Apocalypto... turned rant

Guys, there's not a whole lot to be gained by delving savagely into Gibson's (or anyone's) character, particularly when doing so carries such religious and political overtones.
 
Exactly

Isn't Cameron know to be one SOB ?

Spent two days working with him in close quarters on Avatar, nailing down the Dragon flight deck. Found him to be perfectly pleasant and entirely professional.

I don't doubt that he can be a perfect cast-iron SOB, when it suits him. Mutual acquaintances sure say so.

YMMV.
 
Guys, there's not a whole lot to be gained by delving savagely into Gibson's (or anyone's) character, particularly when doing so carries such religious and political overtones.

Stipulated that this probably belongs in its own thread...or maybe no thread, but...

An artist's beliefs and motivations and character are absolutely relevant to evaluating his or her work, even when - particularly when - that work is of outstanding technical and artistic merit. A film isn't just a pretty inert thing to admire. It's communication, and what's being communicated, and with what motives, counts.

Leni Riefenstahl comes to mind. So does D.W. Griffith.
 
That's fine, when kept within the context of the movie -- but when it gets to the point of taking cheap shots, it's a little much.
 
Gibson's upbringing aside, I think his transformation from actor to outstanding director is something to be admired. You don't have to like him, but respect his work! There are not too many directors doing better!
 
Neither an entire film nor a single drunken outburst can be used to extrapolate an accurate summary of a man's character.

I do find the circumstances surrounding Gibson, his father, and his two latest movies to be interesting though.

Was his father an anti-semite and a holocaust denier? Seems to be the case, yes.

Is Gibson necessarily an anti-semite? His drunken tirade was troubling and offensive, but I don't think it says so much about his worldview as it does about his lack of self-control. He was obviously raised with more than a little exposure to a negative view of Jews. Who can say how much of that is part of his core, or just flares up when he's drunk as a parroting of his dad?

I don't see how folks can watch Apocalypto and say "That is offensive to Mayans." Or about Passion "That is offensive to Jews." Is human sacrifice offensive? Is torture and crucifixion offensive? There were also "good Mayans" and "good Jews" portrayed. Should the English have been offended by Braveheart?

Regardless of whether you want to bring a director's perceived character into his work or not, there is always the possibility that there is no agenda, no underlying hatred of a race or ethnicity. The messages in each of those movies are definitely bold and shouted loudly and clearly, but they have more to do with sacrifice, redemption, family, and the decline of civilization than with the particular ethnicities involved.
 
Neither an entire film nor a single drunken outburst can be used to extrapolate an accurate summary of a man's character.

True.

Their consistent behavior over a period of years counts, too.


Is Gibson necessarily an anti-semite? His drunken tirade was troubling and offensive, but I don't think it says so much about his worldview as it does about his lack of self-control.

There is a wonderful and perceptive old Russian proverb: Men are like sponges. You only see their real shape, when they are soaked.


He was obviously raised with more than a little exposure to a negative view of Jews. Who can say how much of that is part of his core, or just flares up when he's drunk as a parroting of his dad?

See above. Drunkeness doesn't impel people to say what they don't mean. It removes inhibitions preventing them from saying what they do mean.


I don't see how folks can watch Apocalypto and say "That is offensive to Mayans." Or about Passion "That is offensive to Jews."

It's simple: Passion is derived from consciously anti-Semitic writings laid down by a German nun who claimed to have had a vision. Can't even defend the source material of much of the film, by saying that it's in the Gospels.

It's also simple to observe that ascribing bloodthirsty practices to a people, and depicting them pursuing those practices, comes off offensive if those people didn't really consistently do that sort of thing (even if their neighbors did).


Should the English have been offended by Braveheart?

English sticklers for historical accuracy probably should have been. *Any* stickler for historical accuracy, really.

Regardless of whether you want to bring a director's perceived character into his work or not, there is always the possibility that there is no agenda, no underlying hatred of a race or ethnicity. Consider that quite possibly, Mel simply wanted to tell those stories.

It's also possible that in the next five minutes, pandas will fly out of my ass, and circle the room.

It's just not likely.

Gibson's character is basically a concluded subject, among a lot of people who have dealt with him at first-hand. All of whom (from my statistically unsound sampling) still agree that, all else aside, he's a tremendously talented guy.
 
In regards to Anne Emmerich's writings and Mayan sacrificial practices (or the lack thereof) we'll have to agree to disagree, as this isn't really the place to get into it further. I respect that you seem to have done some amount of research on both counts, as have I, but we've obviously arrived at different places in our conclusions from said research.

I would also argue that a man's character is never "a concluded subject."

But, as in all of your opinions stated here, fair enough.

One thing we can agree on is that yes, Gibson has a lot of talent.
 
Sorry. Didn't mean to sound as if I was making you a big-hearted concession :)

Just wanted to present my opposing viewpoint without fighting to the death. I'm always curious to read your posts as you have a wide and varied knowledge of subjects!
 
Back
Top