Given Jonah’s post mentioning me, this is as good a moment as any to say that I have not (to my knowledge) defended Gibson the man. I’ve defended the movie he made against certain charges. I am perfectly prepared to believe that Gibson may himself be an anti-Semite, be on a “strange death trip,” or whatever else the critics say. But I also think that the usual critical rule of judging movies on their own terms should apply here.
Regarding Rich’s solution: It sounds like a compromise but isn’t. Presumably Gibson is supposed to tithe his profits whatever movie he makes. The question here is whether this movie imposes a special additional obligation on him. To say all he needs to do is to tithe is to answer that with a no.