The Fashion from William La Rochelle on Vimeo.
Showing posts with label The Passion of the Christ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Passion of the Christ. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Saturday, November 2, 2013
debates: context
Lately I've had a few clashes online over the issue of Mel Gibson. I saw Edge of Darkness and I like it. The man makes good movies. Others are interested in promoting a negative image.
I find whatever the topic if I'm engaged in debate with someone the core of the debate is this: It is their goal to eliminate context and my goal to acknowledge context.
That seems to be a common element in any extended, significant fight with me.
I think some people are looking for something to simplify so it is purely something to from which the unconscious can react. People "love to hate" this or that, and wrap themselves in flags or embrace "umbrella" rules that have been extracted from specific incidents or cases. I have no interest in "umbrella" rules, except to reject them. And example would be: "So, the end justifies the means?" No, that's an umbrella someone is trying to hold over a specific case about which you do have an informed opinion and judgment.
Would you kill this person? Would you condone (blank)?
Yes.
So the end justifies the means?
No.
But. . .
One case at a time. No rule or law needs to be extracted from a particular example.
It might be necessary to keep a law in place that I can imagine breaking or circumventing. Subway passengers may need to be herded further along a platform while at the same time I need to find the most efficient way to get to the section of train which best lines up to the access point or escalator I anticipate at my stop. I would not extract an umbrella rule for everyone that says it is okay to skirt around a barrier. It may not be okay, and we don't want chaos, but this isn't about being a role model. It's about CONTEXT. Some will discard every element of context as self serving rationalization or "excuses," but in a novel for example that is exactly what allows us to accept the mini choices and compromises and accidents and failures and increments that deliver us to a strange and controversial turning point in question. For example:
Human beings love to raise someone up and then tear them down and will be relentless.
This principle has many examples, like Jesus Christ being tortured and killed by (or having this cheered on and/or tolerated by and ordered by) his own community. In Catholic Easter services, that community everyone present and all of us recite the taunts and rejections and the call for crucifixion. Wherever Jesus happened to be born in the world, people would have turned against him. It is understood that this is not a special case against Jews. The high priest Ciaphus has about as much in common with a modern rabbi as Judas has to Steven Spielberg. By the same token, I feel no special need to justify or defend white people who condoned slavery or any number of other injustices or atrocities through history. We barely have a connection to our ancestors let alone people who nominally share the same religion.
This is a tired example, but one made vivid and refreshing in the terrifying depiction by Mel Gibson The Passion of the Christ in 2004. I have no problem with this movie. Before it was even shot, there was an uproar discouraging even the decision to tell the story.
The inflammatory and loud position is: How dare anyone suggest the crucifixion was painful? How dare anyone suggest that Jews - any Jews - had culpability?
Do I have that right? Is that the outrage? Because the inverse is a fantasy land where a Roman thug is geared up to flog someone and does it gently, or someone is crucified nicely and painlessly, and where Jews are the only human beings in the world blessed with infallible ancestors. And if Jesus were in fact given special mercy, then why? Also, life gives all of us pain and fear and suffering and the story - true or not - has meaning and value to inspire if the person suffering manages to avoid hatred of his persecutors.
Mel chose to tell that story. He told it well and very persuasively.
Then he was persecuted even further and faced resentment over the financial success of The Passion. He still had offers to act in movies and turned down the excellent World Trade Center by Oliver Stone in order to direct Apocalypto. But by the time Apocalypto was in post production there was pressure on Disney to shelve it. Even though that story thread ended happily, at the time Gibson would have been up against the wall. There was enough stress that he took that deadly drink and fell off the wagon. In this case the wagon was traveling very fast on the highway and attracted police and he was drunk enough to mouth off. The police report was leaked to the internet, and because Mel allegedly babbled a few sentences that could be cribbed in memo books, he was firmly established as a sexist for calling one cop "Sugar Tits" and anti-Semitic for saying to the other cop, "Are you Jewish? Jews start all the wars of the world." Again, did I get that correct? Those two manifestos - the pro-sexist philosophy and the Nazi essay? Because this doesn't sound like someone who should be held up as if his fifty years of life are the sum of human hatred. He doesn't quite sound like he should be having beers with the President of Iran.
When David Geffin announced that he would not work with Gibson, one wonders if it was out of disgust with the above quoted example of "anti-Semitism" or because of Mel's alleged "homophobia." One thing for sure is that a lot of people celebrated the idea that Mr. Family Values and Mr. Christian had a scandal and could be promoted as an icon of hatred. As opposed to Icon Productions boss. The naive view accepts the third act good deed of the criminal as proof of his nature and prefer the third act screw up to be more true than a lifetime of compassion, precision and empathy that came before it. In a culture of sound bytes and youtube rants, a blip of human failing ends up being celebrated.
And are they giving him the nice crucifixion or the relentless one complete with taunts and ridicule? I know, even talking about it opens me up to hear "Poor Mel, his movie has to lag behind Avatar. Poor Mel, in its second week Edge of Darkness has made just under 30 million when its production budget was 80 million. Will it stay in theaters? At the time of writing, I don't know. But it's bigger than whether a movie star opens a film strongly. Even if Mel Gibson the man were a jerk after all, the alleged incident being talked about is not the real issue. It is "Look at me, look at me, I'm a God. I'M THE GOD HERE. Meeeee!" It's the average person trying to plug in to something, to play good guys and bad guys, but mostly to say if you lower the stock market value of "gay" then you must be attacked, or if you lower the stock market value of "Jew" then you must be destroyed. The Passion of the Christ attracted the hardcore Christian audience who voted Republican and were against gay marriage and served up a second term for George W. Bush. Those judgments were about on par with taking one's little children to an R-rated movie like The Passion of the Christ. Those things are connected, but they need not be rolled up together as if they are all the same wad of silly puddy. Fahrenheit 9/11 was a fine movie too, and well attended. The Passion of the Christ did not re-elect George W. Bush. But it's financial success might have been a shot of solidarity in the collective arm of Christians. That fact alone isn't necessarily a negative thing. But if it spilled over into political zeal, it certainly didn't hurt the right wing.
I wish Mel Gibson continued and increased success.
I appreciated The Passion of the Christ, having seen it opening day before the full brunt of the fuss and the debate really caught on. I continue to share it on DVD.
No Jew I know has ever participated in a crucifixion.
Apocalypto is a fine movie deserving of success, a bold vision of someone willing to go to the edge.
Jaguar Paw is a cool Mayan. We like him. Some other Mayans were brilliant in math, science and archetecture and human sacrifice.
I like Jesus, and/or the idea of Jesus that I admire.
I feel gays deserve equality and marriage rights and so on, even though as many of them as us can be irritating twerps and whining cry-babies.
It is unfortunate that George W. Bush got into the White House at all, let alone for two terms.
Michael Moore is vital and interesting. Kevin Smith is one of my favourites and it's a shame he slams Mel and the Passion. The Last Temptation of Christ is a good movie, but very chatty so maybe that's why he likes it.
I don't care what happened with intoxicated, drunk driving Mel and what might have been said or what slurs were slurred. It's for the best that he was at least pulled over and didn't kill anyone. He was properly driven to the station. At least the cops got that part of their job right. But since context is so often thrown out the window and people react for the sake of reacting and use whatever images and scenes and quotes to serve whatever hot-button they wish to promote it is unfortunate that the police report was not kept more secure. People don't have a "right to know" every detail; not all information is equal, nor is all handling and function of it.
Especially when some people disregard the whole drunk driving issue and scold the alcoholic for his ramblings which are merely the unconscious rages that have been repressed by the civilized business person. Never mind that alcoholics say they came to realize they are "powerless over alcohol" and their lives have become unmanageable, and the man takes a drink and the drink takes a drink then the drink takes the man. What folly to get in the face of the alcoholic telling him to time travel back to before he took the fatal drink and simply will himself not to take it.
And folly is a polite word for it.
Anyway, those are a few thoughts on context while watching a DVD.
I find whatever the topic if I'm engaged in debate with someone the core of the debate is this: It is their goal to eliminate context and my goal to acknowledge context.
That seems to be a common element in any extended, significant fight with me.
I think some people are looking for something to simplify so it is purely something to from which the unconscious can react. People "love to hate" this or that, and wrap themselves in flags or embrace "umbrella" rules that have been extracted from specific incidents or cases. I have no interest in "umbrella" rules, except to reject them. And example would be: "So, the end justifies the means?" No, that's an umbrella someone is trying to hold over a specific case about which you do have an informed opinion and judgment.
Would you kill this person? Would you condone (blank)?
Yes.
So the end justifies the means?
No.
But. . .
One case at a time. No rule or law needs to be extracted from a particular example.
It might be necessary to keep a law in place that I can imagine breaking or circumventing. Subway passengers may need to be herded further along a platform while at the same time I need to find the most efficient way to get to the section of train which best lines up to the access point or escalator I anticipate at my stop. I would not extract an umbrella rule for everyone that says it is okay to skirt around a barrier. It may not be okay, and we don't want chaos, but this isn't about being a role model. It's about CONTEXT. Some will discard every element of context as self serving rationalization or "excuses," but in a novel for example that is exactly what allows us to accept the mini choices and compromises and accidents and failures and increments that deliver us to a strange and controversial turning point in question. For example:
Human beings love to raise someone up and then tear them down and will be relentless.
This principle has many examples, like Jesus Christ being tortured and killed by (or having this cheered on and/or tolerated by and ordered by) his own community. In Catholic Easter services, that community everyone present and all of us recite the taunts and rejections and the call for crucifixion. Wherever Jesus happened to be born in the world, people would have turned against him. It is understood that this is not a special case against Jews. The high priest Ciaphus has about as much in common with a modern rabbi as Judas has to Steven Spielberg. By the same token, I feel no special need to justify or defend white people who condoned slavery or any number of other injustices or atrocities through history. We barely have a connection to our ancestors let alone people who nominally share the same religion.
This is a tired example, but one made vivid and refreshing in the terrifying depiction by Mel Gibson The Passion of the Christ in 2004. I have no problem with this movie. Before it was even shot, there was an uproar discouraging even the decision to tell the story.
The inflammatory and loud position is: How dare anyone suggest the crucifixion was painful? How dare anyone suggest that Jews - any Jews - had culpability?
Do I have that right? Is that the outrage? Because the inverse is a fantasy land where a Roman thug is geared up to flog someone and does it gently, or someone is crucified nicely and painlessly, and where Jews are the only human beings in the world blessed with infallible ancestors. And if Jesus were in fact given special mercy, then why? Also, life gives all of us pain and fear and suffering and the story - true or not - has meaning and value to inspire if the person suffering manages to avoid hatred of his persecutors.
Mel chose to tell that story. He told it well and very persuasively.
Then he was persecuted even further and faced resentment over the financial success of The Passion. He still had offers to act in movies and turned down the excellent World Trade Center by Oliver Stone in order to direct Apocalypto. But by the time Apocalypto was in post production there was pressure on Disney to shelve it. Even though that story thread ended happily, at the time Gibson would have been up against the wall. There was enough stress that he took that deadly drink and fell off the wagon. In this case the wagon was traveling very fast on the highway and attracted police and he was drunk enough to mouth off. The police report was leaked to the internet, and because Mel allegedly babbled a few sentences that could be cribbed in memo books, he was firmly established as a sexist for calling one cop "Sugar Tits" and anti-Semitic for saying to the other cop, "Are you Jewish? Jews start all the wars of the world." Again, did I get that correct? Those two manifestos - the pro-sexist philosophy and the Nazi essay? Because this doesn't sound like someone who should be held up as if his fifty years of life are the sum of human hatred. He doesn't quite sound like he should be having beers with the President of Iran.
When David Geffin announced that he would not work with Gibson, one wonders if it was out of disgust with the above quoted example of "anti-Semitism" or because of Mel's alleged "homophobia." One thing for sure is that a lot of people celebrated the idea that Mr. Family Values and Mr. Christian had a scandal and could be promoted as an icon of hatred. As opposed to Icon Productions boss. The naive view accepts the third act good deed of the criminal as proof of his nature and prefer the third act screw up to be more true than a lifetime of compassion, precision and empathy that came before it. In a culture of sound bytes and youtube rants, a blip of human failing ends up being celebrated.
And are they giving him the nice crucifixion or the relentless one complete with taunts and ridicule? I know, even talking about it opens me up to hear "Poor Mel, his movie has to lag behind Avatar. Poor Mel, in its second week Edge of Darkness has made just under 30 million when its production budget was 80 million. Will it stay in theaters? At the time of writing, I don't know. But it's bigger than whether a movie star opens a film strongly. Even if Mel Gibson the man were a jerk after all, the alleged incident being talked about is not the real issue. It is "Look at me, look at me, I'm a God. I'M THE GOD HERE. Meeeee!" It's the average person trying to plug in to something, to play good guys and bad guys, but mostly to say if you lower the stock market value of "gay" then you must be attacked, or if you lower the stock market value of "Jew" then you must be destroyed. The Passion of the Christ attracted the hardcore Christian audience who voted Republican and were against gay marriage and served up a second term for George W. Bush. Those judgments were about on par with taking one's little children to an R-rated movie like The Passion of the Christ. Those things are connected, but they need not be rolled up together as if they are all the same wad of silly puddy. Fahrenheit 9/11 was a fine movie too, and well attended. The Passion of the Christ did not re-elect George W. Bush. But it's financial success might have been a shot of solidarity in the collective arm of Christians. That fact alone isn't necessarily a negative thing. But if it spilled over into political zeal, it certainly didn't hurt the right wing.
I wish Mel Gibson continued and increased success.
I appreciated The Passion of the Christ, having seen it opening day before the full brunt of the fuss and the debate really caught on. I continue to share it on DVD.
No Jew I know has ever participated in a crucifixion.
Apocalypto is a fine movie deserving of success, a bold vision of someone willing to go to the edge.
Jaguar Paw is a cool Mayan. We like him. Some other Mayans were brilliant in math, science and archetecture and human sacrifice.
I like Jesus, and/or the idea of Jesus that I admire.
I feel gays deserve equality and marriage rights and so on, even though as many of them as us can be irritating twerps and whining cry-babies.
It is unfortunate that George W. Bush got into the White House at all, let alone for two terms.
Michael Moore is vital and interesting. Kevin Smith is one of my favourites and it's a shame he slams Mel and the Passion. The Last Temptation of Christ is a good movie, but very chatty so maybe that's why he likes it.
I don't care what happened with intoxicated, drunk driving Mel and what might have been said or what slurs were slurred. It's for the best that he was at least pulled over and didn't kill anyone. He was properly driven to the station. At least the cops got that part of their job right. But since context is so often thrown out the window and people react for the sake of reacting and use whatever images and scenes and quotes to serve whatever hot-button they wish to promote it is unfortunate that the police report was not kept more secure. People don't have a "right to know" every detail; not all information is equal, nor is all handling and function of it.
Especially when some people disregard the whole drunk driving issue and scold the alcoholic for his ramblings which are merely the unconscious rages that have been repressed by the civilized business person. Never mind that alcoholics say they came to realize they are "powerless over alcohol" and their lives have become unmanageable, and the man takes a drink and the drink takes a drink then the drink takes the man. What folly to get in the face of the alcoholic telling him to time travel back to before he took the fatal drink and simply will himself not to take it.
And folly is a polite word for it.
Anyway, those are a few thoughts on context while watching a DVD.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, July 30, 2010
The Passion of the Mel
Oksana says Mel Gibson is "trivializing" domestic violence by charging her with extortion over the audio clips of phone conversations that were sold to the internet by her sister. She says she recoded the messages because she thought she wouldn't make it through the night. Of course she is saying this to RadarOnline, the webside that bought and posted the rants and which along with TMZ will hopefully have a special place in internet Hell when they are finally toppled.
If she honestly felt she wouldn't last the night she would have called the cops, especially after the rose garden threat. But she remains calm and is quite cold for these clips, and I have heard all 6 she is in and the 7th which is actually just a voice-mail from Mel. If the tapes were intended for cops Oksana would have handed them over right away. Instead she let her sister access them and field bids from newspapers and websites, settling on RadarOnline.
There is no doubt that Mel was angry. As a less creative person I might say "I should KILL you!" to someone, but Mel being used to speeches instead said something one of his characters would have said. Frankly, I give it no more weight than the average person saying I should kill you. The spectre of OJ Simpson of course is there, because nobody exepcted him to snap. But again, whatever he said to get her to start recording should have also spurred her to call the police and then let him rant.
The fact that her stated fear for her life was not great enough to call the police and that there is ZERO fear in her smug voice in these clips shows the tapes were for extortion and/or inevitable humiliation. Because even if Mel paid or agreed to a rotten custory revision Oksana's sister would have still been able to release the audio. Charging someone with extortion does not "trivialize" domestic violence, but even her claim if it is very suspect considering the underhanded way she operates.
News sources, such as they are, say that Mel Gibson's Viking epic was due to start filming in the Fall and also say that there is no script yet and it is just an idea. The one thing they easily make up their collective mind about is that Mel Gibson is the anti-Christ because he yelled at his ex-girlfriend. He also (forgetting context for a minute) used the n-word, which apparently nullifies any and all handshakes and friendshakes with black people and marks him as much as a racist as telling the story of Christ marks him (and I suppose any and all of us raised Catholic or Christian) as anti-Semites. It depends who you ask. Unfortunately journalists don't seem to have the enthusiasm they once did for verification of facts. Or maybe I'm romanticising the past and it was always about sensation and immediate gut reaction and fact-free knee-jerk judgements.
Some say he is staying in America to shoot The Beaver and How I Spent My Summer Vacation, therefore he has no plans to skip the country for Australia. But his acting in those two projects is completed already. Privately, I'd like to see him take over Mad Max: Fury Road if George Miller will have him back in the role. I understand that even though Gibson is not supposed to be in it (after dropping out of the planned 2004 shoot) Icon Productions is involved. The real kick in the pants hasn't happened yet. Bruce Davey his longtime producer and former accountant at Icon hasn't jumped ship yet. But I can see that even on the level of reporage limited to production plans the entertainment news media doesn't seem to bother cross-checking its facts.
Firstly, according to People, Mel Gibson has finished shooting on How I Spent My Summer Vacation before the infamous leakage of phone rants. People magazine remarked on how Mel got along with everyone on the set, and also there had been several news items about the controversy of displacing prisoners to shoot that prison film in Mexico. I don't know what kinds of clashes he had with Hispanics, but reportedly there were demonstrations against the film so his "wetbacks" comments don't come quite from out of the blue. Also, The Beaver was only $5 according to Mel the last time he was on Jimmy Kimmel. Certain influential people in the media, and Ari Emanuel the head of his former agency have applied negative pressure against him for years. In this case, I can't blame Leo for bailing from the Viking movie because there is so much hate and nary a word about Manic Depressive Disorder which is as much a disease as alcoholism. This does not mean his peers actually hate Mel. In an industry where people live in public and watch their every joke, trying to avoid nuance and irony (like Oliver Stone's overly candid jokes while trying to defend Mel), when people are having a PRIVATE conversation the floodgates open almost like a secret handshake. And that doesn't mean they are all racist. It just means that when you are dissing someone or someone's maid or painting a picture of what the local thugs might call each other and what their attitude is (losers with chips on their shoulder and a slavery complex ie: the n-word) you just spew. Especially if you are venting to someone you once loved who has now administered a damaging blow to your reputation (by reporting the scuffle over the baby from January).
Violence especially against women is of course despised as is racism, but then there are people gleefully and mindlessly throwing around words like "anti-Semetism" which have an ever-broadening definition. I can love Spielberg, Harrison Ford, Richard Donner, and be moved by the Shylock speech scenes Mel Gibson performs in The Man Without a Face, love Mel Brooks as much and still be called an anti-Semite if I think David Geffin and Ari Emanuel were tacky in holding a grudge over The Passion of the Christ. That movie by the way is not anti-Semetic. Mel's own hands hammer in the nails. Humanity and each individual of a Catholic or Christian congregation crucifies Jesus and is forgiven as good and evil fight it out in each person's heart. It is not about Jews, no matter what the idiot Ciaphas says. JC said (of his own Crucifixion and every unjust crucifixion and flogging and stoning that happened on a regular basis and was attended by locals) "Forgive them, they know not what they do."
Even if Mel Gibson doesn't bounce back from this right away, I think a lot of people will be ashamed. Sure Manic Depressive disorder is not cool and yelling and screaming and swearing and threatening may not be cool, but they are as much a part of the "trunk" and go-to language Mel is used to in almost ALL of his characters. Just as persecution (accusations of anti-Semetism) he endured in 2006 when reports anticipated Disney dumping Apocalypto caused him to fall off the wagon and drive drunk naturally lead to jewish slander being part of his ramblings. Next step will be that perhaps Mel will meet someone who transcribes or tape records whatever he says as he talks in his sleep. Then THOSE ramblings will also be taken as "the truth" and the "mask removed."
Thank God Darlene Love and Whoopie Goldberg have spoken up and Robert DeNiro has wished him luck getting through this ordeal. Burt Reynolds movies are still entertaining years after he hit Loni Anderson, even though he was wrong. It may not be particular to Mel Gibson but there may be quirks and flashpoints here that a lot of Hollywood people secretly recognize.
I also think a LOT of people including myself would like to see TMZ and RadarOnline and the like utterly destroyed. If Mel Gibson kills himself over this humiliation I hope RadarOnline staff get prison for manslaughter.
If she honestly felt she wouldn't last the night she would have called the cops, especially after the rose garden threat. But she remains calm and is quite cold for these clips, and I have heard all 6 she is in and the 7th which is actually just a voice-mail from Mel. If the tapes were intended for cops Oksana would have handed them over right away. Instead she let her sister access them and field bids from newspapers and websites, settling on RadarOnline.
There is no doubt that Mel was angry. As a less creative person I might say "I should KILL you!" to someone, but Mel being used to speeches instead said something one of his characters would have said. Frankly, I give it no more weight than the average person saying I should kill you. The spectre of OJ Simpson of course is there, because nobody exepcted him to snap. But again, whatever he said to get her to start recording should have also spurred her to call the police and then let him rant.
The fact that her stated fear for her life was not great enough to call the police and that there is ZERO fear in her smug voice in these clips shows the tapes were for extortion and/or inevitable humiliation. Because even if Mel paid or agreed to a rotten custory revision Oksana's sister would have still been able to release the audio. Charging someone with extortion does not "trivialize" domestic violence, but even her claim if it is very suspect considering the underhanded way she operates.
News sources, such as they are, say that Mel Gibson's Viking epic was due to start filming in the Fall and also say that there is no script yet and it is just an idea. The one thing they easily make up their collective mind about is that Mel Gibson is the anti-Christ because he yelled at his ex-girlfriend. He also (forgetting context for a minute) used the n-word, which apparently nullifies any and all handshakes and friendshakes with black people and marks him as much as a racist as telling the story of Christ marks him (and I suppose any and all of us raised Catholic or Christian) as anti-Semites. It depends who you ask. Unfortunately journalists don't seem to have the enthusiasm they once did for verification of facts. Or maybe I'm romanticising the past and it was always about sensation and immediate gut reaction and fact-free knee-jerk judgements.
Some say he is staying in America to shoot The Beaver and How I Spent My Summer Vacation, therefore he has no plans to skip the country for Australia. But his acting in those two projects is completed already. Privately, I'd like to see him take over Mad Max: Fury Road if George Miller will have him back in the role. I understand that even though Gibson is not supposed to be in it (after dropping out of the planned 2004 shoot) Icon Productions is involved. The real kick in the pants hasn't happened yet. Bruce Davey his longtime producer and former accountant at Icon hasn't jumped ship yet. But I can see that even on the level of reporage limited to production plans the entertainment news media doesn't seem to bother cross-checking its facts.
Firstly, according to People, Mel Gibson has finished shooting on How I Spent My Summer Vacation before the infamous leakage of phone rants. People magazine remarked on how Mel got along with everyone on the set, and also there had been several news items about the controversy of displacing prisoners to shoot that prison film in Mexico. I don't know what kinds of clashes he had with Hispanics, but reportedly there were demonstrations against the film so his "wetbacks" comments don't come quite from out of the blue. Also, The Beaver was only $5 according to Mel the last time he was on Jimmy Kimmel. Certain influential people in the media, and Ari Emanuel the head of his former agency have applied negative pressure against him for years. In this case, I can't blame Leo for bailing from the Viking movie because there is so much hate and nary a word about Manic Depressive Disorder which is as much a disease as alcoholism. This does not mean his peers actually hate Mel. In an industry where people live in public and watch their every joke, trying to avoid nuance and irony (like Oliver Stone's overly candid jokes while trying to defend Mel), when people are having a PRIVATE conversation the floodgates open almost like a secret handshake. And that doesn't mean they are all racist. It just means that when you are dissing someone or someone's maid or painting a picture of what the local thugs might call each other and what their attitude is (losers with chips on their shoulder and a slavery complex ie: the n-word) you just spew. Especially if you are venting to someone you once loved who has now administered a damaging blow to your reputation (by reporting the scuffle over the baby from January).
Violence especially against women is of course despised as is racism, but then there are people gleefully and mindlessly throwing around words like "anti-Semetism" which have an ever-broadening definition. I can love Spielberg, Harrison Ford, Richard Donner, and be moved by the Shylock speech scenes Mel Gibson performs in The Man Without a Face, love Mel Brooks as much and still be called an anti-Semite if I think David Geffin and Ari Emanuel were tacky in holding a grudge over The Passion of the Christ. That movie by the way is not anti-Semetic. Mel's own hands hammer in the nails. Humanity and each individual of a Catholic or Christian congregation crucifies Jesus and is forgiven as good and evil fight it out in each person's heart. It is not about Jews, no matter what the idiot Ciaphas says. JC said (of his own Crucifixion and every unjust crucifixion and flogging and stoning that happened on a regular basis and was attended by locals) "Forgive them, they know not what they do."
Even if Mel Gibson doesn't bounce back from this right away, I think a lot of people will be ashamed. Sure Manic Depressive disorder is not cool and yelling and screaming and swearing and threatening may not be cool, but they are as much a part of the "trunk" and go-to language Mel is used to in almost ALL of his characters. Just as persecution (accusations of anti-Semetism) he endured in 2006 when reports anticipated Disney dumping Apocalypto caused him to fall off the wagon and drive drunk naturally lead to jewish slander being part of his ramblings. Next step will be that perhaps Mel will meet someone who transcribes or tape records whatever he says as he talks in his sleep. Then THOSE ramblings will also be taken as "the truth" and the "mask removed."
Thank God Darlene Love and Whoopie Goldberg have spoken up and Robert DeNiro has wished him luck getting through this ordeal. Burt Reynolds movies are still entertaining years after he hit Loni Anderson, even though he was wrong. It may not be particular to Mel Gibson but there may be quirks and flashpoints here that a lot of Hollywood people secretly recognize.
I also think a LOT of people including myself would like to see TMZ and RadarOnline and the like utterly destroyed. If Mel Gibson kills himself over this humiliation I hope RadarOnline staff get prison for manslaughter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)