This is another excercise in what-ifism if I ever saw one, as you said. What if Mel takes all the money, establishes "Christian Films" and proceeds to make nothing but movies about the bible for the rest of his life? Or, what if he takes all the dough, buys out Hugh Hefner and reverts to hedonism? The game can be played ad infinitum until Mel actually does something with the money. Only then can judgement be rendered.

JG's comment ticked me off and it still does. First, as Marc notes, it is too early to discuss. Second, on what ground does anyone have a right to know? If he chooses to do charity quietly, who is to demand an accounting?

Craig,

Perhaps I'm suggesting more subtlety than is possible to manage in practice, but I think there's some degree to which public statements can help to keep good stewardship of his profits on a rich Christian's mind.

It's certainly too early to say anything about Gibson, and it's also the case that it mightn't have been prudent of Jonah Goldberg to be among the first to raise the point, and he really didn't phrase his first comment well. I also think that expectations of a public accounting would be ludicrous. However, creating public expectations of charity can be a good thing.

Moreover, I have to admit that I've wondered the same thing. And I have little doubt that Gibson will satisfy all but ardent critics in what he does. Even figuring out the best way to do good with that much money can take a long time!

True their is a natural curiosity as to how Mel might make use of the money from the TPOTC. But I don't seem to remember the same questions asked of Steven Spielberg for Shindler's List.

Also if this movie would have flopped as so many critics prophesied they wouldn't have been concerned with the money Mel bankrolled it with.

I think in some cases this could be an issue. And i think your approach was not at all offensive.

But the timing of Goldberg's post and the hit and run nature of his blogging just didn't sit well with me.

I guess part of it is that i don't like to speculate about the potential sins of my brethern. Yeah, Gibson might do bad things with the money-- But i have no reason to think he will (quite the opposite).

Justin, I understand that there is some benefit in public discussion of this sort because it can have a sort of "we're watching you effect" on the subject. I still think it's a waste of time until Mel actually does something, so it should be over by tomorrow. Finally, I wasn't so much being critical of you as I was of the whole NRO crowd wasting time on this. Oops, really finally, sorry about not capitalizing the "B" in Bible above.

To clarify: I didn't feel that anybody was attacking me, here. In fact, I agree with everything said. (Although, there is room for discussion in the gray.)

I agree with much of what's been said by the previous commentors. With the flack Mel Gibson has taken to this point, discussing what he may or may not do with an unknown amount of profit, a mere 3 weeks into the movie's release, is premature to say the least.

Goldberg asks us how we would feel if Oliver Stone made a movie about the poor, raked in a huge profit, and simply bought more mansions. Leaving aside the difficulty of comparing the spending of profits of a movie that doesn't exist, to one that he hasn't yet seen, lets see if there's another point here.

Suppose this film by Stone, while hugely successful, provoked people into feeling and acting differently toward the poor. Perhaps in the way Dickens' description of the workhouses of the 19th century affected the English people. And because of Stone's movie, people got more involved in a way that was more than cutting a check. That they began cooking and serving meals at soup kitchens, becoming big brothers and mentors to young boys in fatherless homes, etc.

Would what he did with his profit matter as much? At all? If Gibson's movie affects people to change their lives, make them see in Christ's suffering, the suffering of their fellow men and become more active in promoting the Gospel, feeding His sheep, etc., wouldn't that be the greater contribution by Gibson to the world.

I realize, at bottom, it is still only a movie (albeit a very powerful one in my opinion) but people may be moved enough to at least begin the first steps of reexamining their lives in light of Christ crucified. This is impossible to quantify. So, instead, we ask how much of the profit Mel will give back.

I think, in that respect, the good that comes from TPOTC is much more important than how the profits from TPOTC will be spent. Aren't we taught that the woman who gave one dollar when she only had two, had given more than the rich man who gave only from his profit?

Just throwing out some random thoughts. Good comments by all.

Bob Pokoj

Hello Bob.

Yes, you're absolutely correct that the effects of the movie are the greater good, and it's an important point that I hadn't thought to stress. Personally, I wouldn't be inclined to do more than shrug and say "Well..." even were Gibson to waste the money, although I've a feeling he won't do so.

While I can't speak for Jonah, I'm mostly interested in it as a moral question. The windfall is a form of active good in and of itself, in that it will spur even the greedy to move toward Christian themes, and Ramesh Ponnuru makes an interesting point when he asks, "wouldn't it undercut that point to say that yes, you can make money with those movies, but then you'll have to give it all away?"

In the field of famous actors and actresses, there are few conservatives... Hollywood is know for being overwhelmingly liberal. I have known for awhile, however, that Mel Gibson is a conservative. In the 1996 presidential elections, he supported Pat Buchanan in the Republican primaries. I don't know who he supported for President in the general election, but he did not like Clinton and Dole (though that doesn't mean he didn't vote for one of them), as did many conservatives.

Some hours ago, I saw this news item on World Net Daily, about how Gibson gave an interview to Sean Hannity (who some of us students went to see on Saturday, at a stop on his 'Hannitization' book tour, as I said in recent blog entry). That World Net Daily piece says that Gibson is having doubts about President Bush, and that he's troubled by the weapons of mass destruction claims.

Mel Gibson is a principled conservative. A lot of people have been talking about how the Hollywood left has been anti-war, but I pointed out in a blog entry that many liberals and Democrats supported the recent Iraq war, including some celebrities. I have been focusing a great deal, in my past blog entries, comment posts, and other writings, on the conservative opposition to the Iraq war. Many conservatives opposed the Iraq war, and if Mel Gibson opposes it, then that could confuse some pro-war conservatives, many of whom have been misled into believing that this war corresponds to conservative and Republican principles, and that conservatives overwhelming support it. Some of them have likely already been confused when they see prominent conservatives, on television and elsewhere, such as Pat Buchanan, Bob Novak, Paul Craig Roberts, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, and others, speaking out, or writing commentary, in opposition to this war. But if Gibson, one of the few conservatives in Hollywood, opposes this Iraq war (I don't know if he does or not), then that would be a good thing - it will show that even among the small minority of conservatives in Hollywood, there is disagreement about this issue, as there was for the national conservative columnists and conservative organizations.

One thing that could happen, though, is if Gibson criticizes President Bush, or his policies, then some of the same conservatives, and others, who have been supporting and liking him could have second thoughts, or may not have as good of an opinion about him as they did before. They shouldn't think like that, though.

(1) Gibson makes The Passion and doesn't care if he loses his shirt on it (no pun intended) ==> Gibson is a religious nutter.

(2) Gibson makes The Passion and makes millions ==> Gibson is a cynical exploiter of religious devotion for his own profit.

(2-A) Gibson makes The Passion and makes millions, which he is publicly seen to give away to charitable causes ==> Gibson is an ostentatious publicity-hound, who's violating Jesus' command not to perform your good works in public for the admiration of men.

(2-B) Gibson makes The Passion and makes millions, which he is not publicly seen to give away to charitable causes ==> Gibson is a cynical exploiter of religious devotion for his own profit.

He can't win, whatever he does. Other, of course, than making a film depicting Jesus as an "Episcopalian social worker with progressive views".