comment #1

erniesouchak says ...

Gibson's unbalanced devotion to sadism/masochism struck me even in Braveheart -- why is that thing such a frat-boy fave, anyway? -- and even in movies he starred in but DIDN'T direct, like Lethal Weapon (remember Danny Glover's torture scene?). The man needs help, but he won't get it with on my (box-office) dime.

comment #2

jeffmcm says ...

What's wrong with a gory action movie that is also deeply personal? I'd rather see something like that than an impersonal shoot-em-up by Tony Scott or Michael Bay.

comment #3

The Movie Man says ...

One of your best reviews in sometime Jeff, well done. Braveheart has a lot of schlock and soap opera elements going on in it, but I think its a primal, memorable, although ultimately very uneven piece of filmmaking. I think "Passion of the Christ" is repellent, but I respect that Mel laid his cojones on the line to make it and make it the way he wanted to. I'll be there next weekend, more out of curiosity and a certain respect than perceived enjoyment, but I'll be there nonetheless.

comment #4

The Movie Man says ...

One of your best reviews in sometime Jeff, well done. Braveheart has a lot of schlock and soap opera elements going on in it, but I think its a primal, memorable, although ultimately very uneven piece of filmmaking. I think "Passion of the Christ" is repellent, but I respect that Mel laid his cojones on the line to make it and make it the way he wanted to. I'll be there next weekend, more out of curiosity and a certain respect than perceived enjoyment, but I'll be there nonetheless.

comment #5

KamikazeCamelV2.0 says ...

Well The Passion was grotesque and Gibson's direction was about as one note as you could get. I am not anticipating this one.

comment #6

Jennifer says ...

Jeff, Do you feel that way about the movies of Quentin, John Woo, Martin Scorcese and so many others? Why does Gibson get singled out by you and so many others?
I agree actually, I have no desire to spend a couple of hours seeing blood spurted all over the screen-but if that is the way you feel than spread the criticism around to all the filmakers-not just Gibson.

comment #7

jeffmcm says ...

Jennifer, there is a significant difference between the way Gibson depicts gore and the way those other three directors do - none of them revel in it the way he does. Tarantino is either discreet (you never see the ear get cut off in Reservoir Dogs) or cartoonish (limbs in Kill Bill). Woo and Scorsese are anchored in gritty realism. Only Gibson puts the gore up-front-and-center for your full contemplation.

comment #8

jeffmcm says ...

Jennifer, there is a significant difference between the way Gibson depicts gore and the way those other three directors do - none of them revel in it the way he does. Tarantino is either discreet (you never see the ear get cut off in Reservoir Dogs) or cartoonish (limbs in Kill Bill). Woo and Scorsese are anchored in gritty realism. Only Gibson puts the gore up-front-and-center for your full contemplation.

comment #9

jeffmcm says ...

Jennifer, there is a significant difference between the way Gibson depicts gore and the way those other three directors do - none of them revel in it the way he does. Tarantino is either discreet (you never see the ear get cut off in Reservoir Dogs) or cartoonish (limbs in Kill Bill). Woo and Scorsese are anchored in gritty realism. Only Gibson puts the gore up-front-and-center for your full contemplation.

comment #10

Monument says ...

Isn't blood and gore just another part of the action genre? What about all of Stallone's films, or does anyone remember how bloody Bruce Willis gets in the Die Hard movies? He walks barefoot on glass.

I'm not saying that the opinions about Gibson's psyche aren't entirely valid. But it does seem as though many people like to cherry pick his filmography to bolster their own preconceived notions about the man himself.

I'm not going to speculate on Gibson's influence on films that he neither wrote or directed, Lethal Weapon, but in his own films the violence is at least based in reality. William Wallace was actually disemboweled, the Romans were in fact extremely brutal, and the Mayans did in fact rip the still beating hearts out of their sacrificial victims.

And if violence is really such an issue, why aren't there more critics questioning the sanity of directors like Eli Roth who's films are essentially torture porn.

Don't like his films, or the man himself? That's fine and good, I can't argue with that. But most of these speculations about his mental health and religious beliefs have very little substance and feel more like piling on than anything else.

comment #11

jeffmcm says ...

Huh, sorry for the triple post.

comment #12

actionman says ...

I am SO pumped to see this next weekend, can't wait

comment #13

jeffmcm says ...

Monument, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that Gibson chose William Wallace, the ancient Romans, the the Mayans specifically _because_ they were brutal and he could use them to depict gore.

Eli Roth's film is not as graphic as Passion of the Christ, and it depicts the gore as essentially the same thing: something horrible happening to someone you like. Between those two movies, I would say that Passion is clearly the one that is more 'pornographic' in that the audience is forced to watch long, prolonged scenes of torture with no respite. But the two films are essentially similar.

comment #14

Weinberg says ...

So stick with the Nancy Meyers stuff.

comment #15

Monument says ...

You're of course assuming that he chose these films because of their potential for gore. Like him or not, I just don't think he's that shallow.

"Only Gibson puts the gore up-front-and-center for your full contemplation."

Just for the sake of argument, what exactly is wrong with this? Is it better to be like Tarantino and portray all violence as a cartoon, or even a joke? What's wrong with portraying violence as it actually is, horrible and barbaric?

comment #16

Min says ...

The great Franco Zeffirelli in 2004 on Gibson:

"Once I knew that Gibson had decided to make a film on the Passion of Christ I began to get worried. I knew well that the family culture in which he was raised, dominated by a father who considers the Vatican councils the tomb of Christianity, and suspected already that rather than the divine message of Christ, what pushed Mel into this difficult project was (an obsession) with strips of flesh, his own torments and blood."

Zeffirelli recalls Gibson saying: "A wounded animal about to die does not stay with a fixed look, but rolls its eyes in the final spasms, first together, then in the opposite direction, like a cross eyed person. It's almost funny."

"And how would you know?" responded Ian Holm, according to Zeffirelli.

"I've seen plenty die," replied Gibson, Zeffirelli claims. "When I can, to relax, I go to my farm and kill a lot of calves on the days when they are slaughtered."

comment #17

tholl-yung says ...

Just sharing -- hope you get a laugh at the description.

BUENA VISTA PICTURES DISTRIBUTION
Cordially Invites You And A Guest To Attend A Screening Of Mel Gibson’s APOCALYPTO

From Academy Award winning filmmaker Mel Gibson (“The Passion of the Christ,” “Braveheart”), comes APOCALYPTO: a heart stopping mythic action-adventure set against the turbulent end times of the once great Mayan civilization. When his idyllic existence is brutally disrupted by a violent invading force, a man is taken on a perilous journey to a world ruled by fear and oppression where a harrowing end awaits him. Through a twist of fate and spurred by the power of his love for his woman and his family he will make a desperate break to return home and to ultimately save his way of life.

comment #18

The Movie Man says ...

Gibson is an inconsistent, wildly indulgent and obvious filmmaker but there is legitimate craftsmanship and ability to his films. Love him, hate him or don't give a shit, I think its a little insulting to group him with someone such as Eli Roth, who essentially is making the usual teen slaughter crap, only with a shrewder marketing campaign.

comment #19

hatchetface says ...

I'll be the last guy to defend Mel, and I'm certainly not a dedicated fan of his films (or I'd own at least one of them on DVD), but I *am* an admitted fan of the Revenge genre, and that seems to be at the heart of most the stories he tries to tell.

Ambiguity doesn't play much of a role in his character's motives: Braveheart has a love-interest tied to a stake and her throat slit, The Patriot has a son shot in front of his father.. Violence against people you love, and - as Devin said in an earlier APOCALYPTO thread when he mentioned RAMBO - over-the-top personal persecution, are simple, straight-forward motivators: primal hooks that could be called cheap-shots or shallow. But they also simply seem to *work* on the male psyche most of the time. (And no, I've never been in a fraternity, thanks)

There are many films that purposely muddy the waters of revenge to show how sticky violent retribution can be, but a straight-up eye for an eye story can certainly work for me.

comment #20

hatchetface says ...

TO: Min

Whoa.. that's a very fuckin' freaky quote.

comment #21

D.Z. says ...

I fell asleep too many times in Braveheart to notice the violence. Of course, I rented my version at Blockbuster, so it was probably edited down to a PG 13 film.

jeff: "Tarantino is either discreet (you never see the ear get cut off in Reservoir Dogs) or cartoonish (limbs in Kill Bill). Woo and Scorsese are anchored in gritty realism. Only Gibson puts the gore up-front-and-center for your full contemplation."

That's bull and you know it. Marty and Quentin are as gory as Mel. You're just giving them a pass, because their films are on a lower budget.

"Monument, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that Gibson chose William Wallace, the ancient Romans, the the Mayans specifically _because_ they were brutal and he could use them to depict gore."

That's a cop-out argument. Arnie and Sly chose roles where people get shot and beaten, too. It's just that they're fictional roles.

comment #22

jeffmcm says ...

Monument, I don't disagree with you. Violence should be depicted as gruesome and ugly, yes. But (a) I think there's also room for the cartoonish violence of Tarantino's world, which I find entertaining, and (b) for me the gore of Passion of the Christ showed itself as ugly and brutal, and then there was still another hour to go in the movie that was just visual delectation for no obvious reason.

Eli Roth is not a particularly accomplished technical filmmaker, but he should be commended for putting his teenage audience in a position of knowing what torture feels like, when the standard Hollywood model is more akin to something like Man on Fire: showing torture and brutality as virtuous and necessary for the promotion of law and order. Eli Roth, believe it or not, is a progressive filmmaker.

comment #23

Jennifer says ...

T. Holly, why do you keep changing your name from T. H. Ung, to T. H., and now T. Holly?? What are you trying to hide?

comment #24

Jennifer says ...

Director Franco Zeffirelli and first time producer Mel Gibson fought all through the production of Gibson's 1990 Hamlet. They didn't get along, and couldn't agree on anything. Zeffirelli's opinion on Gibson is tainted, and vice versa. I wouldn't trust eithers opinion of the other.

comment #25

jeffmcm says ...

Marty and Quentin are _not_ as gory as Mel. What's the goriest thing in a Scorsese movie, the end of Taxi Driver? Joe Pesci getting killed in Casino? Those scenes are short, only a few minutes each, arise out of the story and characters' lives, and filmed in a realistic, if heightened manner. I defy you to name a scene where Scorsese wallows in gore.

Tarantino, meanwhile, has fun with gore a la the flying limbs in Kill Bill, but it's cartoonish. You can argue that his approach is more psychologically damaging to society, but I disagree; it's basically a Three Stooges approach.

Plus, I don't know what you mean, DZ, by 'their films are on a lower budget'. I'm pretty sure that Casino had a budget that was higher than Braveheart, that The Departed cost more than either Passion or Apocalypto, and that Kill Bill together was in the same range. None of them are indie directors anymore.

Arie and Sly chose movies where people get shot and beaten, but they never made movies where people get their hearts ripped out of their chests - at least as far as I can remember. There's a difference between making a violent movie like Predator or Rambo and making a movie about violence like Passion of the Christ.

comment #26

actionman says ...

jeffmcm....i respect your musings quite often but calling Eli Roth a "progressive filmmaker" is just wrong. Roth wouldn't know progression if it removed his eye with a blow torch...all he did in Hostel was rip off countless older (and better) horror movies from asia/europe and removed almost all of the socially satirical underpinnings that some of the best horror movies have. There was exactly 1 scene in Hostel that I consider to be good or interesting, and that's when the psycho-killer is talking to Jay Hernandez in one of the rooms, before he's about to get his torture on. That once scene had a little something to say about the American mindset, but it was quickly lost in all of the idiocy that came before/after it. The only good part of Roth's movies is that he gets super hot sluts to take their tops off. His violence isn't visceral or exciting, it's just fuckin' boring

comment #27

tholl-yung says ...

You missed a few Jennifer.

comment #28

tholl-yung says ...

I can't find Min's quote, but I did find this.

MEL GIBSON VERSUS FRANCO ZEFFIRELLI: As millions of people troop to a religious film that is totally inappropriate for children--yours truly is still trying to get his head around that--I watched again Franco Zeffirelli's 1977 Jesus of Nazareth.

http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=1402

comment #29

jeffmcm says ...

Actionman, do you have any comment regarding the point I made about Hostel in comparison with Man on Fire/Tony Scott?

comment #30

The Movie Man says ...

actionman you nailed it, except you were too kind to "Hostel". The one scene you mention as being good is a good IDEA for a scene, but even that scene is so obvious and over the top that any creepiness it may have is totally lost. I'm not sure why some critics have fallen for Mr. Roth, his films are jokey and half-assed and don't have the balls to take themselves seriously, much like most of the dead teen genre. This is also, of course, incredibly off topic, my apologies.

comment #31

actionman says ...

jeffmcm--u know as well as anyone around here that from my previous postings I love Tony Scott and his flicks. I thought Man on Fire was an prime revenge flick and a kick-ass violence picture; the violence perfectly fit the story and the characters. The bad guys in Man on Fire were child kidnappers, and got what they deserved. Plain and simple. Sure it was nihilistic and in your face, but I love the way that Tony Scott shoots his movies....he has an amazing visual eye and his action scenes have a visceral kick that few directors ever reach. Roth, on the other hand, doesn't know SHIT about lighting, camera movement, pacing, or suspense...he just throws shit out there hoping it will stick and/or make any sort of impact.

Movie Man--maybe I was being too nice to Hostel; that scene was over-the-top to the point where the satire was stunted, but I felt that it was at least an ATTEMPT at social commentary.

comment #32

The Movie Man says ...

actionman-I got you, and that was my reaction to the film too. As bad as that scene is it was at least a relief to see something, anything, going on in that movie.

jeffmcm-Roth is getting off on those torture scenes as much as Gibson or Scott or anybody, that whole this is a criticism of our fascination with blah, blah, blah, is his license to put whatever exploitive crap occurs to him. I'm not a horror snob, I suffer through virutally all of these things in the hope that something will surprise me (this year it did, in the marvelous The Descent) but I don't like hypocracy in my horror.

comment #33

jeffmcm says ...

Actionman: granted that Man on Fire features state-of-the-art cinematography/editing/etc., I want you to ignore all that for a moment and consider the content of the film itself, which is to create a scenario (loveable little girl gets kidnapped) which is basically just a pretext to allow the real guts of the movie (enjoy Denzel torturing Mexicans) to happen. I would call it ugly and evil. To say that 'the bad guys got what they deserved' is kind of to ignore the movie's underlying goals and to just get swept up into it without asking questions.

Movie Man: You may have a point, but I'll still take an entertaining half-ass Eli Roth movie any day over something boring and glossy.

comment #34

actionman says ...

call me sick or call me a sadist, but I enjoyed watching Denzel rip up the evil mexican henchmen in Man on Fire. The movie was about revenge...it was VERY simple. A guy who has killed a lot of people, has lost his way mentally and spiritually, and who has essentially nothing to live for...until he meets the girl. The bad guys could have been white guys from Omaha, black guys from Harlem, mexicans, Italians (as they were in the original), French, etc. It never once crossed my mind that the filmmakers were taking shots at the Mexican populace. It was a revenge movie; it as a movie ABOUT the power and nature of violence.

comment #35

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"Marty and Quentin are as gory as Mel."

Scorsese, Tarantino, Woo, name who you want-- their movies are about violence.

Gibson's are about suffering. They'e about pain. That is a difference.

Even viewed as Catholics, there's a huge difference between Scorsese and Gibson: Scorsese's films are about sin, guilt, damnation-- modern Catholicism, if that's not an oxymoron. Gibson's are genuinely medieval-- this world is a charnel house of grotesque tortures.

comment #36

dobbsy says ...

Mel's made something close to a masterpiece. It is riveting and I challenge anyone to deny that his depiction of Mayan court life is anything short of visionary. Man-made purgatory has never been captured so powerfully.

It is an entertaining, original, visceral and thoroughly exciting experience that also addresses issues of man's greed and destruction of the earth, while celebrating nature and man's eternal quest for love and peace.

Throw in a wink and nod to the current war footing and you've got a movie that had the directing credit on it been, say, Inarritu, the critics would all be lining up to crown it with Oscar noms and accolades.

But's it's Mel.

"What I'm trying to do is make you see" said another visionary filmmaker with some distasteful prejudices.

His name was DW Griffith.

But then those who can't "see" would probably dismiss his accomplishments as well.

BEST FILM OF 2006.

comment #37

jeffmcm says ...

Actionman, Man on Fire is indeed a movie about the power and nature of violence: and it explicitly endorses violence and torture as a way to solve problems. I don't think you're sick or a sadist for loving it - just an unquestioning, uncritical viewer who's a little too happy to swallow what he's given because the package is so enticing.

Sorry.

comment #38

Devin Faraci says ...

I deny that his depiction of Mayan court life is visionary, or anything short of it. I don't even see where you get visionary - it was like every 'crowded and bustling ancient city' scene ever... but with Mayans! Maybe that's the 'vision.'

This is an action film. Nothing more.

comment #39

tholl-yung says ...

http://blogs.indiewire.com/reverseshot/archives/011873.html

Devin's point, which I interpret as "there's no 'there' there," echos in this interesting four paragraph review. I have no aversion to spoilers, so I'm not "for sure" there are any in the last/forth paragraph; you've been warned, nonetheless.

comment #40

tholl-yung says ...

Jeff, can you please post Sheigh Crabtree's story, break it down, put some voodoo magic on it, that you do so well.

comment #41

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "What's the goriest thing in a Scorsese movie, the end of Taxi Driver? Joe Pesci getting killed in Casino?"

How about one thug being stabbed in the head with an icepick and another being shot in the foot in Goodfellas?

"I defy you to name a scene where Scorsese wallows in gore."

I dunno, people getting shot in a bunch of different places throughout his films. Blood leaking all over their bodies and scabs...

"Tarantino, meanwhile, has fun with gore a la the flying limbs in Kill Bill, but it's cartoonish. You can argue that his approach is more psychologically damaging to society, but I disagree; it's basically a Three Stooges approach."

If the Three Stooges were psychopaths, sure.

"Plus, I don't know what you mean, DZ, by 'their films are on a lower budget'. I'm pretty sure that Casino had a budget that was higher than Braveheart,"

Actually, Braveheart cost $1 million more than Casino, but it looks more expensive, which is why it's easier to trash it for its violence. It's basically the same mentality that Jeff used, in complaining about Matrix Reloaded having innocent people being killed, but not Kill Bill.

"Arie and Sly chose movies where people get shot and beaten, but they never made movies where people get their hearts ripped out of their chests - at least as far as I can remember."

Yes, but Harrison Ford did.

comment #42

christian says ...

nutshell: mel is a masochist.

he equates personal pain and sufffering with redemption. from MAD MAX to LETHAL WEAPON to that jesus torture movie.

comment #43

actionman says ...

"Actionman, Man on Fire is indeed a movie about the power and nature of violence: and it explicitly endorses violence and torture as a way to solve problems. I don't think you're sick or a sadist for loving it - just an unquestioning, uncritical viewer who's a little too happy to swallow what he's given because the package is so enticing.

Sorry."

jeffmcm--you're a great judge of character.

comment #44

MovieBob says ...

Not necessarily taking one side or the other here, but the BIG difference between Gibson's movies and the movies of other violence-prone directors is in the manner by which violence "baptizes" (read: transforms) the heroes.

By and large, the films of Woo, Tarantino, Scorsese, etc., along with just about any western, cop, war or knight story ever told, are about "Baptism By Blood," i.e. the heroes achieve transcendance and/or transformation through the act of INFLICTING violence: They emerge from their respective "battlefields" washed in the blood of their slaughtered enemies, and the act has transformed them. The BOY goes to war, the MAN returns from the war, to put the sharpest point on it.

Gibson's ouvre, both in acting AND directing, tends to be about "Baptism By FIRE," wherein his heroes are tranformed/achieve-transcendance after having violence/pain INFLICTED on them. In "Braveheart" and "Patriot," his characters begin not wanting to engage in the Great Battles of The Day, prefering living insular, home-centered lives (in macho-man parlance: "they ain't REAL men!") This changes when they endure the torment of their loved-ones' murders, and they emerge from The Fire transformed into Men of Action.

This occurs in most of his other films, too: In Lethal Weapon his character achieves focus and will to live after being brutalized. Hell, even in "What Women Want" he gets his magic powers by ELECTROCUTING HIMSELF. Gibson's psyche probably doesn't resemble that of an S&M afficionado, likely he's closer to those medieval monks who'd scourge themselves as punishment for sins of the mind.

The interesting question for me is, since it's pretty obvious that this belief in torture=baptism/transcendance is tied securely to his devotion to Christ... which one came first? Is he obsessed with torture because of Christ's, or is he obsessed with Christ because of his torture?

comment #45

jeffmcm says ...

Thanks for agreeing with me, Actionman.

DZ: your examples ("people getting shot in a bunch of places throughout his films") are lame to the point of mockery. I must assume you were joking because there's no other serious way to take your comment.

comment #46

jeffmcm says ...

Moviebob: interesting question. In the future, books will be written on this subject. I would guess that it's a combination of his devoutly paleo-Catholic upbringing and other factors unique to Mel.

Also, this was the first couple of sentences on Mel's Wikipedia entry when I looked him up tonight and which I find hilarious:
"Mel gibson is a drunken bastard who is fuck dickhead. he loves to do the cha cha with his dad. His dad thinks tha tthe holocaust did not happen. Well he could go to hell. Becuase if it did not happen my family jst disappeared? I don't fucken get it. Peace out drunken anti-semite.AO]]"

comment #47

lawnorder says ...

How about the Scorsese scene from CASINO (which was trimmed for MPAA purposes) of the guy getting his eyeball forced out of his head in a vice? That's about as fucked up as I've seen. If you want to see gratuitious violence of the most sickening kind (and I'm a big fan of violent action films like HEAT, SCARFACE, RUNNING SCARED, MAN ON FIRE), then check out the Drew McWeeny scripted episode of MASTERS OF HORROR that played last week. There is absolutely nothing redeemable about an anti-abortionist freak surgically cutting a hole through an abortion doctor's crotch and then sucking his insides out through an abortion pump. That scene wasn't even necessary and didn't make sense as far as the story went, since the anti-abortion freak was intent on saving his daughter from getting an abortion, but on his way to storming the operating theater, he takes about ten minutes of screen time to mutilate an already wounded doctor. So the guy's sense of urgency goes out the window at the expense of a "cool" never before been done gross out horror scene. That's the problem with so many gory, violent films - most of it is not motivated and actually works against the plot. I'm not saying there isn't a time to get graphic, but sometimes that's the amateur way to go. Just because you can show it all, doesn't mean that you have to. RESERVOIR DOGS is a great example of that.

comment #48

jeffmcm says ...

Fucked up, sure, but not wallowing in the spectacle of the violence for every viewer to behold and be mesmerized by. Do you people actually watch these movies? Scorsese shoots violence to be horrifying and brief, in a very different way from how Gibson does it, as per Moviebob who said it best.

But no, I'm not surprised that a Drew McWeeny script would be stupid and nonsensical as described.

comment #49

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "DZ: your examples ("people getting shot in a bunch of places throughout his films") are lame to the point of mockery."

Well, ok, what about the domestic abuse in Raging Bull coupled with the poundings Jake takes in the ring?

lawnorder: "That scene wasn't even necessary and didn't make sense as far as the story went,"

I'm surprised the network had a problem with a horror special about a dead baby, but not an abortion.

comment #50

jeffmcm says ...

DZ: There's a huge difference between Raging Bull, where the abuse is primarily emotional and not physical, with the exception of some on-screen slapping, and The Passion of the Christ. I think you're just grasping at straws now. The movies are leagues apart in their depiction of on-screen violence.

And you obviously didn't even read Lawnorder's post: he/she makes it clear that the gratuitous scenes had to do with the murder of an abortion doctor, not an aborted baby.

comment #51

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "Raging Bull, where the abuse is primarily emotional and not physical,"

Are we watching the same movie?

"And you obviously didn't even read Lawnorder's post: he/she makes it clear that the gratuitous scenes had to do with the murder of an abortion doctor, not an aborted baby."

I didn't say aborted baby. I said dead baby.

comment #52

Adonis says ...

You know I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before, but with the dearth of education in this country it bears repeating.

Historically all major religions, but especially Christianity, are obsessed and enamoured with violence, pain, suffering and retribution. All the Saint's days that are still in our calendar stem from Matyrs burning, being crucified, or otherwise suffering for their faith.

I happen to be an athiest, but someone in this thread stated that The Passion of the Christ isn't suitable for children? Well, if you actually believe a child should know what Jesus did for "us" then you have to see him suffer. That's the whole point. His suffering is what makes his sacrifice so amazing and noteworthy.

Mel's a "good" Roman Catholic, and consequently heroes in his eyes are those that can endure the evil brutality of the world without losing their principles of strength, virtue, and truth. While it may be somewhat shocking/disturbing in a modern world filled with Sesame Steet, Ikea, etc., it's nonetheless a belief that has sustained human beings for a very long time.

Look, not everyone has to like/embrace violence. But to narrowly depict Mel as an obsessive sadist solely because of the violence in his films is forgetting that human society (and most importantly, human religion) has always been obsessed with the suffering and torture of its fellow members.

comment #53

The Movie Man says ...

I think the which director is more violent question is about as sensical as the debate of who would win in a fight between Superman and Mighty Mouse. Scorsese's films tend to be very violent and feverish are obviously the work of a man who's working through something and or has something on his mind.

Gibson, while no where near a Martin Scorsese, is working out something similar, but its not PC for him to do that right now because he made a film on the single most influential human being of all time, enjoyed success that was beyond even the most optmistic producers dreams, and then followed it up a few years later with another ultraviolent spectacle that flaunts conventional movie marketing wisdom, in between those films, he showed his ass rather controversially.

All of the other filmmakers mentioned (Scott, Tarantino, Woo) are generally into the "happy violence", the violence where all the right people get offed at the end without any moral introspection at all, or very little.

Which type of violence is more harmful/instructive/blah, blah? Let's not get too conservative/PC/censorish here, I welcome a good film from a good director, regardless of any of the above.

comment #54

dobbsy says ...

Movieman: Right the eff on. Rest you youse folks: Read Steve Erickson in Los Angeles mag talking about filmmakers who "felt it was a failure of nerve if they didn't polarize" ie talking about Truffaut, Godard and then in America, Kubrick.

That's the feeling I got in Apocalypto: I was watching a filmmaker who was daring to put it all on the line, who was directing from his heart and soul, dreams, nightmares and passions.

So sad the critics are the ones without the courage to confront him on this basis. The audiences have been!

But then the critics are still searching for ways to justify HEALTH, QUINTET, OC AND STIGGS, etc.

APOCALYPTO rocks and shocks and moves you and startles you and immerses you in heaven and hell.

Note to the timid: Stick with the filmmakers who are making violent films about nothing but friggin nonsense, ie Tarantino.

Mel dares to believe in something, which makes him the automatic victim of "pin the critic on the believer," a game played by the chattering classes in place of the spiritual quest that Mad Mel continues to pursue and has the audacity to express on film.

comment #55

Min says ...

Concerning my post about "killing calves" that was from http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/fwd/20040226/en_fashion_fwd/zeffirelli_1

That was in 2004. One can Google "Zeffirelli Ian Holmes Mel Gibson killing calves" and see that it was picked up and commented on around the net.

comment #56

Min says ...

I don't get Mel Gibson fans and I never have. I see nothing. I do own DVD's of "Gallopli" and "The Year Of Living Dangerously" but then those aren't Mel films they are Peter Weir's films.

comment #57

dobbsy says ...

Min: Be honest. You do see something and you don't like it.

You see a guy killing calves and making statements (drunk and sober) you find really offensive. And that makes it impossible for you to see his movies.

So THEN you see nothing, cos your brain is turned off. No sin in that!

I have total respect for people who don't want to look at Mel's films out of basic moral convictions about who they think he is. Because I would never argue that he isn't who you think he is!!!

I'm just focused on this most recent movie which is a monumental provocation and a hell of an adventure. When was the last time you SAW that?

comment #58

Min says ...

Apologizes.

My last two posts should read 1-Ian Holm and 2-Peter Weir films. I know, I know. Preview is your friend.

comment #59

Min says ...

to:Posted by dobbsy at December 2, 2006 04:21 PM

Geeeez dobbsy, you really need a colossal smack up side the head. Didn't your daddy teach you the facts of life? It's OK to dislike. It's not OK to lie. Fuck Mel Gibson and all his shitty non-Peter Weir crap. I see a guy killing calves as a job not a form relaxation specially from a multimillionaire like Gibson.

Mel and moral convictions=Comedy gold. Thanks for the laugh.

comment #60

dobbsy says ...

Min: Step away from the bong pipe and read the post again. I was talking about YOUR moral convictions. Maybe you should smack yourself upside the head and improve your eyesight and your cognitive powers.

comment #61

Min says ...

So because I don't like Mel Gibson movies, excluding Mr. Weir's films, I have moral problems? I orginally posted a quote without comment. I would have to say that means you have a problem with Gibson not me.

comment #62

dobbsy says ...

Min: Let's read through this slowly and move your lips while you read if it helps.

I AM ON YOUR SIDE WHEN IT COMES TO MEL. I NEVER SAID YOU HAD MORAL PROBLEMS. I SAID YOU HAD A MORAL RIGHT TO AVOID HIS FILMS, A RIGHT WHICH I RESPECT. GOT IT? I RESPECT YOUR RIGHT TO SHUN MAD MEL.

And I have a right to LOVE his new movie, at least until Nancy Pelosi organizes her own Homeland Security brigades.

comment #63

dobbsy says ...

Min: Let's read through this slowly and move your lips while you read if it helps.

I AM ON YOUR SIDE WHEN IT COMES TO MEL. I NEVER SAID YOU HAD MORAL PROBLEMS. I SAID YOU HAD A MORAL RIGHT TO AVOID HIS FILMS, A RIGHT WHICH I RESPECT. GOT IT? I RESPECT YOUR RIGHT TO SHUN MAD MEL.

And I have a right to LOVE his new movie, at least until Nancy Pelosi organizes her own Homeland Security brigades.

comment #64

tholl-yung says ...

dobbsy, it's not just all right to exercise the right to avoid, it's also all right to question and/or dismiss Mel the artist in favor of the con-artist or non-artist. Just wondering, do you suffer from any of the following: paranoid schizophrenia, mysogeny or carnography obsession?

Thanks for the link, Min, and for putting up with this.

comment #65

dobbsy says ...

Yes, T Holly, totally agree. It's alright to question and/or dismiss Mel the artist as you say. But jeez, what is it about Mel that brings out the fascism in kind gentle souls such as you? The militant impulse to stamp out dissent, to castigate anyone who might like this film is truly frightening.

I'm saying I totally understand your repulsion to Mel and everything he creates and stands for. Got it. Respect it. Can't I have a dissenting opinion without being labeled "paranoid schizo?" Can't I be shocked and disappointed that legions of normally free-thinking film fans can turn so conservative and reactionary by the mere mention of Mad Mel?

The amazing thing, I don't think many of those most violently opposed to Apocalypto have a) seen the film yet or b) read the critical reactions that are rolling in. I've seen the movie and read 10 reviews now, including Todd McCarthy of Variety, Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, Emmanuel Levy and Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter. The reviews range from raves to very extremely mixed, giving him credit for astonishing moments but decrying his obsession with violence.

This could get interesting.....

comment #66

dobbsy says ...

Here's The BBC reporting that "the early reviews on Apocalypto are positive..."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6201918

This IS getting interesting....

comment #67

tholl-yung says ...

dobbsy, as of this writing, there is no Kirk Honeycutt review out yet, and Levy called it a great chase and torture film lacking narrative and drama, and Travers is a joke quote whore. (I wish Rolling Stone would hire a real critic for the budding minds set, already.) There's no conspiracy to stamp you out and conservative faction ready to pounce, so don't be paranoid and looking for a fight. You sound seduced by the spectacle and like you had your emotions jerked around, and I didn't hear you say you enjoyed the movie.

You're right, I am a gentle soul, I'm bleary eyed and committed to yoga class this morning, bah. I may see APOC, I haven't made up my mind yet, but I never make a point of going opening weekend.

comment #68

dobbsy says ...

Here's Kirk:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp?&rid=8474

The Todd McCarthy rave is easy to find at Variety.com

As for Mel getting a fair break, I'm laughing so hard after rereading these posts. Someone actually said Tarantino is "discreet" in his violence. Oh my. I'll just say that Q is easy to love because his movies are basically insipid cartoons about absolutely nothing. It's what Melbo's films are ABOUT that makes so many folks posting here extremely uncomfortable. At least that's my read. As for people who question Melbo's work on the basis of the work itself, ie writing, directing, cinematography, without freaking because of either Mel himself or his theology, right on. That's where the debate should be focused.

comment #69

newkillerstar says ...

To echo someone upthread a lot of religions use violence, suffering, and bloodshed to indicate redemption or elevated moral worth in some way. This is also true of Christianity - in examples such as the entire movement of medieval art to a more Christocentric/focused on the actualities of Christ's body on the cross depiction of the crucifixion to indicate the enormity of sacrifice being made, and the gruesome particulars of the pain involved. So there's a basis for focus on violence, particularly violence that is heavily involved in harming the body, as a redemptive act. I can dig that- ulitmately what matters is if the violence serves the story in a larger context.

Anyway, now that I've gotten my medieval geekout over with - I'm honestly really excited to see this movie. The positive reviews are just reinforcing that, but I sincerely feel that this is going to be one of the most original movies of the year.

comment #70

Ghost072 says ...

"I defy you to name a scene where Scorsese wallows in gore."

How about the opening fight in Gangs of New York. I seem to rememeber a significant wallowing in gore during that scene, among others in the film. You can argue a higher purpose all day long, but I can also argue that there was more visualized gore in that scene that what was necessary to convey the idea...hence, wallowing.

comment #71

dylanski says ...

Saw it last night. The film is let down by a humdrum plot, which decides about half way to run through a host of action scenarios lifted from other movies (I checked off Conan, Predator and lots of First Blood).

Which is a shame, making the whole enterprise very formulaic (right down to the offing of the "bad guys"). The predictable nature also makes the use of original language redundant. Set against such an action movie plot, it might as well be in American English.

There is a fascinating Mayan movie to be made. This isn't it

comment #72

MBT says ...

Professional louis vuitton handbags online store, get the LV luxury and fashionable style. Free shipping for you; At the same time, cheap jordan shoes are on sale now, great discount Nike sneakers; Do not hesitate, buy the cheap Jordan shoes and nike shoes here; Professional ugg boots online shop, worldwide free shipping, all fashionable styles ugg boots. All the ugg sheepskin boots like ugg classic tall and short boots, ugg boots classic cardy are hot sale; million of adidas shoes is waiting for you. adidas shoes on our site is a good choice for your adidas sneaker collection; Searching Gucci handbags? To get your own Gucci handbags, just put the order for gucci handbags on our site. Have a great time!

comment #73

nike shox r4 says ...

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money ; it lies in the joy of achievement , in the thrill of creative effort.nike shox r4