Customer Reviews

ABC Primetime - Mel Gibson's Passion

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

If you're a fan of Gibson and "The Passion of the Christ" (like I am), buy this DVD. It's worth it to hear Gibson explain his reasons for making the film and to hear him discuss his personal beliefs.

However, the interview is also a testament to the media's incredible anti-Christian bias. Diane Sawyer did not even bother to veil her bias. The scowl on her face throughout the interview is shocking, considering journalists are supposed to be objective. It was clear she was furious with Gibson for "daring" to make a Christian film. (A true journalist, she is not. If one can decipher where a journalist falls on an issue, that journalist has absolutely failed his/her profession.) For that reason, I gave the DVD 4 stars instead of 5 stars.

Diane Sawyer also manages to give screen time to a funny-looking renegade former priest who does nothing but make a fool of himself. Why is this man qualified to speak and what does he have to do with the movie??? I'm sure Sawyer thought the fact that he's a priest (never mind that he's a FORMER priest), the fact that he makes offensive comments about Jesus Christ, and his criticizing the movie was enough to include this man in the interview. How low will Diane Sawyer sink? Moral of the story: claim that you're Christian, say some mean things about Jesus Christ, and you'll get screen time!!

Notice the incredibly antagonistic questions she throws at Gibson as compared to the soft-ball questions she throws at the movie's critics.

Overall, the interview will upset your fairness sensibilities but it's worth buying the DVD to listen to Gibson. I'm also looking forward to having this DVD around in future years when I want to recall what this controversy was about. What a hero Gibson is to have endured all this persecution, merely for making a movie about Jesus Christ that portrayed Him in (shock!) a positive light.

Hats off to you, Mel!
Diane Sawyer, go back to journalism school.

I watched this interview when it came out on TV, and thank God I wasn't in Mel's shoes because I'd probably pull out Diane's hair. Is it just me, or did she have the look of constipation when she was asking those questions. The women was so bias, and unfair. Even though this interview is only an hour, apparently, Diane and the crew at ABC spent 4 hours with Gibson, drilling him with questions. Mel was so professional, and was cool, calm, and collective. Diane on the other hand...no comment. She really is clueless and ignorant to Religion in general. My favorite part was when Mel told her "Read the gospels Diane." I guess she didn't do her homework, because she has no clue what she is talking about. I have lost respect for that Diane. Also, I would like to say something else, why do they always have to pick people are always against something. It should be 50/50 if you want a debate. It was all of them against Mel. By the way that Foxman guy who dressed up as a priest, and sneaked into a screening doesn't not speak for all Jews, I repeat.

Would Diane Sawyer have the same bewildered scowl on her face she had for Mel if she was doing an in-depth interview with porn-meister Larry Flynt? Would she look as skeptical and objective fawning over the Clintons? Gushing with the latest doomed Hollywood couple?
Didn't think so.
I learned a lot about Mel Gibson in this interview but I also learned a lot about Diane Sawyer and how completely out-of-touch and distrustful the network media is toward people of faith.

Since I doubt the forthcoming PASSION DVD will have this interview included (and it should), I'll pick it up. I think it's the perfect introduction to this film.

The mainstream media, so eager to crucify Mel Gibson for being an outspoken Christian and, therefore, not a hostage to the atheistic liberalism embraced by most film stars, isn't about to pass up an opportunity to cash in on his popularity. Hence, the release to home video of this episode of ABC News "Primetime."

When your audience is deserting you in droves for cable and the internet, you've got to find a way to make extra cash, but the only selling point is Mel Gibson whose popularity is soaring as ABC and Gibson's interrogator, the obnoxious Diane Sawyer, slide into irrelevance.

Such hypocrisy is not surprising, nor is it a revelation that Diane Sawyer is an embarrassment to her profession. This aging fluff chick's anti-Christian bias is evident throughout, but she never comes close to ruffling Mel's feathers. Unlike Sawyer, the superstar actor/director has a solid belief system and is not likely to be intimidated into muzzling those beliefs to accomodate the infidels of modern Babylon.

Although Mel holds his ground and makes quite an impression, and Sawyer makes a bigger fool of herself than she usually does, I can't justify buying this. Anyone who wanted to add this interview to their video library could have taped it from TV. They weren't likely to miss it since it was hyped in the same hysterical fashion that is network TV's stock-in-trade. Besides, Gibson gave a more in-depth interview to ETWN, the Catholic cable network that let him speak his mind without trying to trip him up, as Sawyer does, with stupid, insulting questions. Buying this video only puts money in the pockets of Sawyer and ABC. I gave up on ABC and the other broadcast networks long ago. I'm not about to support them now.

Brian W. Fairbanks

3 stars for Mel. Two knocked off-- one for Diane's obvious biasness and one for the network's biasness. Diane was 'just' doing what she was told to do and was scripted to do (doh?). There's a movie out in theaters now called "Saved". It is very biased towards young Christians. How much you want to bet that this movie will NOT be put down by Diane or this network? Any takers?

Mel impresses me with his boldness in doing the movie and the interview. He KNEW what the reaction would be by the "hey we insist on Christians being tolerant" club. The networks have long been biased towards anything Christian (nothing new there and God help these people!), but Mel stood by his beliefs and has an answer in season and out. Good going Mel!

This interview talks to heart of the believer in Christ. Secular or non-believing journalists see Christians as "weirdos" sometimes. Notice I didn't say "all the time".

It is had for people, who believe that the only way to heaven is through Jesus, to make people who have rejected (or never searched for) that truth understand our passion, our committment, our love for Jesus and His Father.

I suggest purchasing this video and showing it to your children, as a way to make them understand the difference between the two molds of TRUTH. The main goal of the Christian faith is not to drag others to Christ, but show them the light - that they may see for themselves the love, grace, and hope the Savior brings to all.

I think Mel Gibson is bringing people to the light. Hopefully Diane Sawyer is a light-seeker. :-)

www.therunninggirl.com

I don't own the DVD, but I saw the interview when it aired live. Although I hadn't been a particularly avid follower of Diane Sawyer, I had by no means ever been offended by her, so I gave her the benefit of the doubt that she wasn't caught up in the anti-Christian bias. After watching this interview, I was disappointed. I don't dislike Sawyer now, but I've lost a lot of respect for her. It takes a strong person to stand against popular opinion (i.e. anti-Catholic bias), and she simply doesn't seem to have what it takes. I'm sorry, but one would think that a full-grown, mature, educated woman would have learned the importance of not following peer-pressure -- the anti-drug campaign advocates this lesson enough, for crying out loud.

From the get-go, it seemed that Sawyer had made up her mind (or her boss did) to react to Mel Gibson and his beliefs as one reacts to someone who believes that they have been abducted by fish-people (although I think she would've been a tad more polite to the fish-people believer, as it is politically incorrect to denigrate a (non-Christian) person's belief system). She also seemed intent emphasizing the anti-Semitic issue, just like pretty much everyone else who hadn't even seen the movie yet did (forgetting that most of the "good guys," if you will, in the movie were also of Jewish descent). As we all know, it's been about a year and a half since the movie's release, and people of Jewish descent are at about the same level of health and happiness that they were before the movie's release. Way to break the mold, Diane.

Thankfully, Gibson held his own. Although he didn't openly react to the implications raised by Sawyer's questions, it seemed evident that he was well aware of her intentions; to be fair, he was probably very well prepared for it.

I gave this DVD 3 stars because, even though I thought Gibson was interesting and he stated his reasons for making the film with confidence, Sawyer was unimpressively consistent with the popular opinions of the day.

Also, a respectful note to the individual who addressed the issue that Gibson has his own private church. While you raise an interesting concern, you seem to be under the impression that because Gibson has his own church, it means that he has his own religion. That would be problematic, except the church he has on his property is a Catholic church, and the Mass that is said there is in union with the Roman Catholic Church, at least as far as I know. Therefore, I don't see the hypocrisy that you seem to be trying to point out. As far as where his money goes, Gibson, unlike other celebrities, doesn't publicize his donations, so who's to say how much money from the movie went solely into his own pocket? It wouldn't be very Christian of me to judge.

If you have some kind of problem with Mel Gibson or his Passion movie, this interview might upset you. The reason is that Gibson comes off looking smart, coherent and convincing while his detractors appear paranoid and present weak, insubstantial arguments to support their issues with the movie.

My favorite example of this is a scholar who remarks that if you show a crucifix to both Christians and Jews you get different responses. Really? We could show pictures of Ronald Reagan to Republicans and Democrats and get two separate responses as well, I'll bet. How about showing a picture of an atomic explosion to a WWII Veteran and a citizen of Hiroshima? Of course a person's point of view determines how they feel about certain images!

Gibson is elegantly dismissive of the charges of anti-Semitism about him and his movie. He explains the removal of the quote from Matthew 27:25 ("His blood be upon us...") by explaining "a couple seconds isn't enough time to deal with the theological nuances" of the meaning of the verse. His detractors avoid labeling the movie as anti-Semitic and instead suggest that it's reckless and could cause some people to have a violent response toward Jews. Gibson points out that following this logic, no movies could be made about one group mistreating an individual from another group.

There's a lot of great conversation of Gibson's personal struggles and his faith which are the high points of the interview. During these parts both Sawyer and Gibson lighten up and laugh about his "former life" as a wild Hollywood playboy. Gibson ties this all in with his conversion, his Christian faith and why he made the movie.

The kind of things left out of the interview are the things that nobody would really expect, such as having Abraham Foxman give his opinions on why Jews like Maia Morgenstern and Gibson's publicist, both who have close relatives who were killed in the holocaust, don't have a problem with being part of the movie which Morgenstern refers to as "poetic". Also the illegalities perpetrated against Gibson such as the theft of scripts and illegitimate screenings are not even mentioned. Diane Sawyer does a pretty good job; she has this confused look on her face a lot of the time like she doesn't understand what Mel Gibson is saying. But Gibson is so plainspoken and easy to understand that the viewer gets a sense that this is postured to produce a certain effect.

Despite the fact that Diane Sawyer was doing her best to make him look bad, Mel Gibson made very many good points in this interview AND got in a few jokes as well! However, I was very frusterated by some of the so-called experts--almost all of them were against the movie. I was especially annoyed with the one, "Pretend I'm a martian..." This, along with Diane Sawyer's attitude, is what made me give this only three stars.

Gibson did very little press for The Passion, with this being the much-hyped primetime ABC interview. Sawyer asks the questions that would be expected, asking him why he didn't make a more politically correct version. Gibson should be commended for standing by his vision. His particular form of Orthodox Catholicism believes the brutal crucifixion is the singular most important moment in the life of Christ, and to understand the him, you must travel that last day with him and suffer ever blow.

Therefore, he felt his depiction of the death of Christ was the ONLY version he could ever produce (he tires to explain this to Sawyer who seems to suggest "well, why not change this story if people get mad?"). To him, anything else would be a compromise before God. You may not agree with his spin on the meaning of Jesus, but you have to admire his allegiance to his beliefs.

In a moment emphasizing Gibson's nearly jaw-dropping gall, he answers a question by Sawyer similar to "Isn't it wrong and unfair to modern Jews to show them doing bad things in this movie?" His answer is to compare it to Schindler's List, and how that historical film is most likely discomforting to modern Germans. I understand his point (and agree), but it is easy to see how he gets labeled anti-Semitic with parallels like that.