Halloween Hangovers

This is a paste from a website where I sometimes discuss or debate movie related crap:


ME:
Robert Downey Jr. told him in front of the crew of Due Daye that he needs acting lessons.

Downey is a good friend of Mel Gibson.

Months later, there is still real tension in promotions for Due Date, and Zach went out of his way to be the spoiler in the Mel cameo plan.

I can understand Todd Phillips being nice to Zach. He has one movie to promote with him and then has to make it through Hangover 2. But sooner or later it must be clear Zach is pathetic and his act will wear out its welcome.

But a Mel Gibson, Alec Baldwin, Christian Bale blow-up as far as I'm concerned doesn't warrant dismissal of an actor with a body of work and pretty good reasons to vent (if not medical conditions that give them little choice).

I'm sure Robert Downey Jr. is worth seeing in Due Date, and that it takes his characters point of view, but I might not bring myself to sit through any more Zach shenanigans. Between Two Ferns was once funny when I thought he was PRETENDING to be a drooling moron.

Oh, well.


A.W.:
I suspect the negative marketing implications of including Gibson - a man who has damaged his brand - was also a factor and that it was not simply a matter of kowtowing to an actor.

ME:

The brand is a vague thing. The damaging of it arguably has been done by Oksana, various individuals in media, and whoever opposed Mel being in Hangover 2. I think it's pure bunk that the suggestion of Mel was thrown in the laps of the cast at the last minute.

If the n-word hadn't been part of the first recording released (perhaps not the first recorded) the damage would be minimal. There would still be a high-alert by those obsessed with portraying him as antisemetic. You could argue that The Passion "damaged his brand" but that and Apocalypto are excellent films. By his late 40's, he could have just sleep-walked through a string of actioners and played it safe. Instead he took risks, and I say that's an improvement on his brand.

Now - what a manic depressive alcoholic says to his nasty ex-girlfriend in the middle of a custody battle really shouldn't be any of our business. I'll go out on a limb and say that virtually every Hollywood sweetheart has zenophobia and class issues and perfectionist rages. That happens not to be the image being sold and that is not to say that their public persona is false. Mel's rage generally (apart from bio-chemical imbalance) comes from being right. I sure don't agree with Traditionalist Catholic crap any more than I agree with Scientology, but when it comes to being loyal and self-depricating Mel still has the same good reputation. There just happens to be a disproportionate amount of play on his dark side of late.

The main issue is how easily a popular entertainer can be targeted. If anyone finally breaks in we have to play a role even when we are talking to an enemy - especially over the phone. As a customer I don't feel Mel has failed me or failed Jodie Foster or anyone involved in The Beaver or How I Spent My Summer Vacation. But somebody else has robbed me of the chance to see those flicks. In order for them to be marketed, Mel does have to wade back into pop culture. I mean at least Alec Baldwin had 30 Rock already in progress and Christian Bale can count on a third Batman at least even if he becomes unhip. But people who leak audio and personal information are just hooligans as far as I'm concerned. They're not committed to "truth," because the truth is that everybody has highs and lows.

Mel was quite prescient in greenlighting Papparazzi (released two years before his TMZ drunk driving episode) and he didn't personally know the half of the damage the media can do.

P.F.
Just when I was starting to feel a bit sorry for old Mel in a 'how are the mighty fallen don't kick a man when he's down' sort of way, someone comes up with the same specious old arguments in the nasty bastard's defence - and even claims that 'The Passion' is an 'excellent' film - and I'm looking round for the first stone to cast.

A.W.
"THE PASSION..." represents the epitome and acme of debased torture porn... Gibson is a master at this kind of sadism...

ME:
If you got a hard-on watching it, then it's not for me to say it isn't torture "porn" for you. Just as if someone tells me Rambo and Conan the Barbarian are "homo-erotic." I know in any of the examples listed this was not the intent, but whatever floats your boat.

The Passion of the Christ is well made. You can't objectively cite fault in the production or the performances. If you feel it is selling something you don't want to buy (whether you admit that is what drives your opinion or not) it's east to be reductive by saying that a nerve-jangling, difficult to sit through, depiction of a flogging and crucifixion as (imagine that!) painful as "torture porn." I say the movie ultimately is an experience, and one that likely won't get a lot of repeat viewings (unlike porn). I found the movie to be transportive and unflinching. As a lapsed Catholic myself I didn't expect a "Jesus movie" to be riveting. I think the one failing of Gibson is that in his successful targeted marketing to church groups he neglected to remind them that it is Restricted and that children should not be brought along to the theater. The movie has a very effective flashback structure that offers few breaks in the present narrative that is terrifying and awful especially because it seems realistic in its depiction of the cruelty that functionaries are capable of participating in.

We agree that Gibson is a master, but I wouldn't call it sadism. In this, Apocalypto and somewhat in Braveheart there is a sense that anything can happen, a jeopardy that more safe (and saner) filmmakers don't offer. I have no interest in Vikings ordinarily, but the sort of home-invasion premise I've heard mused over by Mel for his planned and for now scrapped epic would be one of those films (like The Passion) I hesitate to dare see but I know it would be meaningfully and artfully done.

I know I'm being a little sarcastic at the start of this reply, but I don't intend to really stick the knife in with a back and forth. It's unfortunate people have to characterize a work and the people who support it with generalizations.

I'm prolonging this answer a bit because it is Halloween time and the suspense, terror, horror, torture porn tiers or classes of scary movie are worth discussing.

Kevin Smith says he hasn't seen the film because he knows the ending and it's like Titanic, "Jesus is gonna hit the iceberg." So if people haven't seen The Passion I can't say it'll win them over. Some people will hit fast-forward during the flogging for example. I didn't have fast-forward in the movie theater. But the ordeal of sitting through this does engage the empathy - like any good film does - and it makes vivid and real throw-away sayings like "your own cross to bear." It's difficult for me to feel sorry for myself with my own petty complaints and persecutions. Maybe I'd still be able to rage and yell and flip out if I had manic depressive disorder, alcoholism or some other condition (or being the target of actual conspiracies and not just theories).

P,F.:
To say The Passion is well-made is the same as complimenting Silence of the Lamb's serial killer on the stitching of his human skin waistcoat.

The only good thing I can find to say about it is thank heavens old Mel didn't cast himself as JC.


ME:
Paddy, Paddy, Paddy.

Not that I really want the back and forth but at the risk of spoon-feeding and seeming to condescend, I'd like to see how one "is like" the other. I'd indulge that. I only know how they are un-like.

a) Jame Gumb (Buffalo Bill)'s stitching is made possible by his own evil act of killing; The Passion's Oscar-nominated cinematography is made possible without any evil act and the only sacrifice being Mel's $25 million stake.

b) Impact and end result are also quite opposite: A serial killer's skin suit results in loss of lives and grief of families; making The Passion had a ZERO body count, and apart from Jim Caveizel being struck by lightning on the cross three times nobody got hurt.

c) Intention - One has sociopathic intent mixed with gender confusion; the other is making prayerful tribute.

d) One is loss-only for all concerned, the other boosted everyone involved.

e) Gumb crating a human skin suit is disregard for humanity; Mel telling a well-established story in the most palpable way puts people in touch wit their humanity.

Paddy, The Passion is used as a political football and people who are against it made their mind up long ago. Bashing it is like bashing someone for being Catholic. I know there are people who object to seeing a portrayal of the Nation of Islam assassinating Malcolm X or a Hundu causing Mahatma Gandi to be shot. The relay of those events is not seen as anti-Muslim or anti-Hindu by any reasonable person. The fact that there was Jewish pressure against a Jew 2000 years ago shouldn't cause any reasonable person to bat an eye. In short, there is a disproportionate outrage. Those of us who respect J.C. don't hate Jews anymore then he did when he said "Forgive them. They know not what they do" and aren't any more racist than the statement "There are many rooms in my father's house." Those of us who respect Malcolm X and Gandhi (superficially opposites) don't necessarily resent the discendants of their Hindu or Muslim assassins, let along people who belong ostensibly to the same religion.

Happy Halloween. Whether you celebrate it or not.


P.F.:
Bill, Bill, Bill.

To tell the story of the Passion without the essential comfort of the Resurrection and Ascension is all the giveaway of Mel's sado-masochistic, simple-minded and vengeful vision of Christian myth that one needs.

ME:

Spoiler warning


psst - Scroll down for it if you must.






What's this then, at the end, sir? With all due respect. . .




"If the world hates you, remember that they hated me first."

Call me silly, but I think that's a pretty worthy theme.


PF:

Oh yeah, I remember. Almost an afterthought rather than a culmination really. Not surprising I forgot it. Or had I walked out by then?

William, you have as much chance of converting me to this film as you do of saving my immortal soul.

But in case you think I have an atheist's contempt for the subject-matter, it may surprise you to learn that I'm a big admirer of Pasolini's 'Gospel' which, if you haven't seen it, I recommend as a beautiful telling of the Christ story with no semi-pornographic gloating over the Saviour's suffering.

Anyway, let's move on.

ME: Sure thing. The point isn't to convert anyone anyway, let alone "save" anyone. Not that I'm so "holy" myself. My main point is to use examples from the movie as evidence to defend it against inexactitude. I also don't consider it "gloating over the Saviour's suffering." It just is what it is. Glad you're moving along. I wouldn't know what else to do beyond posting the scenes.

I would say the Resurrection wasn't an "afterthought." Culmination is actually a good word. The victory over Satan is pretty spoon fed, with Satan screaming in defeat once the suffering is over. It's the same story as Mel's version of William Wallace - say the word that undermines your principles and your death will be quick and painless. Or call out for rescue from the supernatural and avoid the pain (choosing to reject your humanity). He stuck with it, which is what we all have to do (with usually a lot less pain) and accept the "persecution and reasonable questions from people at a loss to comprehend," as Joseph Campbell put it.