If all the “experts” in “Hollywood” would all stand up at once, we’d have an upstanding population in “Hollywood.”
Alas, that’s not the case. And most of America — actually, sadly, most of the world — knows that’s the harsh reality of the double-speak and messaging from many in the entertainment industry. And why sincerity of message stands out and equates with “big box office,” “money maker” and the other enthusiastic tags that Hollywood responds to.
You can have awful sincerity, wonderful sincerity, disgusting sincerity but the point is, entertainment that bespeaks with truth in delivery and content (you have to match those two up or you fail in sincerity) garners attention from the public (and that results in those two tags that Hollywood then responds to).
In one saving grace, then, Hollywood by proxy — measured in audience — responds to the sincere response by others to sincerity.
But when Hollywood attempts to drive the sincerity to suit Hollywood’s concept of what sincerity is, it fails in sincerity among the public. The result is bad movies promoted in pomp and circumstance and even “awarded” ceremoniously, huge amounts of media time and space (and dollars) spent beating the insincerity into word and image pulp, and worse, you get personal or sectarian issue campaigns that the public readily makes fun of. And well should they because it’s the only response that’s appropriate to such irresponsible, crass self-indulgence as that, as Hollywood with various social impositions and political campaigns will offer when and as they are wont to do, and worse, Hollywood does not appear — in the recent decades — to be able to change, modify itself, self-examine in any product sense.
That means, they’re not being sincere, they’re communicating a deficit just as also an inability to be sincere because most people never approach such excess anywhere, anytime without negative consequences. As “real” individual lives worldwide are acutely aware. The essence of truth — sincerity in expression — isn’t flamboyant, it’s miraculous. It isn’t vain, it’s genuine.
Thus, you get these Wars of the Words from Hollywood, the pummeling of people for being “stupid” or looking “bad” or wrong or out of touch or too thin or too fat or just right (worse than anything) or for big feet or small feet or, worse, no feet or not ashram’d enough or wearing white when everyone else is convinced that black is, was and always will be, the new pastel (“black” as in the ever-present Hollywood and Manhattan people-in-black [PIBs] — not “black people”).
And, it’s the reason why people tune out “Hollywood” and seek to “just be entertained.” And why people turn away from much Hollywood product when it’s part of the War of the Words, but who will, instead, continue to buy product by those few sincere filmmakers and performers (they can and do fool us, most are also aware of that, but it’s entertainment and few of us forget that — the point being, the sincerity is either in the entertainment or it’s not entertaining).
Thus, in these contexts, this is true:
“Mel Gibson has a very high trust bank with audiences,” Levick said (“…Richard Levick, whose Washington firm represents several celebrity clients…).”
— From an article entitled, “EXPERTS SAY GIBSON’S APOLOGY TOO LATE”
And, thus, why this part is not true (from that same article):
The article “works” but in a tool-of-the-War of the Words way, a sort of effort to “perform” sincerity while to the contrary, most readers recognize the failure to be sincere there.
Associated Press, who published that title with that article sure was trying to be sincere, but they fail the sincerity test (and immediately so, the failure’s rather complete with the first read, people shake their heads in disgust and sadness to read that, as if the author has super-view ability to speak for the public). No one sincere needs to canoodle and manipulate and be as pompous as that and those who do, sure are trying too hard to be noticed, to get attention to their point of view.
Moreover, from that article, these additional comments fail the sincerity test and as tools of insincerity just come off being negative — not negative in the useful, informative sense but damaging, needless negative, like driving over someone twice:
…Levick said, “And that is in jeopardy. This is at a tipping point right now.”
In a sign that the Gibson camp gained some ground Tuesday, several Jewish leaders offered reserved praise for Gibson’s apology. They said it was an improvement over a statement Gibson issued Saturday that only vaguely referred to “despicable” remarks.
“It addresses the issue, it addresses the substance,” said Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. “I have two caveats. One, it’s another publicist statement and makes me a little bit uncomfortable because the publicist issued the statement earlier in the week. To what extent is it a true reflection of Mel Gibson’s true feeling? The other issue is two years ago when we dealt with the issue of `The Passion of the Christ,’ the same publicist reached out to me and told me how much Mel Gibson respects me and what kind of good guy he is, and (that) Mel Gibson wants to meet. Well, did I meet you? We never met.”
The delay in having Gibson address the issue of anti-semitism raised questions of insincerity, celebrity handler Michael Sitrick said…
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, as quoted just there, from that AP article (appearing also quoted elsewhere similarly) was among the most vociferous, irrational persons on international television in negation of Gibson’s film, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, and could be heard over and over again, obsessively decrying that the film “blames the Jews for killing Christ.” This represents an obvious set of problems by Mr. Foxman as to his own emotional, perceptual, theological and academic understandings and abilities, but he’s infectious on an outward sense as are those of his similar mindset.
I feel empathy for Mr. Foxman — he appears as one who is in some ongoing struggle — but by that empathy, I don’t condone his destructive message nor his irrationality. Based upon my viewing his many televised opinion pieces over the years, Mr. Foxman is a person who does not seem balanced, mostly because he so resolutely and emotionally rejects any information that would resolve his upsets. In that psychological quandary, it’s understandable why Mr. Foxman perceives nearly all, if not all, opinion contrary or even different to his own as being opposed (or “anti”) his understandings. In that narrow range, then, everyone on the planet as unique individuals is “anti-Foxman.”
Additionally, these issues, the explanation as to the source of the negativity about Mel Gibson, are nearly hidden in this AP article just as they appear absent from Mr. Foxman’s message, perhaps to avoid reckoning by those responsible, but that is noticeable to others just as is noticed, too, the attempt to conceal an issue amidst a lot of Words among the War:
The cloud of anti-semitism has followed Gibson since the 2004 film “The Passion of the Christ,” which many Jews felt unfairly portrayed Jews’ role in the death of Jesus. The issue intensified after interviews with Gibson’s father, who called the Holocaust mostly “fiction.”
So, there it is, the essence of this huge “Gibson Issue” right there.
It wasn’t referenced (or so much as alluded to) in the headline (nor in any headline I’ve read in the last week), it isn’t being featured, discussed anywhere, it’s as if the motivating and unresolved heart of this issue is referenced when it must for sake of reportage but only in an under-the-breath sort of way. And I think it is the underbelly of the Hollywood problem. As is also Hollywood’s inability to confront this problem of their own insincerity, their need to obfuscate their own motivations.
And why there’ll never be a resolution to this issue for Hollywood until the hardness of heart and borderline irrationality among certain folks in Hollywood remains unforgiving. I question as to whether or not they’ll ever see themselves in the mirror.
But Gibson has. Most of us have.
All of us outside this cadre of insincerity have to answer for our foolish or cruel behaviors or comments — everyone’s made them.
In fact, I’ve heard several — no, many — cruel comments from some people who Hollywood revels in as righteous representatives and I’ve never heard apologies afterward, nor read them.
Indeed, Hollywood issues — year in, year out, for decades especially of late — films filled with expressions that profane Christ and profane God, for starters, without so much as a hesitation or an apology. Ever. No retractions, just casual, banal cursing of God, of Christ, of Christianity (in word and deed) and much of that presented in a context of what Hollywood deems to be heroic or associates with the lead character otherwise (and thus, positions the language, the expressions, the behavior with what is symbolically in the lead or to be followed, in other words). In the perception of Hollywood, these banal expressions and behaviors are “typical” of “typical” people being “typical” while in the experiences of people outside the entertainment industry, these are not at all typical expressions or behaviors by anyone we know or encounter, or only rarely encounter and then not among our families and friends.
No, Hollywood is a closed society one that includes a “typical” profaning of Christianity as also a trivializing of Christianity and Christian beliefs and morality, while also displaying ongoing, underlying disdain of Christians and Christianity by persisting in using expressions relating to God and Christ as terms of profanity, an area of human relationship to be profaned, in the perceptions of Hollywood.
This cadre of awful disrespect from Hollywood seems oblivious to self-examination and thus, encourages and rewards media “expert” after “expert” (so-called) such as Barbara Walters (the day Walters represents the public opinion on any issue is the day that Mary Jo Kopeckne is found living and well in Massachusetts) and for-profit bloggers and the spammers (they’re active in this issue, too) and the Agents and organizations who would just as soon ruin their competition (and they do appear to be trying) as part of a good day’s work and then go home in enjoyment as to that which they’ve destroyed.
As representative of that — and about whom I feel sorrow — the predictable always pile on and so pile on they have and are: Army Archerd congratulates/supports the defamation of Mel Gibson, so does the Los Angeles Times (no big surprise there) an insane Christopher Hitchens goes even moreso, TMZ thwumps on, and on, and on.
A lone article in THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER by Anne Thompson, however, represents a reasonable report of “the Gibson issue.”
And, it’s commendable to see that the DRUDGE REPORT has removed the previous “Gibson links” today. Good for Matt Drudge. Oops: (UPDATE, 08/03/05, 4:30 A.M., PST, DRUDGE again multiple-headlines Gibson — among those a link to another disparaging piece, however well written, by Army Archerd, including a chain-letter-gossip format that writes Mel Gibson in the same context as “the people who…come to take us [Jews] and families to the ovens” — there is much hysterical sensitivity in this group of people who are maligning Gibson with all the intensity of machine guns blazing).
This “Gibson Issue” and how it’s being used and Gibson as a person is being maligned are unfortunate but revealing examples of where our society fails and who is the failure among us. Media presence is not indicative of worth, certaiinly not of sincerity.
The media result, however, in this case as to Gibson as it is and has been with previous issues from the entertainment industry of concern to the public (which is just about all of the industry), is the same: insincerity with “agenda” and the use of entertainment toward a greater insincerity. Big effects don’t mask it, big budgets don’t, either. The public mostly recognizes a sincere person, a sincere message just as it recognizes that insincerity maligns sincerity. Always has, and apparently, Hollywood’s determined that it always will. Needs to drive in another nail.
The public gets up every day and looks itself in the mirror and has to face the daily reactions to right or wrong actions and most don’t (nor would) deploy a horde of Telephoniacs to hookup and into as a gangland response or retribution effort upon people who may have uttered foolish words on a public street.
But the so-called “super agent” in Hollywood did that very thing and then wrote about it and the HUFFINGTON POST — which had the depravity to publish Emanuel’s call-to-damage-Gibson. I’ve read some deplorable statements in my life but that one by Emanuel was and remains the lowest point ever. Apparently to Emanuel, being an agent (a “super” agent!) now includes calling the public and an industry to harm someone else for their opinions — even drunken rantings — and the opinions AND THOUGHTS of someone’s PARENT (in Gibson’s case, his father — we can read what his father [or anyone] writes but so far, I’m not convinced that Emanuel and Huffington and a mix of others can actually read minds about which they demand harms come to others for opinions, and worse, for [presumed] thoughts, even by a parent).
Gibson made a movie and the public responded roundly and mightily in favor of Gibson’s movie — to Gibson’s sincerity in that film as a filmmaker, sincerity as to content in the film — and a segment among our population who considers itself to be gatekeeper or Editor in the War of the Words, was wrong, was proven wrong.
They failed the sincerity test, Gibson won the sincerity test. People appreciated what he did as a filmmaker and artist (most of us still do and will continue to if Gibson recovers his health and I beleive that he will), Hollywood was convinced the film was “wrong” (insincere in their views, wasn’t what Hollywood deemed to be workable, wasn’t a Hollywood-esque version of sincerity) because it was deemd a problem in sincerity by those who fancy themselves the “expert” gatekeepers.
And, among the most determined opponents to sincerity in our film industry, there’s this round-down from Ariana Huffington: THE GIBSON AFFAIR: A DEFINING HOLLYWOOD MOMENT. The one point that Huffington makes there is that Mel Gibson in his recent times is polarizing for “Hollywood,” but she’s determined to keep the scales on the eyes by hanging onto them with both fists even when the miracle is really there to lift and discard them: like others, she can be free from this illness of perspective if she’d just accept the gift. Like many in Hollywood, the determination to commit to insincerity, instead, is woeful. Might lose popularity. Frightens the ego, intimidates the insincere. Light’s too bright.
The “experts” failed the sincerity test, the public responded, end of story; unfortunately, not for Hollywood, who is as unforgiving — of themselves and certainly of those who confront them — as ever was on this earth. Another indication of lack of sincerity, or refusal to be sincere: a commitment to the down.