By THE WITNESS STAND BY CLIFF NICHOLS
So, now we have Rob Reiner weighing in on the Mel Gibson imbroglio. He’s stated that if Mel ever hopes to be absolved of his sins, he must start by admitting to us all that his anti-Semitic views have been reflected in his movies i.e.“The Passion of the Christ.”In other words, only when Mel has done that can there even be a “beginning of some reconciliation for him.”
My question is, “And then what?” After Mel does that, what will he then have to do to make Rob happy? At what point will Rob ever say to the Mel “OK, Mel, you’ve done enough. You may now consider yourself to be fully redeemed.”
Do you suspect, like I do, that such a time would most probably never ever quite be arrived at? And, if that’s true, the question then becomes, “why should Mel even consider making any attempt whatsoever to gain the approval of a person like Rob?” The essence of Rob’s demand is that, now that he perceives Mel to be in a vulnerable and weak position, it is somehow appropriate to make him grovel and beg for a hand of mercy and forgiveness that will most likely never be extended. And for what? So Rob can coerce an admission from Mel that will disgrace the Mel’s masterpiece forevermore. Bad move, Rob. The reason? Because your demand now focuses the spotlight on you, rather than Mel.
By suggesting that “The Passion of the Christ”is something that is a direct outpouring of someone’s personal feelings of anti- Semitism, what exactly are you saying, Rob? Are you suggesting that the picture in someway was told with a slant that would not have existed, but for those sentiments? If so, what parts of the movie were in error when measured against the facts about the event it depicts as we know them to be? Rob, can you tell us in detail exactly what parts of the movie that Mel made about Christ’s crucifixion that you would have done differently to make it more “accurate?” Are there facts about the event that he included that were not true? If so, what are they Rob? Or, are there facts that he failed to include because of his bias that should not have been left out? If so, can you tell us what those facts are that you think should have been included? Or, are you suggesting that Mel simply misrepresented facts, or as they might say today, that Mel spun the story in such a way that it caused you to form the opinion that he misrepresented the story of this historical occurrence to advance some anti-Semitic agenda? It must be so, if you are suggesting that the film must now be acknowledged by Mel to be an anti-Semitic piece of propaganda. And so, please tell us how in your view Mel inaccurately spun the story to advance the nefarious agenda you have suggested he had. Can you do this for us?
It’s important that you answer these questions, Rob. Because if you are able to, would have to conclude that you are in agreement with many of us that Mel’s telling of the story essentially was historically accurate. And if that is so, that to me would be scary because I would then have to conclude that you must also believe that even an accurate telling of the account of Christ’s crucifixion by anybody somehow constitutes an anti-Semitic act. And if that is true, Rob, aren’t you really saying that in your opinion anyone who may believe the Bible’s account of the events immediately preceding the death of Christ is anti-Semitic? And if that’s true, I must object to such a blatant expression of prejudice that would smear the whole of Christendom with your broad brush of bigotry. It’s an unfounded accusation that is as ugly and hateful as it is erroneous.
If you think about it Rob, it might just be that by your attempt to coerce Mel to condemn the film as a work of anti-Semitism, you may well have revealed to us all a prejudice that could well be every bit as despicable as the one for which you are now attempting to extort Mel. Please understand, Rob, I sincerely hope that is not the case. But before I can decide on the issue, I hope you also understand that I must await your responses to the foregoing questions posed. In the meantime, however, you may take comfort in the fact that even if you are found to embrace such an unjustifiable bigotry against Christians, I think it’s appropriate to refrain from being so offensive as to publicly declare those conditions by which you might achieve your redemption for such a sin. That is a matter I feel might best be left for you and the God many of us worship to work out between yourselves in private. Come to think of it, perhaps it also would be a good idea if you were to consider leaving Mel alone to do this as well. What do you say, Rob? On this, can we agree? (Cliff Nichols is an attorney practicing criminal defense in Santa Monica. He may be contacted at either (310) 917-1083, or www.cliffnicholslaw.com and you may join his blog at www.thedailystand.com.)
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on August 30, 2006. Read the original PDF.