a huge part in why the controversy got rolling on a national level.


Every aspect of this entire Passion thing is biased. I do think he makes a good stab at it and if you are going to accept the script as "stolen" then you at least deserve to give creedance to the fact that maybe it indeed WASN'T.


This doesn't seem biased at all, it looks like exactly what happened.


I think he's the least biased person I've read in this entire thing. He doesn't make Gibson look like a bad guy, he says so in the very end that Gibson is doing no more than any typical Hollywood producer, but that Gibson is IN FACT a Hollywood Producer and had an agenda for promoting the film which most definately involved ruffling some feathers. The image of Gibson as a doe-eyed artiste who is suffered and martyred for his work is laughable.

He is involved, he's interviewed the folks that will give him interviews. He sounds pretty reasonable to me.

I guess we will have to dissagree.

Anyway,Back to the topic,i think Caviezel will be fine.

I don't see how playing Jesus would hurt any actor's career. He's not really Jesus, in the same way that it's not really blood, it's just ketchup.

Now, if Cavaziel starting spouting off evangelical my-wife-is-going-to-hell stuff, I can see how he wouldn't be liked enough to be considered for big roles. But that has little to do with the actual work he did on the film. :?:

btw, if it's the controversial movie to blame, then shouldn't everybody involved get semi-blacklisted, not just Jesus? Monica Bellucci plenty of work in the past year.

Hey, he survived co-starring with Jennifer Lopez in Angel Eyes. He'll be fine.

LOL I came to this thread to post the exact same thing =D>