Well, maybe, but for where I sit while it does poke a sharp stick at the studios it also takes shots at the reverential ethos Gibson has tried to create for the 'Gospel According to Mel' while crassly cashing in like it was another Hollywood gobbler, like say, 'Lethal Passion'. The focus on graphic violence 'Love the flaying', the sleazy merchandising 'Bring the cash on a tray', 'Jesus using an iBook', the distortion of history 'Could the Rabbis be Hispanic?', anti-semitism disguised as biblical fact 'a space between Jew and boy', and so on. I think Mel gets it as good as the studios here.
>For that matter, why would you think Steve Martin would oppose Mel Gibson?
>Remember this little piece of history?:
>http://www.usswisconsin.org/Pictures/Famous%20Visitors/smartin.htm
Okay, so Mel creates a warped piece of fundamentalist porn, that makes him complicit with GW1, Martin is now guilty by association because he did a USO tour 14 years ago, therefore any current satire of Gibson is de facto illegitimate? Karl Rove would love this logic.
Why would I think Martin would oppose Gibson? Maybe he's a decent, reasonably intelligent human being who knows his religious history and fears what Gibson's film might unleash? One USO tour 14 years ago does not negate his ability to satirize sanctimonious hypocrisy.
PC
N P Childs
'I'm Mister Bad Example, the stranger in the dirt, I like to have a good time and I don't care who gets hurt'.
-Mr. Bad Example, W Zevon