Good news for all Brian Wilson fans:
37 years on, fans finally hear lost work by master of pop
Richard Williams
Saturday February 21, 2004
The Guardian
Pop music's great lost masterpiece was revealed in all its eccentric splendour in London last night when Brian Wilson, the 61-year-old founder of the Beach Boys, presented the world premiere of Smile, a 1967 project which was intended to top the Beatles' Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band but was abandoned in a welter of psychotropic drugs, warring egos and shattered confidence.
Multiple ovations were the reward for a pristine performance of the 45-minute song cycle by Wilson and his 18 musicians, who reproduced the groundbreaking complexity and sophistication of a work inspired by the friendly but intense transatlantic rivalry between the Beach Boys and the Beatles at a time when pop music was evolving at an unprecedented rate.
Wilson spent hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of dollars in a Hollywood recording studio assembling Smile. To the outside world, the 24-year-old Californian was a pop genius at the top of his form: a year earlier he had created Pet Sounds, an album that still appears at the top of most all-time-greatest polls, and Good Vibrations, an epic single which sold millions around the world.
The sudden collapse of the Smile project mirrored Wilson's own disintegration. At what appeared to be the zenith of the Beach Boys' popularity, he entered a period of withdrawal lasting 30 years, during which he was in and out of psychotherapy and made only infrequent appearances on the concert stage and in the recording studio.
Two years ago, however, he returned to action at the head of a band of younger musicians devoted to recreating the most difficult and adventurous of his compositions. When he arrived in London two years ago to perform Pet Sounds in its entirety, Wilson received standing ovations suffused with a degree of affection few performers can have experienced.
His audiences fully understood not just the fundamental nature of his contribution to the evolution of pop music, but the troubled nature of his personal life.
Poignant
That warmth was reproduced last night at the first of five eagerly awaited concerts at the Festival Hall. Once again Wilson was to be found sitting at an electric piano whose keys he barely brushed, but his fans were neither shocked nor deterred by the diminished vocal powers of a man who once played a leading role in pop's greatest harmony group. In his grainy, sometimes quavering voice, his listeners could hear a poignant reflection of everything that has happened to him in the four decades since he brought a mythical California to life with songs such as I Get Around, California Girls and Fun Fun Fun.
Last night, however, was about much more than respectful nostalgia. Smile, which lay in ruins for 37 years, was to be reassembled and presented in something as close as possible to its planned form.
With Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations, Wilson had demonstrated his increasing mastery of recording techniques, exploiting editing and overdubbing facilities to create the impression of vast instrumental and vocal resources. Obsessed by his discoveries, and tired of travelling with the band, he immersed himself in laying the foundations of his masterpiece.
The touchingly romantic lyrics of Pet Sounds had been produced by Tony Asher, a Hollywood advertising copywriter; for his new project, Wilson turned to Van Dyke Parks, a 22-year-old prodigy who took his tunes and added words of great poetic resonance but little connection with anything that had previously emerged from the mouths of the Beach Boys. A song called Surf's Up, for example, began: "A diamond necklace played the pawn / Hand in hand some drummed along / To a handsome man and baton."
When Wilson appeared on a national TV show and sang Surf's Up alone at the piano, Leonard Bernstein was moved to describe it as "beautiful even in its obscurity".
But when the rest of the Beach Boys returned from their latest foreign tour, not all of them were delighted by what they found. Love, Wilson's cousin and the group's lead singer, was particularly disconcerted, aggressively inviting Parks to elucidate some of the lines he was going to sing. Against the wishes of other members of the group, Love's opinion prevailed. Smile was summarily abandoned, its demise hastened when Wilson felt that by recording a piece called Fire he had precipitated a rash of conflagrations in the vicinity of the studio.
Although he had sent his record company a list of the tracks he intended to include on Smile, and although they printed almost half a million sleeves, he never got as far as assembling a final version. As the legend grew, so bootleggers stepped into the breach, working with tapes that had found their way out of the studio archives and attempting to create something faithful to Wilson's original conception.
After Parks had received an ovation just for taking his seat in the stalls, last night's concert began with an imaginative recreation of the mood of the Beach Boys' Party album, an informal singalong with the musicians grouped around Wilson, who led them through lovely versions of In My Room and Please Let Me Wonder, accompanied by acoustic guitars and bongos, before moving into the more elaborate treatments of California Girls, Dance Dance Dance, Don't Worry Baby, Wouldn't It Be Nice, God Only Knows and many others.
The second half was devoted to a 45-minute arrangement of Smile, divided into three movements in which even the familiar sections were made to seem new. The a cappella Our Prayer provided a lustrous prelude, but it was the variety of instrumental texture that constantly took the ear. Banjos, calliopes, Swanee whistles, tack pianos, fruity trombones, cackling trumpets and a Polynesian ukelele made it seem like the grandest of American symphonies, and Wilson the natural heir to Charles Ives.
The composer sat impassively as his humour came to the fore, notably when the musicians made barnyard noises and forsook instruments for toys. But great waves of harmonies or a sudden burst of Palm Court strings would send the music charging off in another direction, each one seemingly more diverting than the last. The string and horn players donned firemen's hats for Fire, just as Wilson had invited their predecessors to do in 1967, and the whole piece ended in triumph with the churning chorale, juddering cellos and whooshing theremin of Good Vibrations, which can never in its long life have been engulfed in a more ecstatic reception.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
Saturday, February 21, 2004
Friday, February 20, 2004
Brutal Passion
All I want them to see is Jesus Christ —Jim Caviezel
By Steve Beard
A few weeks ago, my wife took our seven-year-old son John Paul to the movie theater. When he saw a marquee announcing the movie The Gospel of John, he noticed that it was rated PG-13. “That can’t be,” he said with incredulity. “The Bible is not PG-13.” Michelle had to explain to him that the Bible was not only G, but that it was PG-13, as well as R. I would add that there are a few spots that are even NC-17.
The Good Book is filled with betrayal, greed, lust, murder, sex, and excruciating violence. As parents, we edit, censor, and sanitize to wisely respect age-appropriateness. Nevertheless, this interaction was a great opportunity to remember that our faith was born out of blood, sweat and tears—far more gritty than a Thomas Kinkade® painting or a Precious Moments® nativity scene. In our contemporary culture, however, our crosses are studded with diamonds instead of splinters.
Perhaps that is why my son may not be the only one who is surprised by the PG-13 rating. The Gospel of John is a $20 million movie that was produced by the American Bible Society as a verse-by-verse dramatic portrayal of the New Testament book. The film premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival and even garnered positive reviews from unlikely media outlets.
“Though I approached The Gospel of John with some trepidation, I’ve now seen the film twice and consider it to be an extraordinary achievement,” wrote Scott Foundas in the avant garde LA Weekly. “Extraordinary for the way it casts its oft-told events in such a fresh light that they do not seem so familiar at all.”
The film has successfully been able to avoid controversy, let alone being labeled as anti-Semitic, for two very good reasons. First of all, the executive producer, producer, and director are all Jewish. The second, and perhaps more important reason, is that the movie is never going to produce the kind of cultural fireworks that will have tongues wagging with Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ—perhaps the most-debated, yet-to-be-seen film in the history of cinema.
It is impossible to be unaware of the media attention devoted to The Passion. Is the film anti-Semitic? Will it incite violence against Jews? Did Pope John Paul II say, “It is as it was”? Who speaks Aramaic anymore? Why in heaven’s name would Gibson pour $25 million of his own money to focus in on the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ? Why does it have to be so gruesomely violent?
Gibson and his movie have been under a flurry of ferocious attacks from The New York Times, The New York Times Magazine, The Los Angeles Times, and The New Yorker. These broadsides have been fueled by the Anti-Defamation League and a handful of liberal Catholic and Protestant theologians.
“When violence breaks out,” Paula Fredriksen breathlessly declared in a hyperventilated article for The New Republic, “Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to.” In the article “Mad Mel,” Fredriksen, a professor at Boston University, went on to dismiss the movie she had not seen as an “anti-historical, anti-intellectual, anti-Semitic film about the crucifixion.” This judgement was based on the fact that she simply does not believe that the New Testament is reliable. End of story.
In their coverage of The Passion, the predictably contrarian website Salon.com turned to the Rev. Mark Stanger, one of the pastors at the trendy Grace Cathedral, an Episcopal church in San Francisco. “100 percent Hollywood trash,” is how he described it. What was his advice to moviegoers? “I’d say don’t bother. I think it’s a big bore. I think a 5-year-old who has to get cancer surgery and radiation and chemotherapy suffers more than Jesus suffered; I think that a kid in the Gaza Strip who steps on a land mine and loses two limbs suffers more; I think a battered wife with no resources suffers more; I think people without medical care dying of AIDS in Africa suffer more than Jesus did that day. I mean, I don’t want to take away from that, but this preoccupation with the intensity of the suffering, I think, has no theological or spiritual value.”
Good grief, say whatever you want about The Passion, but calling it a bore is nothing more than fever-swamp ruminations.
Stone silence
I saw the movie in the boardroom of Gibson’s Icon Productions last November with a handful of rock musicians and artists. For a group who makes their living with microphones and electric guitars, they were stone silent at the end of the film. We all were. This is definitely not a date movie; it is a think flick. You need a cup of herbal tea and a handful of those aromotherapy candles to chill out and process afterward.
Church folks should be warned, this is not a family-friendly “Christian” movie such as Chariots of Fire or The Ten Commandments. The Passion is the most brutal movie you will probably ever see. People will be sobbing in the theaters or running out to get sick in the lobby.
This is the Sunday school flannel board lesson for a generation that grew up on violent video games, skipped church, and stood in line to watch Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill, Volume 1—a gratuitously bloody movie with no redemptive purpose. The Passion has an unmistakable gothic and art house feel, with touches of the ghoulish and grotesque. There is one unforgettable scene of Mary, the mother of Jesus, kissing her son’s bloody feet as he dangles from the cross. She then turns around and looks into the camera with his blood on her lips.
Is there too much gore and violence in The Passion? Probably. It made me turn my head. I just kept whispering, “Dear Jesus,” to myself throughout many of the scenes. It is the most sadistic and simultaneously holy thing I have seen.
This is not the kind of movie that you merely watch, it is one you experience. Think back to when you first saw the movie Roots on TV—seeing a white man whip a black man’s back. It wreaks havoc on your gut. All of the high school history lessons about the Civil War changed in a dimension of your comprehension—moving from your head to your heart.
It is painful to watch as Jesus stumbles through the Via Dolorosa—the path of pain—on his way to Golgotha, as his beloved mother watches helplessly from the sidelines, flashing back in her memory to a time when she could still cradle her son in her arms. As Jesus is nailed to the cross, you know you will never view communion the same way again. The same could be said for the way you conceive of Mary (Maia Morgenstern) or Satan (Rosalinda Celentano; pictured right—say goodbye to the red cape and pitchfork caricature).
Anti-Semitism
As our group talked with Gibson after watching the movie, it was very clear that he was most vexed about the charges of anti-Semitism leveled against the movie. He spoke of venting his frustrations on his spiritual counselor, who simply would remind him that Jesus turned the other cheek. “I am good 8 out of 10 days,” he joked, referring to the cheek turning.
As to the movie, you could not help but watch it through the prism of the accusations. You looked at every character to see if he or she were unfairly called upon to portray an anti-Semitic stereotype or if a disproportionate amount of blame was laid upon one person or group. Ironically, Maia Morgenstern, who plays Mary, is the Jewish daughter of a Holocaust survivor. Furthermore, the only appearance that Gibson makes in the movie is when his hands are seen driving the nails into Jesus on the cross—simultaneously driving home the point of his own culpability in the death of Christ.
“There is absolutely nothing anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish about Mel Gibson’s film,” said Augustine Di Noia, a theologian at the Vatican. “What happens in the film is that each of the main characters contributes in some way to Jesus’ fate: Judas betrays him; the Sanhedrin accuses him; the disciples abandon him; the crowd mocks him; the Roman soldiers scourge, brutalize, and finally crucify him; and the devil, somehow, is behind the whole action.”
From my perspective, the film makes it clear that there were righteous and unrighteous Jewish and Roman leaders who played a part in the drama unfolded around the crucifixion of Jesus. It is fair to say that anyone leaving the movie theater with anti-Semitic fervor would have to be deranged and morally warped—or they didn’t watch it.
According to Jim Caviezel, who plays Jesus, Gibson would say, “Maia, tell me about your [Jewish] traditions. Is this OK to do?” Part of the frustration surrounding the accusations against the movie is that it was meant to be “very Semitic,” according to Caviezel. “Instead of having an Aryan, blue-eyed Jesus, [Gibson] wanted to have a very Semitic Jesus,” Caviezel told Newsweek. “Our faith is grounded in our Jewish tradition. We believe we’re from the House of David. We believe we’re from the House of Abraham, so we cannot hate our own. That crowd standing before Pontius Pilate screaming for the head of Christ in no way convicts an entire race for the death of Jesus Christ any more than the actions of Mussolini condemn all Italians, or the heinous actions of Stalin condemn all Russians. We’re all culpable in the death of Christ. My sins put him up there. Yours did. That’s what this story is about.”
Jews and Jesus
Christian leaders might find it wise to defend The Passion as well as use this controversy in order to speak out clearly against the heinous and lingering sin of anti-Semitism. “Of course, even the most responsible, well-intentioned movie treatment of the last hours of Jesus will provoke concern in the Jewish community, because so many millions of Jews have suffered and died over the centuries due to Gospel-based charges that they are ‘Christ killers,’” writes Michael Medved, the popular movie reviewer and Orthodox Jew, in USA Today. “But the fact that persecutors and bigots have distorted teachings of the New Testament for their own cruel purposes doesn’t mean that those Gospel texts, sacred to all Christians, must be scrapped, revised or ignored in a serious work of cinema.”
Respected Orthodox scholar David Klinghoffer, a columnist for the Jewish magazine Forward and author of The Discovery of God: Abraham and the Birth of Monotheism, wrote a very courageous and persuasive article on the subject for The Los Angeles Times. “Like the Christian Gospels that form the basis of Gibson’s screenplay, Jewish tradition acknowledges that our leaders in first century Palestine played a role in Jesus’ execution,” he wrote. “If Gibson is an anti-Semite, so is the Talmud and so is the greatest Jewish sage of the past 1,000 years, Maimonides.”
Klinghoffer quotes Maimonides, writing in his “Epistle to Yemen” in the 12th century, as saying, “Jesus of Nazareth…interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment. The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him.”
Klinghoffer closes his article with a plea that rings with the wisdom of Solomon. “Considering that Gibson’s portrayal coincides closely with the traditional Jewish belief,” he writes, “it seems that leaving him alone is the decent, as well as the Jewish, thing to do.”
The accusation of anti-Semitism has been an unjust albatross around Gibson’s neck. “To be certain, neither I nor my film are anti-Semitic,” he said in a statement published in Variety. “Anti-Semitism is not only contrary to my personal beliefs; it is also contrary to the core message of my movie…[which is] meant to inspire, not offend. My intention in bringing it to the screen is to create a lasting work of art and engender serious thought among audiences of diverse faith backgrounds.
“If the intense scrutiny during my 25 years in public life revealed I had ever persecuted or discriminated against anyone based on race or creed, I would be all too willing to make amends. But there is no such record.”
I have always believed
“I have always believed in God,” Gibson told us. “From age 15 to 35, I was a hell raiser. In many ways, I still am,” he said jokingly. He then went on to tell us that he had “come to a difficult point in my life and meditating on Christ’s sufferings, on his passion, got me through it.” Christ’s passion became his obsession—and ultimately a healing balm.
“I’m not a preacher and I’m not a pastor. But I really feel my career was leading me to make this,” Gibson has said. “The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film, and I was just directing traffic. I hope the film has the power to evangelize.”
That should not be a problem. I have been a Christian for 20 years and after seeing The Passion I wanted to sign up all over again.
Steve Beard is the editor of Good News.
All I want them to see is Jesus Christ —Jim Caviezel
By Steve Beard
A few weeks ago, my wife took our seven-year-old son John Paul to the movie theater. When he saw a marquee announcing the movie The Gospel of John, he noticed that it was rated PG-13. “That can’t be,” he said with incredulity. “The Bible is not PG-13.” Michelle had to explain to him that the Bible was not only G, but that it was PG-13, as well as R. I would add that there are a few spots that are even NC-17.
The Good Book is filled with betrayal, greed, lust, murder, sex, and excruciating violence. As parents, we edit, censor, and sanitize to wisely respect age-appropriateness. Nevertheless, this interaction was a great opportunity to remember that our faith was born out of blood, sweat and tears—far more gritty than a Thomas Kinkade® painting or a Precious Moments® nativity scene. In our contemporary culture, however, our crosses are studded with diamonds instead of splinters.
Perhaps that is why my son may not be the only one who is surprised by the PG-13 rating. The Gospel of John is a $20 million movie that was produced by the American Bible Society as a verse-by-verse dramatic portrayal of the New Testament book. The film premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival and even garnered positive reviews from unlikely media outlets.
“Though I approached The Gospel of John with some trepidation, I’ve now seen the film twice and consider it to be an extraordinary achievement,” wrote Scott Foundas in the avant garde LA Weekly. “Extraordinary for the way it casts its oft-told events in such a fresh light that they do not seem so familiar at all.”
The film has successfully been able to avoid controversy, let alone being labeled as anti-Semitic, for two very good reasons. First of all, the executive producer, producer, and director are all Jewish. The second, and perhaps more important reason, is that the movie is never going to produce the kind of cultural fireworks that will have tongues wagging with Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ—perhaps the most-debated, yet-to-be-seen film in the history of cinema.
It is impossible to be unaware of the media attention devoted to The Passion. Is the film anti-Semitic? Will it incite violence against Jews? Did Pope John Paul II say, “It is as it was”? Who speaks Aramaic anymore? Why in heaven’s name would Gibson pour $25 million of his own money to focus in on the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ? Why does it have to be so gruesomely violent?
Gibson and his movie have been under a flurry of ferocious attacks from The New York Times, The New York Times Magazine, The Los Angeles Times, and The New Yorker. These broadsides have been fueled by the Anti-Defamation League and a handful of liberal Catholic and Protestant theologians.
“When violence breaks out,” Paula Fredriksen breathlessly declared in a hyperventilated article for The New Republic, “Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to.” In the article “Mad Mel,” Fredriksen, a professor at Boston University, went on to dismiss the movie she had not seen as an “anti-historical, anti-intellectual, anti-Semitic film about the crucifixion.” This judgement was based on the fact that she simply does not believe that the New Testament is reliable. End of story.
In their coverage of The Passion, the predictably contrarian website Salon.com turned to the Rev. Mark Stanger, one of the pastors at the trendy Grace Cathedral, an Episcopal church in San Francisco. “100 percent Hollywood trash,” is how he described it. What was his advice to moviegoers? “I’d say don’t bother. I think it’s a big bore. I think a 5-year-old who has to get cancer surgery and radiation and chemotherapy suffers more than Jesus suffered; I think that a kid in the Gaza Strip who steps on a land mine and loses two limbs suffers more; I think a battered wife with no resources suffers more; I think people without medical care dying of AIDS in Africa suffer more than Jesus did that day. I mean, I don’t want to take away from that, but this preoccupation with the intensity of the suffering, I think, has no theological or spiritual value.”
Good grief, say whatever you want about The Passion, but calling it a bore is nothing more than fever-swamp ruminations.
Stone silence
I saw the movie in the boardroom of Gibson’s Icon Productions last November with a handful of rock musicians and artists. For a group who makes their living with microphones and electric guitars, they were stone silent at the end of the film. We all were. This is definitely not a date movie; it is a think flick. You need a cup of herbal tea and a handful of those aromotherapy candles to chill out and process afterward.
Church folks should be warned, this is not a family-friendly “Christian” movie such as Chariots of Fire or The Ten Commandments. The Passion is the most brutal movie you will probably ever see. People will be sobbing in the theaters or running out to get sick in the lobby.
This is the Sunday school flannel board lesson for a generation that grew up on violent video games, skipped church, and stood in line to watch Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill, Volume 1—a gratuitously bloody movie with no redemptive purpose. The Passion has an unmistakable gothic and art house feel, with touches of the ghoulish and grotesque. There is one unforgettable scene of Mary, the mother of Jesus, kissing her son’s bloody feet as he dangles from the cross. She then turns around and looks into the camera with his blood on her lips.
Is there too much gore and violence in The Passion? Probably. It made me turn my head. I just kept whispering, “Dear Jesus,” to myself throughout many of the scenes. It is the most sadistic and simultaneously holy thing I have seen.
This is not the kind of movie that you merely watch, it is one you experience. Think back to when you first saw the movie Roots on TV—seeing a white man whip a black man’s back. It wreaks havoc on your gut. All of the high school history lessons about the Civil War changed in a dimension of your comprehension—moving from your head to your heart.
It is painful to watch as Jesus stumbles through the Via Dolorosa—the path of pain—on his way to Golgotha, as his beloved mother watches helplessly from the sidelines, flashing back in her memory to a time when she could still cradle her son in her arms. As Jesus is nailed to the cross, you know you will never view communion the same way again. The same could be said for the way you conceive of Mary (Maia Morgenstern) or Satan (Rosalinda Celentano; pictured right—say goodbye to the red cape and pitchfork caricature).
Anti-Semitism
As our group talked with Gibson after watching the movie, it was very clear that he was most vexed about the charges of anti-Semitism leveled against the movie. He spoke of venting his frustrations on his spiritual counselor, who simply would remind him that Jesus turned the other cheek. “I am good 8 out of 10 days,” he joked, referring to the cheek turning.
As to the movie, you could not help but watch it through the prism of the accusations. You looked at every character to see if he or she were unfairly called upon to portray an anti-Semitic stereotype or if a disproportionate amount of blame was laid upon one person or group. Ironically, Maia Morgenstern, who plays Mary, is the Jewish daughter of a Holocaust survivor. Furthermore, the only appearance that Gibson makes in the movie is when his hands are seen driving the nails into Jesus on the cross—simultaneously driving home the point of his own culpability in the death of Christ.
“There is absolutely nothing anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish about Mel Gibson’s film,” said Augustine Di Noia, a theologian at the Vatican. “What happens in the film is that each of the main characters contributes in some way to Jesus’ fate: Judas betrays him; the Sanhedrin accuses him; the disciples abandon him; the crowd mocks him; the Roman soldiers scourge, brutalize, and finally crucify him; and the devil, somehow, is behind the whole action.”
From my perspective, the film makes it clear that there were righteous and unrighteous Jewish and Roman leaders who played a part in the drama unfolded around the crucifixion of Jesus. It is fair to say that anyone leaving the movie theater with anti-Semitic fervor would have to be deranged and morally warped—or they didn’t watch it.
According to Jim Caviezel, who plays Jesus, Gibson would say, “Maia, tell me about your [Jewish] traditions. Is this OK to do?” Part of the frustration surrounding the accusations against the movie is that it was meant to be “very Semitic,” according to Caviezel. “Instead of having an Aryan, blue-eyed Jesus, [Gibson] wanted to have a very Semitic Jesus,” Caviezel told Newsweek. “Our faith is grounded in our Jewish tradition. We believe we’re from the House of David. We believe we’re from the House of Abraham, so we cannot hate our own. That crowd standing before Pontius Pilate screaming for the head of Christ in no way convicts an entire race for the death of Jesus Christ any more than the actions of Mussolini condemn all Italians, or the heinous actions of Stalin condemn all Russians. We’re all culpable in the death of Christ. My sins put him up there. Yours did. That’s what this story is about.”
Jews and Jesus
Christian leaders might find it wise to defend The Passion as well as use this controversy in order to speak out clearly against the heinous and lingering sin of anti-Semitism. “Of course, even the most responsible, well-intentioned movie treatment of the last hours of Jesus will provoke concern in the Jewish community, because so many millions of Jews have suffered and died over the centuries due to Gospel-based charges that they are ‘Christ killers,’” writes Michael Medved, the popular movie reviewer and Orthodox Jew, in USA Today. “But the fact that persecutors and bigots have distorted teachings of the New Testament for their own cruel purposes doesn’t mean that those Gospel texts, sacred to all Christians, must be scrapped, revised or ignored in a serious work of cinema.”
Respected Orthodox scholar David Klinghoffer, a columnist for the Jewish magazine Forward and author of The Discovery of God: Abraham and the Birth of Monotheism, wrote a very courageous and persuasive article on the subject for The Los Angeles Times. “Like the Christian Gospels that form the basis of Gibson’s screenplay, Jewish tradition acknowledges that our leaders in first century Palestine played a role in Jesus’ execution,” he wrote. “If Gibson is an anti-Semite, so is the Talmud and so is the greatest Jewish sage of the past 1,000 years, Maimonides.”
Klinghoffer quotes Maimonides, writing in his “Epistle to Yemen” in the 12th century, as saying, “Jesus of Nazareth…interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment. The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him.”
Klinghoffer closes his article with a plea that rings with the wisdom of Solomon. “Considering that Gibson’s portrayal coincides closely with the traditional Jewish belief,” he writes, “it seems that leaving him alone is the decent, as well as the Jewish, thing to do.”
The accusation of anti-Semitism has been an unjust albatross around Gibson’s neck. “To be certain, neither I nor my film are anti-Semitic,” he said in a statement published in Variety. “Anti-Semitism is not only contrary to my personal beliefs; it is also contrary to the core message of my movie…[which is] meant to inspire, not offend. My intention in bringing it to the screen is to create a lasting work of art and engender serious thought among audiences of diverse faith backgrounds.
“If the intense scrutiny during my 25 years in public life revealed I had ever persecuted or discriminated against anyone based on race or creed, I would be all too willing to make amends. But there is no such record.”
I have always believed
“I have always believed in God,” Gibson told us. “From age 15 to 35, I was a hell raiser. In many ways, I still am,” he said jokingly. He then went on to tell us that he had “come to a difficult point in my life and meditating on Christ’s sufferings, on his passion, got me through it.” Christ’s passion became his obsession—and ultimately a healing balm.
“I’m not a preacher and I’m not a pastor. But I really feel my career was leading me to make this,” Gibson has said. “The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film, and I was just directing traffic. I hope the film has the power to evangelize.”
That should not be a problem. I have been a Christian for 20 years and after seeing The Passion I wanted to sign up all over again.
Steve Beard is the editor of Good News.
The Passion of the Christ
This article was written for the National Catholic Register.
By Steven D. Greydanus
As I contemplate Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, the sequence I keep coming back to, again and again, is the scourging at the pillar.
One reason, certainly, is that it is the most horrifying sequence in the film, more agonizing even than the crucifixion itself, or the carrying of the cross. But there are other reasons as well.
The sequence is also an outstanding example of Gibson’s original vision of telling the story in the languages of the day, without subtitles. As the Roman centurions flog Jesus, their brutal, laughing mockery and derisive taunts go on for long minutes — and the Latin is left untranslated. We don’t know what they’re saying, and we don’t need to know. Subtitles would be an unnecessary distraction.
At other points throughout the film, Gibson ultimately found it necessary to use subtitles; still, some of the most effective scenes remain the ones for which he was able to avoid them. As necessary as they may be in some scenes, especially on a first viewing, when the film becomes available on DVD everyone who buys it should watch it at least once with the subtitles turned off.
That the story was filmed in Latin and Aramaic at all is worthy of note. Put aside linguistic quibbles about what first-century Latin actually sounded like, or whether Jews and Romans wouldn’t have used Greek rather than Latin to converse with one another. The larger point is that, for the first time since the silent era, a cinematic Jesus is unencumbered by British-accented (or worse, American-accented) English, or by a European romance language, etc.
The scourging at the pillar also stands out for the way it cuts through the smoke of confusion and misinformation coming from both sides of the controversy surrounding the film. Watching this scene, two things become transparently clear.
First, notwithstanding at-times exaggerated claims of historical accuracy and fidelity to the gospels from some of the film’s defenders, The Passion of the Christ is not an attempt to depict the sufferings of Christ exactly as described in the New Testament. Rather, while following the basic outline of the passion narratives, the film is an imaginative, at times poetic reflection on the meaning of the gospel story in light of sacred tradition and Catholic theology.
Consider the following incident: As Jesus is being flogged, Claudia, the wife of Pilate, approaches the Blessed Virgin and Mary Magdalene bearing folded linens, which she gives to them. After Jesus is taken away, the two Marys go down on the flagstones and begin mopping up the blood of Jesus which has been spilled around the pillar.
This incident, found nowhere in the gospels; comes from the visionary writings of Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, the 19th-century stigmatic and mystic whose Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ significantly influenced the screenplay for The Passion of the Christ. The scenario is strikingly evocative of Catholic piety regarding Jesus’ precious blood, but doesn’t reflect a historiographical concern with sticking to the gospel accounts.
Not all of the film’s glosses on the gospel accounts come from Emmerich. The scourging at the pillar is also the occasion of one of Gibson’s own most singular, unnerving imaginative flourishes. A satanic figure haunts the film, watchful and inscrutable. We first see it in the garden of Gethsemane, where its attempts to dissuade Jesus from his mission are a nihilistic litany of negation: “No man can bear this burden… No one. Ever. No. Never.”
At certain points this androgynous figure is depicted in opposition to the Virgin Mary — but never more arrestingly so than before the pillar, where there is a kind of anti-Marian vision that I will not describe, except to say that it is so bizarre and grotesque, yet ultimately meaningless, that it seems to come straight from hell.
The other thing the scourging scene makes clear is the hollowness of activist complaints about the film’s supposed anti-Semitism. The depiction of the Jewish mob may be unflattering, but it pales to insignificance beside the unmitigated barbarism of the Roman brute squad. We also see the high priest Caiaphas watching the scourging — not sadistically reveling in the spectacle of Jesus’ sufferings, but clearly troubled, finding it painful to watch.
Significantly, this humanizing touch in Caiaphas’s characterization comes neither from the gospels, nor from sources such as Sr. Emmerich, but is original to the film. In fact, Sr. Emmerich’s account includes a strikingly different account of the Jewish onlookers during the scourging: She depicts Jewish leaders paying the Roman soldiers and plying them with drink to induce them to even more brutality. Gibson’s film not only omits this unsavory flourish, but goes in the opposite direction, giving a humanizing detail not found in the gospels.
For all this, though, the single most overwhelming aspect of the scourging at the pillar remains its sheer savagery. No previous Jesus film has ever approached this level of brutal violence — in part because no previous film has ever focused so closely on the passion particularly.
Certainly, Jesus’ passion and death was horrific and violent; and there is a long tradition, especially in the West, of devout meditation on the specifics of Jesus’ sufferings (the sorrowful mysteries, the stations of the cross, etc.).
Yet when the film shows the soldiers stretching Jesus prone to nail him to the cross, then flipping the cross over and crushing him under it before raising it upright, some viewers, especially those less used to cinematic violence, may wonder whether this goes too far. Some, indeed, may not wish to see the film at all — and may even feel guilty for feeling that way, as if having reservations about this film were somehow unchristian.
That would be a mistake. Movies, like everything human, are a matter of Christian liberty; no one is obligated to see, or like, any film in the world. The Passion of the Christ is an artistic expression of the faith, not the faith itself.
Yet it is also a preeminently important cinematic expression of the faith — probably one of the most important religious films of all time. It tells only a part of the gospel story, as the passion narratives themselves are only a part of the gospels; but that part is the very crux: that Christ died for us.
This article was written for the National Catholic Register.
By Steven D. Greydanus
As I contemplate Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, the sequence I keep coming back to, again and again, is the scourging at the pillar.
One reason, certainly, is that it is the most horrifying sequence in the film, more agonizing even than the crucifixion itself, or the carrying of the cross. But there are other reasons as well.
The sequence is also an outstanding example of Gibson’s original vision of telling the story in the languages of the day, without subtitles. As the Roman centurions flog Jesus, their brutal, laughing mockery and derisive taunts go on for long minutes — and the Latin is left untranslated. We don’t know what they’re saying, and we don’t need to know. Subtitles would be an unnecessary distraction.
At other points throughout the film, Gibson ultimately found it necessary to use subtitles; still, some of the most effective scenes remain the ones for which he was able to avoid them. As necessary as they may be in some scenes, especially on a first viewing, when the film becomes available on DVD everyone who buys it should watch it at least once with the subtitles turned off.
That the story was filmed in Latin and Aramaic at all is worthy of note. Put aside linguistic quibbles about what first-century Latin actually sounded like, or whether Jews and Romans wouldn’t have used Greek rather than Latin to converse with one another. The larger point is that, for the first time since the silent era, a cinematic Jesus is unencumbered by British-accented (or worse, American-accented) English, or by a European romance language, etc.
The scourging at the pillar also stands out for the way it cuts through the smoke of confusion and misinformation coming from both sides of the controversy surrounding the film. Watching this scene, two things become transparently clear.
First, notwithstanding at-times exaggerated claims of historical accuracy and fidelity to the gospels from some of the film’s defenders, The Passion of the Christ is not an attempt to depict the sufferings of Christ exactly as described in the New Testament. Rather, while following the basic outline of the passion narratives, the film is an imaginative, at times poetic reflection on the meaning of the gospel story in light of sacred tradition and Catholic theology.
Consider the following incident: As Jesus is being flogged, Claudia, the wife of Pilate, approaches the Blessed Virgin and Mary Magdalene bearing folded linens, which she gives to them. After Jesus is taken away, the two Marys go down on the flagstones and begin mopping up the blood of Jesus which has been spilled around the pillar.
This incident, found nowhere in the gospels; comes from the visionary writings of Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, the 19th-century stigmatic and mystic whose Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ significantly influenced the screenplay for The Passion of the Christ. The scenario is strikingly evocative of Catholic piety regarding Jesus’ precious blood, but doesn’t reflect a historiographical concern with sticking to the gospel accounts.
Not all of the film’s glosses on the gospel accounts come from Emmerich. The scourging at the pillar is also the occasion of one of Gibson’s own most singular, unnerving imaginative flourishes. A satanic figure haunts the film, watchful and inscrutable. We first see it in the garden of Gethsemane, where its attempts to dissuade Jesus from his mission are a nihilistic litany of negation: “No man can bear this burden… No one. Ever. No. Never.”
At certain points this androgynous figure is depicted in opposition to the Virgin Mary — but never more arrestingly so than before the pillar, where there is a kind of anti-Marian vision that I will not describe, except to say that it is so bizarre and grotesque, yet ultimately meaningless, that it seems to come straight from hell.
The other thing the scourging scene makes clear is the hollowness of activist complaints about the film’s supposed anti-Semitism. The depiction of the Jewish mob may be unflattering, but it pales to insignificance beside the unmitigated barbarism of the Roman brute squad. We also see the high priest Caiaphas watching the scourging — not sadistically reveling in the spectacle of Jesus’ sufferings, but clearly troubled, finding it painful to watch.
Significantly, this humanizing touch in Caiaphas’s characterization comes neither from the gospels, nor from sources such as Sr. Emmerich, but is original to the film. In fact, Sr. Emmerich’s account includes a strikingly different account of the Jewish onlookers during the scourging: She depicts Jewish leaders paying the Roman soldiers and plying them with drink to induce them to even more brutality. Gibson’s film not only omits this unsavory flourish, but goes in the opposite direction, giving a humanizing detail not found in the gospels.
For all this, though, the single most overwhelming aspect of the scourging at the pillar remains its sheer savagery. No previous Jesus film has ever approached this level of brutal violence — in part because no previous film has ever focused so closely on the passion particularly.
Certainly, Jesus’ passion and death was horrific and violent; and there is a long tradition, especially in the West, of devout meditation on the specifics of Jesus’ sufferings (the sorrowful mysteries, the stations of the cross, etc.).
Yet when the film shows the soldiers stretching Jesus prone to nail him to the cross, then flipping the cross over and crushing him under it before raising it upright, some viewers, especially those less used to cinematic violence, may wonder whether this goes too far. Some, indeed, may not wish to see the film at all — and may even feel guilty for feeling that way, as if having reservations about this film were somehow unchristian.
That would be a mistake. Movies, like everything human, are a matter of Christian liberty; no one is obligated to see, or like, any film in the world. The Passion of the Christ is an artistic expression of the faith, not the faith itself.
Yet it is also a preeminently important cinematic expression of the faith — probably one of the most important religious films of all time. It tells only a part of the gospel story, as the passion narratives themselves are only a part of the gospels; but that part is the very crux: that Christ died for us.
A Vet Questions John Kerry's Military Service
By FrontPage Magazine
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 20, 2004
The following was sent to a Marine chat net by a retired Marine Master Sergeant who was in S-2, 3rd Bn, 1st Marines, Korea in 1954. It calls into serious question John Kerry's military actions in Vietnam. We present it to give our readers another perspective to the media's one-sided "war hero" adulation, and to open his actions to the light of public discourse. -- The Editors.
I was in the Delta shortly after John Kerry left. I know that area well. I know the operations he was involved in well. I know the tactics and the doctrine used, and I know the equipment. Although I was attached to CTF-116 (PBRs) I spent a fair amount of time with CTF-115 (swift boats), Kerry's command.
Here are my problems and suspicions:
(1) Kerry was in-country less than four months and collected a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts. I never heard of anybody with any outfit I worked with (including SEAL One, the Sea Wolves, Riverines and the River Patrol Force) collecting that much hardware that fast, and for such pedestrian actions. The Swifts did a commendable job, but that duty wasn't the worst you could draw. They operated only along the coast and in the major rivers (Bassac and Mekong). The rough stuff in the hot areas was mainly handled by the smaller, faster PBRs.
(2) He collected three Purple Hearts but has no limp. All his injuries were so minor that he lost no time from duty. Amazing luck. Or he was putting himself in for medals every time he bumped his head on the wheel house hatch? Combat on, the boats were almost always at close range. You didn't have minor wounds, at least not often. Not three times in a row. Then he used the three Purple Hearts to request a trip home eight months before the end of his tour. Fishy.
(3) The details of the event for which he was given the Silver Star make no sense at all. Supposedly, a B-40 was fired at the boat and missed. Charlie jumps up with the launcher in his hand, the bow gunner knocks him down with the twin .50, Kerry beaches the boat, jumps off, shoots Charlie, and retreives the launcher. If true, he did everything wrong.
(a) Standard procedure when you took rocket fire was to put your stern to the action and go balls to the wall. A B-40 has the ballistic integrity of a frisbie after about 25 yards, so you put 50 yards or so between you and the beach and begin raking it with your .50's.
(b) Did you ever see anybody get knocked down with a .50 caliber round and get up? The guy was dead or dying. The rocket launcher was empty. There was no reason to go after him (except if you knew he was no danger to you just flopping around in the dust during his last few seconds on earth, and you wanted some derring-do in your after-action report). And we didn't shoot wounded people. We had rules against that, too.
(c) Kerry got off the boat. This was a major breach of standing procedures. Nobody on a boat crew ever got off a boat in a hot area. EVER! The reason was simple: If you had somebody on the beach, your boat was defenseless. It coudn't run and it couldn' t return fire. It was stupid and it put his crew in danger. He should have been relieved and reprimanded. I never heard of any boat crewman ever leaving a boat during or after a firefight.
Something is fishy.
Here we have a JFK wannabe (the guy Halsey wanted to court martial for carelessly losing his boat and getting a couple people killed by running across the bow of a Japanese destroyer) who is hardly in Vietnam long enough to get good tan, collects medals faster than Audie Murphy in a job where lots of medals weren't common, gets sent home eight months early and requests separation from active duty a few months after that so he can run for Congress. In that election, he finds out war heroes don't sell well in Massachsetts in 1970, so he reinvents himself as Jane Fonda, throws his ribbons in the dirt with the cameras running to jump start his political career, gets Stillborn Pell to invite him to address Congress and has Bobby Kennedy's speechwriter to do the heavy lifting. A few years later he winds up in the Senate himself, where he votes against every major defense bill and says the CIA is irrelevant after the Berlin Wall came down. He votes against the Gulf War (a big political mistake since that turned out well), then decides not to make the same mistake twice so votes for invading Iraq -- but that didn't fare as well with the Democrats, so he now says he really didn't mean for Bush to go to war when he voted to allow him to go to war.
I'm real glad you or I never had this guy covering out flanks in Vietnam. I sure don't want him as Commander-in-Chief. I hope that somebody from CTF-115 shows up with some facts challenging Kerry's Vietnam record. I know in my gut it's wildy inflated
By FrontPage Magazine
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 20, 2004
The following was sent to a Marine chat net by a retired Marine Master Sergeant who was in S-2, 3rd Bn, 1st Marines, Korea in 1954. It calls into serious question John Kerry's military actions in Vietnam. We present it to give our readers another perspective to the media's one-sided "war hero" adulation, and to open his actions to the light of public discourse. -- The Editors.
I was in the Delta shortly after John Kerry left. I know that area well. I know the operations he was involved in well. I know the tactics and the doctrine used, and I know the equipment. Although I was attached to CTF-116 (PBRs) I spent a fair amount of time with CTF-115 (swift boats), Kerry's command.
Here are my problems and suspicions:
(1) Kerry was in-country less than four months and collected a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts. I never heard of anybody with any outfit I worked with (including SEAL One, the Sea Wolves, Riverines and the River Patrol Force) collecting that much hardware that fast, and for such pedestrian actions. The Swifts did a commendable job, but that duty wasn't the worst you could draw. They operated only along the coast and in the major rivers (Bassac and Mekong). The rough stuff in the hot areas was mainly handled by the smaller, faster PBRs.
(2) He collected three Purple Hearts but has no limp. All his injuries were so minor that he lost no time from duty. Amazing luck. Or he was putting himself in for medals every time he bumped his head on the wheel house hatch? Combat on, the boats were almost always at close range. You didn't have minor wounds, at least not often. Not three times in a row. Then he used the three Purple Hearts to request a trip home eight months before the end of his tour. Fishy.
(3) The details of the event for which he was given the Silver Star make no sense at all. Supposedly, a B-40 was fired at the boat and missed. Charlie jumps up with the launcher in his hand, the bow gunner knocks him down with the twin .50, Kerry beaches the boat, jumps off, shoots Charlie, and retreives the launcher. If true, he did everything wrong.
(a) Standard procedure when you took rocket fire was to put your stern to the action and go balls to the wall. A B-40 has the ballistic integrity of a frisbie after about 25 yards, so you put 50 yards or so between you and the beach and begin raking it with your .50's.
(b) Did you ever see anybody get knocked down with a .50 caliber round and get up? The guy was dead or dying. The rocket launcher was empty. There was no reason to go after him (except if you knew he was no danger to you just flopping around in the dust during his last few seconds on earth, and you wanted some derring-do in your after-action report). And we didn't shoot wounded people. We had rules against that, too.
(c) Kerry got off the boat. This was a major breach of standing procedures. Nobody on a boat crew ever got off a boat in a hot area. EVER! The reason was simple: If you had somebody on the beach, your boat was defenseless. It coudn't run and it couldn' t return fire. It was stupid and it put his crew in danger. He should have been relieved and reprimanded. I never heard of any boat crewman ever leaving a boat during or after a firefight.
Something is fishy.
Here we have a JFK wannabe (the guy Halsey wanted to court martial for carelessly losing his boat and getting a couple people killed by running across the bow of a Japanese destroyer) who is hardly in Vietnam long enough to get good tan, collects medals faster than Audie Murphy in a job where lots of medals weren't common, gets sent home eight months early and requests separation from active duty a few months after that so he can run for Congress. In that election, he finds out war heroes don't sell well in Massachsetts in 1970, so he reinvents himself as Jane Fonda, throws his ribbons in the dirt with the cameras running to jump start his political career, gets Stillborn Pell to invite him to address Congress and has Bobby Kennedy's speechwriter to do the heavy lifting. A few years later he winds up in the Senate himself, where he votes against every major defense bill and says the CIA is irrelevant after the Berlin Wall came down. He votes against the Gulf War (a big political mistake since that turned out well), then decides not to make the same mistake twice so votes for invading Iraq -- but that didn't fare as well with the Democrats, so he now says he really didn't mean for Bush to go to war when he voted to allow him to go to war.
I'm real glad you or I never had this guy covering out flanks in Vietnam. I sure don't want him as Commander-in-Chief. I hope that somebody from CTF-115 shows up with some facts challenging Kerry's Vietnam record. I know in my gut it's wildy inflated
Thursday, February 19, 2004
More on Cleland from Coulter:
File Under: 'Omission Accomplished'
February 18, 2004
by Ann Coulter
LIBERALS are hopping mad about last week's column. Amid angry insinuations that I "lied" about Sen. Max Cleland, I was attacked on the Senate floor by Sen. Jack Reed, Molly Ivins called my column "error-ridden," and Al Hunt called it a "lie." Joe Klein said I was the reason liberals were being hysterical about George Bush's National Guard service.
I would have left it at one column, but apparently Democrats want to go another round. With their Clintonesque formulations, my detractors make it a little difficult to know what "lie" I'm supposed to be contesting, but they are clearly implying -- without stating -- that Cleland lost his limbs in combat.
It is simply a fact that Max Cleland was not injured by enemy fire in Vietnam. He was not in combat, he was not -- as Al Hunt claimed -- on a reconnaissance mission, and he was not in the battle of Khe Sanh, as many others have implied. He picked up an American grenade on a routine noncombat mission and the grenade exploded.
In Cleland's own words: "I didn't see any heroism in all that. It wasn't an act of heroism. I didn't know the grenade was live. It was an act of fate." That is why Cleland didn't win a Purple Heart, which is given to those wounded in combat. Liberals are not angry because I "lied"; they're angry because I told the truth.
I wouldn't press the point except that Democrats have deliberately "sexed up" the circumstances of Cleland's accident in the service of slandering the people of Georgia, the National Guard and George Bush. Cleland has questioned Bush's fitness for office because he served in the National Guard but did not go to Vietnam.
And yet the poignant truth of Cleland's own accident demonstrates the commitment and bravery of all members of the military who come into contact with ordnance. Cleland's injury was of the routine variety that occurs whenever young men and weapons are put in close proximity -- including in the National Guard.
But it is a vastly more glorious story to claim that Cleland was injured by enemy fire rather than in a freak accident. So after Saxby Chambliss beat Cleland in the 2002 Georgia Senate race, liberals set to work developing a carefully crafted myth about Cleland's accident. Among many other examples, last November, Eric Boehlert wrote in Salon: "(D)uring the siege of Khe Sanh, Cleland lost both his legs and his right hand to a Viet Cong grenade."
Sadly for them, dozens and dozens of newspapers have already printed the truth. Liberals simply can't grasp the problem Lexis-Nexis poses to their incessant lying. They ought to stick to their specialty -- hysterical overreaction. The truth is not their forte.
One of the most detailed accounts of Cleland's life was written by Jill Zuckman in a lengthy piece for The Boston Globe Sunday magazine on Aug. 3, 1997:
Finally, the battle at Khe Sanh was over. Cleland, 25 years old, and two members of his team were now ordered to set up a radio relay station at the division assembly area, 15 miles away. The three gathered antennas, radios and a generator and made the 15-minute helicopter trip east. After unloading the equipment, Cleland climbed back into the helicopter for the ride back. But at the last minute, he decided to stay and have a beer with some friends. As the helicopter was lifting off, he shouted to the pilot that he was staying behind and jumped several feet to the ground.
Cleland hunched over to avoid the whirring blades and ran. Turning to face the helicopter, he caught sight of a grenade on the ground where the chopper had perched. It must be mine, he thought, moving toward it. He reached for it with his right arm just as it exploded, slamming him back and irreparably altering his plans for a bright, shining future.
Interestingly, all news accounts told the exact same story for 30 years -- including that Cleland had stopped to have beer with friends when the accident occurred (a fact that particularly irked Al Hunt).
"He told the pilot he was going to stay awhile. Maybe have a few beers with friends. ... Then Cleland looked down and saw a grenade. Where'd that come from? He walked toward it, bent down, and crossed the line between before and after." (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 5, 1999)
"(Cleland) didn't step on a land mine. He wasn't wounded in a firefight. He couldn't blame the Viet Cong or friendly fire. The Silver Star and Bronze Star medals he received only embarrassed him. He was no hero. He blew himself up." (The Baltimore Sun, Oct. 24, 1999)
"Cleland was no war hero, but his sacrifice was great. ... Democratic Senate candidate Max Cleland is a victim of war, not a casualty of combat. He lost three limbs on a long-forgotten hill near Khe Sanh because of some American's mistake ..." (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sept. 29, 1996)
The story started to change only last year when the Democrats began citing Cleland's lost Senate seat as proof that Republicans hate war heroes. Indeed, until the myth of Republicans attacking Cleland for his lack of "patriotism" became central to the Democrats' narrative against George Bush, Cleland spoke only honorably and humbly about his accident. "How did I become a war hero?" he said to The Boston Globe reporter in 1997. "Simple. The grenade went off."
Cleland even admitted that, but for his accident, he would have "probably been some frustrated history teacher, teaching American government at some junior college." (OK, I got that wrong: I said he'd probably be a pharmacist.)
Cleland's true heroism came after the war, when he went on to build a productive life for himself. That is a story of inspiration and courage. He shouldn't let the Democrats tarnish an admirable life by "sexing up" his record in order to better attack George Bush.
File Under: 'Omission Accomplished'
February 18, 2004
by Ann Coulter
LIBERALS are hopping mad about last week's column. Amid angry insinuations that I "lied" about Sen. Max Cleland, I was attacked on the Senate floor by Sen. Jack Reed, Molly Ivins called my column "error-ridden," and Al Hunt called it a "lie." Joe Klein said I was the reason liberals were being hysterical about George Bush's National Guard service.
I would have left it at one column, but apparently Democrats want to go another round. With their Clintonesque formulations, my detractors make it a little difficult to know what "lie" I'm supposed to be contesting, but they are clearly implying -- without stating -- that Cleland lost his limbs in combat.
It is simply a fact that Max Cleland was not injured by enemy fire in Vietnam. He was not in combat, he was not -- as Al Hunt claimed -- on a reconnaissance mission, and he was not in the battle of Khe Sanh, as many others have implied. He picked up an American grenade on a routine noncombat mission and the grenade exploded.
In Cleland's own words: "I didn't see any heroism in all that. It wasn't an act of heroism. I didn't know the grenade was live. It was an act of fate." That is why Cleland didn't win a Purple Heart, which is given to those wounded in combat. Liberals are not angry because I "lied"; they're angry because I told the truth.
I wouldn't press the point except that Democrats have deliberately "sexed up" the circumstances of Cleland's accident in the service of slandering the people of Georgia, the National Guard and George Bush. Cleland has questioned Bush's fitness for office because he served in the National Guard but did not go to Vietnam.
And yet the poignant truth of Cleland's own accident demonstrates the commitment and bravery of all members of the military who come into contact with ordnance. Cleland's injury was of the routine variety that occurs whenever young men and weapons are put in close proximity -- including in the National Guard.
But it is a vastly more glorious story to claim that Cleland was injured by enemy fire rather than in a freak accident. So after Saxby Chambliss beat Cleland in the 2002 Georgia Senate race, liberals set to work developing a carefully crafted myth about Cleland's accident. Among many other examples, last November, Eric Boehlert wrote in Salon: "(D)uring the siege of Khe Sanh, Cleland lost both his legs and his right hand to a Viet Cong grenade."
Sadly for them, dozens and dozens of newspapers have already printed the truth. Liberals simply can't grasp the problem Lexis-Nexis poses to their incessant lying. They ought to stick to their specialty -- hysterical overreaction. The truth is not their forte.
One of the most detailed accounts of Cleland's life was written by Jill Zuckman in a lengthy piece for The Boston Globe Sunday magazine on Aug. 3, 1997:
Finally, the battle at Khe Sanh was over. Cleland, 25 years old, and two members of his team were now ordered to set up a radio relay station at the division assembly area, 15 miles away. The three gathered antennas, radios and a generator and made the 15-minute helicopter trip east. After unloading the equipment, Cleland climbed back into the helicopter for the ride back. But at the last minute, he decided to stay and have a beer with some friends. As the helicopter was lifting off, he shouted to the pilot that he was staying behind and jumped several feet to the ground.
Cleland hunched over to avoid the whirring blades and ran. Turning to face the helicopter, he caught sight of a grenade on the ground where the chopper had perched. It must be mine, he thought, moving toward it. He reached for it with his right arm just as it exploded, slamming him back and irreparably altering his plans for a bright, shining future.
Interestingly, all news accounts told the exact same story for 30 years -- including that Cleland had stopped to have beer with friends when the accident occurred (a fact that particularly irked Al Hunt).
"He told the pilot he was going to stay awhile. Maybe have a few beers with friends. ... Then Cleland looked down and saw a grenade. Where'd that come from? He walked toward it, bent down, and crossed the line between before and after." (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 5, 1999)
"(Cleland) didn't step on a land mine. He wasn't wounded in a firefight. He couldn't blame the Viet Cong or friendly fire. The Silver Star and Bronze Star medals he received only embarrassed him. He was no hero. He blew himself up." (The Baltimore Sun, Oct. 24, 1999)
"Cleland was no war hero, but his sacrifice was great. ... Democratic Senate candidate Max Cleland is a victim of war, not a casualty of combat. He lost three limbs on a long-forgotten hill near Khe Sanh because of some American's mistake ..." (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sept. 29, 1996)
The story started to change only last year when the Democrats began citing Cleland's lost Senate seat as proof that Republicans hate war heroes. Indeed, until the myth of Republicans attacking Cleland for his lack of "patriotism" became central to the Democrats' narrative against George Bush, Cleland spoke only honorably and humbly about his accident. "How did I become a war hero?" he said to The Boston Globe reporter in 1997. "Simple. The grenade went off."
Cleland even admitted that, but for his accident, he would have "probably been some frustrated history teacher, teaching American government at some junior college." (OK, I got that wrong: I said he'd probably be a pharmacist.)
Cleland's true heroism came after the war, when he went on to build a productive life for himself. That is a story of inspiration and courage. He shouldn't let the Democrats tarnish an admirable life by "sexing up" his record in order to better attack George Bush.
From The Late Show with David Letterman:
Top Ten Good Things About Being A New York Yankee presented by George Steinbrenner
10. "With the player discount, a hot dog at Yankee Stadium is now only $50"
9. "Your bobble-head doll is a legal form of identification in New York State"
8. "With me there's very little pressure to win"
7. "Hideki Matsui can teach you to sing in Japanese"
6. "After every game, Yogi Berra gives you a complimentary foot massage"
5. "Our spring training facility is near a Hooters"
4. "Take it from the guy signing the checks -- some of the players do OK for themselves"
3. "Pinstripes make your butt look slimmer"
2. "You get to meet all of Derek Jeter's girlfriends"
1. "You think this A-Rod deal is good? We're about to sign TY Cobb"
Top Ten Good Things About Being A New York Yankee presented by George Steinbrenner
10. "With the player discount, a hot dog at Yankee Stadium is now only $50"
9. "Your bobble-head doll is a legal form of identification in New York State"
8. "With me there's very little pressure to win"
7. "Hideki Matsui can teach you to sing in Japanese"
6. "After every game, Yogi Berra gives you a complimentary foot massage"
5. "Our spring training facility is near a Hooters"
4. "Take it from the guy signing the checks -- some of the players do OK for themselves"
3. "Pinstripes make your butt look slimmer"
2. "You get to meet all of Derek Jeter's girlfriends"
1. "You think this A-Rod deal is good? We're about to sign TY Cobb"
Good article here from the New York Times:
February 19, 2004
On First Day, There's Spring in Torre's Step
By TYLER KEPNER
TAMPA, Fla., Feb. 18 — Maybe it was the onset of spring training, his favorite part of the baseball season. Maybe it was the trade for Alex Rodriguez, another budding legend at Legends Field. Maybe it was the sudden warmth from his boss, George Steinbrenner.
Joe Torre was in such a buoyant mood on Wednesday that he seemed to be leaning toward returning as Yankees manager past this season. Steinbrenner, the team's principal owner, seemed interested in asking him.
In a move that could signify a thaw in their relationship, Steinbrenner approached Torre on Wednesday about whether he wanted to keep managing beyond this season. Torre mentioned that possibility after Rodriguez's news conference at Yankee Stadium on Tuesday, and Steinbrenner had noticed.
"He was just curious about what I wanted to do, and I told him I don't know," Torre said. "There's been nothing more than that as far as talking about a contract. We talked about other things; that wasn't the main reason he came in. We talked today, probably, because we've been comfortable the last few days we've been in each other's company."
Torre spoke with Steinbrenner at a meeting to assemble his 2004 coaching staff a few days after the World Series. The two did not speak again until Monday, at the Yankees' minor league complex, and they talked again on Tuesday, when Steinbrenner met Torre at the airport after Torre returned from New York.
Steinbrenner spoke to Torre at least twice Wednesday in offices at Legends Field. As they left the administrative offices together in the late afternoon, Steinbrenner gave the thumbs-up sign and said, "It's a great relationship."
It did not seem that way last season, when Steinbrenner irritated Torre by criticizing his coaches and overriding Torre's decision to send pitcher José Contreras to Class AAA Columbus. Late in the season, and early in the winter, Torre barely disguised his weariness with working for Steinbrenner.
But Torre has wavered from his stance that he would not decide on his future until after the season. When he considers his future now, Torre, 63, does not picture retirement.
"Right now, I still feel I can do this," Torre said. "The way I feel, right now, I'm not thinking of retiring. But I'm not sure it's fair to make that decision on the first day of spring training."
As Torre spoke to reporters gathered in his office, he admitted he was thinking out loud. The more he talked, the more he sounded as if he was still having fun on the job. That, Torre said, is the most important factor in deciding whether to return.
The fact that Torre has that authority — or at least thinks he does — represents a reversal from decades of Steinbrenner-manager relationships. Torre is entering his ninth season with the Yankees, a far longer tenure than he said he expected to serve. With Steinbrenner hinting that Torre would decide his own future, Torre was asked if he had turned the tables on his boss.
"Not purposefully, for sure," Torre said. "That's just the way things worked out."
Torre earned enormous credibility with Steinbrenner for winning the World Series in four of his first five seasons as manager. After three seasons without a title, Steinbrenner has equipped Torre with more high-profile talent than ever. The Yankees change every winter, Torre said, but this year is different.
"It's extreme because there are so many marquee players that have come over," Torre said. "This is very unique."
Kevin Brown was one of those marquee players who showed up Wednesday at Legends Field for a physical, carrying a Los Angeles Dodgers equipment bag. Brown, the starting pitcher acquired for Jeff Weaver in December, is one of many accomplished players Torre must bring together quickly.
"We have a lot of strong personalities here this year," Torre said. "It's always fun to see it develop, it really is. But right now, my concern, or curiosity, is my five starters. Ability-wise, I have no questions about them."
But, Torre said, Contreras is only in his second major league season. Javier Vazquez, acquired in a trade with Montreal, is switching leagues and teams. Jon Lieber has not pitched since having elbow surgery in August 2002. Brown has unquestioned talent but has frequently been injured.
Pitchers and catchers have their first formal workout on Thursday, giving Torre his first look at the revamped staff.
His emphasis on pitching extended to his assessment of the Boston Red Sox. Torre would not acknowledge that the Yankees trumped the Red Sox in the off-season by acquiring Rodriguez. By trading for the ace Curt Schilling and signing closer Keith Foulke, Torre said, the Red Sox improved markedly.
"I think they really helped themselves," Torre said. "The pitching they got, in my opinion, that's what bothered me more than the fact that they were going to get A-Rod. Taking nothing away from A-Rod, those guys score a lot of runs."
The Yankees' restocked lineup will be on display soon, with position players reporting here Sunday for their first workout on Tuesday. Some are working out at the minor league complex, including Bernie Williams, who is trying to hold on to his center-field job after Steinbrenner ordered the signing of Kenny Lofton.
Torre has not spoken with Lofton, but he has assured Williams that it will be a fair competition. "I just told Bernie that when we leave here, I'll have a meeting with my coaches and I'll see what I see, and we'll leave here with what I consider the best team," Torre said.
It is a team headlined by Rodriguez, whose arrival has momentarily made Torre and Steinbrenner happy together again.
"All these meetings I've had with him have been since Alex," Torre said. "So I don't know, maybe it's helped both our moods."
February 19, 2004
On First Day, There's Spring in Torre's Step
By TYLER KEPNER
TAMPA, Fla., Feb. 18 — Maybe it was the onset of spring training, his favorite part of the baseball season. Maybe it was the trade for Alex Rodriguez, another budding legend at Legends Field. Maybe it was the sudden warmth from his boss, George Steinbrenner.
Joe Torre was in such a buoyant mood on Wednesday that he seemed to be leaning toward returning as Yankees manager past this season. Steinbrenner, the team's principal owner, seemed interested in asking him.
In a move that could signify a thaw in their relationship, Steinbrenner approached Torre on Wednesday about whether he wanted to keep managing beyond this season. Torre mentioned that possibility after Rodriguez's news conference at Yankee Stadium on Tuesday, and Steinbrenner had noticed.
"He was just curious about what I wanted to do, and I told him I don't know," Torre said. "There's been nothing more than that as far as talking about a contract. We talked about other things; that wasn't the main reason he came in. We talked today, probably, because we've been comfortable the last few days we've been in each other's company."
Torre spoke with Steinbrenner at a meeting to assemble his 2004 coaching staff a few days after the World Series. The two did not speak again until Monday, at the Yankees' minor league complex, and they talked again on Tuesday, when Steinbrenner met Torre at the airport after Torre returned from New York.
Steinbrenner spoke to Torre at least twice Wednesday in offices at Legends Field. As they left the administrative offices together in the late afternoon, Steinbrenner gave the thumbs-up sign and said, "It's a great relationship."
It did not seem that way last season, when Steinbrenner irritated Torre by criticizing his coaches and overriding Torre's decision to send pitcher José Contreras to Class AAA Columbus. Late in the season, and early in the winter, Torre barely disguised his weariness with working for Steinbrenner.
But Torre has wavered from his stance that he would not decide on his future until after the season. When he considers his future now, Torre, 63, does not picture retirement.
"Right now, I still feel I can do this," Torre said. "The way I feel, right now, I'm not thinking of retiring. But I'm not sure it's fair to make that decision on the first day of spring training."
As Torre spoke to reporters gathered in his office, he admitted he was thinking out loud. The more he talked, the more he sounded as if he was still having fun on the job. That, Torre said, is the most important factor in deciding whether to return.
The fact that Torre has that authority — or at least thinks he does — represents a reversal from decades of Steinbrenner-manager relationships. Torre is entering his ninth season with the Yankees, a far longer tenure than he said he expected to serve. With Steinbrenner hinting that Torre would decide his own future, Torre was asked if he had turned the tables on his boss.
"Not purposefully, for sure," Torre said. "That's just the way things worked out."
Torre earned enormous credibility with Steinbrenner for winning the World Series in four of his first five seasons as manager. After three seasons without a title, Steinbrenner has equipped Torre with more high-profile talent than ever. The Yankees change every winter, Torre said, but this year is different.
"It's extreme because there are so many marquee players that have come over," Torre said. "This is very unique."
Kevin Brown was one of those marquee players who showed up Wednesday at Legends Field for a physical, carrying a Los Angeles Dodgers equipment bag. Brown, the starting pitcher acquired for Jeff Weaver in December, is one of many accomplished players Torre must bring together quickly.
"We have a lot of strong personalities here this year," Torre said. "It's always fun to see it develop, it really is. But right now, my concern, or curiosity, is my five starters. Ability-wise, I have no questions about them."
But, Torre said, Contreras is only in his second major league season. Javier Vazquez, acquired in a trade with Montreal, is switching leagues and teams. Jon Lieber has not pitched since having elbow surgery in August 2002. Brown has unquestioned talent but has frequently been injured.
Pitchers and catchers have their first formal workout on Thursday, giving Torre his first look at the revamped staff.
His emphasis on pitching extended to his assessment of the Boston Red Sox. Torre would not acknowledge that the Yankees trumped the Red Sox in the off-season by acquiring Rodriguez. By trading for the ace Curt Schilling and signing closer Keith Foulke, Torre said, the Red Sox improved markedly.
"I think they really helped themselves," Torre said. "The pitching they got, in my opinion, that's what bothered me more than the fact that they were going to get A-Rod. Taking nothing away from A-Rod, those guys score a lot of runs."
The Yankees' restocked lineup will be on display soon, with position players reporting here Sunday for their first workout on Tuesday. Some are working out at the minor league complex, including Bernie Williams, who is trying to hold on to his center-field job after Steinbrenner ordered the signing of Kenny Lofton.
Torre has not spoken with Lofton, but he has assured Williams that it will be a fair competition. "I just told Bernie that when we leave here, I'll have a meeting with my coaches and I'll see what I see, and we'll leave here with what I consider the best team," Torre said.
It is a team headlined by Rodriguez, whose arrival has momentarily made Torre and Steinbrenner happy together again.
"All these meetings I've had with him have been since Alex," Torre said. "So I don't know, maybe it's helped both our moods."
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Wow. A week since the last post. Not that there haven't been things going on that are worth mentioning (specifically the Yankees trade for A-Rod), but there hasn't been much in the way of posting that I thought was worth preserving. Back today with one of David Horowitz's blog entries:
Woody Guthrie and patriotism
Sunday, February 15, 2004
Reading the Sunday papers has become a trial. It's so bad that even the Book Review sections are likely to set my teeth on edge. To cite one example on many available in today's papers, the cover of the LA Times features every leftist's favorite red, Woody Guthrie and titles the review of a new biography of Guthrie "Restless Patriot." You might as well say the same about Taliban John.
Woody Guthrie was a regular columnist for the Communist Party's official paper The Daily Worker. Consequently, while Woody Guthrie was many things -- even admirable things (he carvied an an indelible place for himself in American culture for example -- the one thing he was not was a patriot. He was a patriot of the Soviet Union and the Communist dream. But a patriot as someone who loved and would defend the capitalist democracy he was born in he was not.
Why does the left insist on this particular lie? (NB: When I say the left, I mean the left exclusive of that miniscule minority grouped around the magazine Dissent that is always giving me grief for statements like this). The answer is that the left has a guilty conscience because it knows better than anyone else just how unpatriotic it is.
Can anyone name a single war the United States has been engaged in since 1945 that the left didn't oppose? It only supported the allies in the World War II, moreover, because Hitler had the bad judgment to attack the Soviet Union and force the Communist mecca to take up arms against him. When Stalin was Hitler's ally, the progressive left was "pacifist." I guess one could make a case that the left to the right of Noam Chomsky supported Clinton's war in Kosovo. But that was only because this was essentially a bombing run and its architects Clinton and Blair stressed that there was no "national interest" at stake. So even the exception proves the rule.
Why are leftist such liars about such basic things? Because they know that if they were candid about their true agendas they would be run out of town on a rail.
Woody Guthrie and patriotism
Sunday, February 15, 2004
Reading the Sunday papers has become a trial. It's so bad that even the Book Review sections are likely to set my teeth on edge. To cite one example on many available in today's papers, the cover of the LA Times features every leftist's favorite red, Woody Guthrie and titles the review of a new biography of Guthrie "Restless Patriot." You might as well say the same about Taliban John.
Woody Guthrie was a regular columnist for the Communist Party's official paper The Daily Worker. Consequently, while Woody Guthrie was many things -- even admirable things (he carvied an an indelible place for himself in American culture for example -- the one thing he was not was a patriot. He was a patriot of the Soviet Union and the Communist dream. But a patriot as someone who loved and would defend the capitalist democracy he was born in he was not.
Why does the left insist on this particular lie? (NB: When I say the left, I mean the left exclusive of that miniscule minority grouped around the magazine Dissent that is always giving me grief for statements like this). The answer is that the left has a guilty conscience because it knows better than anyone else just how unpatriotic it is.
Can anyone name a single war the United States has been engaged in since 1945 that the left didn't oppose? It only supported the allies in the World War II, moreover, because Hitler had the bad judgment to attack the Soviet Union and force the Communist mecca to take up arms against him. When Stalin was Hitler's ally, the progressive left was "pacifist." I guess one could make a case that the left to the right of Noam Chomsky supported Clinton's war in Kosovo. But that was only because this was essentially a bombing run and its architects Clinton and Blair stressed that there was no "national interest" at stake. So even the exception proves the rule.
Why are leftist such liars about such basic things? Because they know that if they were candid about their true agendas they would be run out of town on a rail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
