Mel's Triumph or Folly: A news article on Gibson's religous hokum

[Jim H]

"Case in point, the movie BRAVEHEART. When compleated and released, Mel revealed to the press that he did change most of the films history, including the Battle of Sterling Bridge. And when the historians jumped in, now Mel, whenever he is interviewed or asked about the film, always uses the "I was just trying to make an entertaining film" excuse. And because of this, Mel pulled one hell of a bonner and definately shows how naive he can be. He revealed to the press about what he had done and should have known FULL WELL what would have happened. It would have been better if Mel would have used that grape-brain of his and not say a word about the film's historical inaccuracy, he then wouldn't have gotten much backlash from the historians. But Mel sure likes to make it look as if he is the victim when those historians get on his back, even though it was Mel himself that REVEALED IT ALL in the first place! "

I don't understand your criticism.  You're saying it was bad of him to be forthright about the innacuracy of the movie?  

BTW, I think Braveheart is an excellent film.  I'd like to see an ACCURATE take on William Wallace and Robert the Bruce though (from what little is known accurately, there is a LOT they'd have to makeup no matter what though).

[Chris K.]

Jim H wrote:

> I don't understand your criticism.  You're saying it was bad of
> him to be forthright about the innacuracy of the movie?  

Oh, you caught me on this one and I have to thank you for doing so. I guess I'm going to have to repharse this one. Let me start again: Mel being forthright about the inaccuracy of his film BRAVEHEART shows that he was indeed honest about it. But then after that, all the historians got on his back while Mel was saying "I was only trying to make an entertaining film", thus trying to make himself look like the victim. Again, bad move on Mel's part. He made the film, knowing full well that he was going to be caught, so he admitted it when the film was released. But then, he acts as if he has done nothing wrong, historically-wise. Either way Mel would have done it, revealing the inaccuracy or not, he still would have been caught. It's just that Mel acts as if he is the victim. Hey Mel, you made the film so it's obvious the historians are gona' go after the director.

> BTW, I think Braveheart is an excellent film.  I'd like to see
> an ACCURATE take on William Wallace and Robert the Bruce though
> (from what little is known accurately, there is a LOT they'd
> have to makeup no matter what though).

Well then I'm not on the same page here. I, too, would like to see an accurate portrayl of William Wallace, but until then we have Mel's movie. As dull as I thought BRAVEHEART is, it really wasn't Oscar worthy either. Sorry, Mel is neither a great actor or a great director. I guess it's just me.

[Jim H]

I'd agree Mel isn't a great actor, I'm not so sure about his directing.  I'd say he is very good at directing, at least he did on Braveheart.

Acting, he's just limited.  He plays the same kind of role in a LOT of his movies - usually someone suffering from a loss who then kicks ass.  He's played that type of role like 10 times.  I think he's good in the role, and he can be very entertaining in comedic scenes (I think he's near perfect in the first two Lethal Weapons).  He seems to understand his limitations, and I've never seen him try to take on a role that was too complex for him.

[Jim H]

Mel's father also thinks the Holocaust didn't happen.  He's a loon.

[Grumpy Guy]

Ahem...

You know, I recall an incident from last year.  I was confronted by my district manager for my refusal to conform to one of his policies.  He berated me in front of my employees (I was a store manager at the time).  Once he left, I turned to my employee (who was embarassed at having overheard the debacle), and I said (I'm paraphrasing, here) "I so want to kill him right now.  Or maybe just his dog."

The point of this story, dear friends, is that we all say things we don't mean.  I no more wanted to kill my boss than Mel wanted to festoon his room with this critic's guts, or whatever.  It was an offhand comment that he probably should not have said (all those years of Perry Mason and Matlock, and people still say things like that...), but that's all it was.  I, personally, am glad that, for once, an actor is not being taken to task for an offhand comment that no one should really think he ment.

As to his comment about anyone who is not of the church is not saved, well, yeah - he probably shouldn't have said that, either.  But one again, I hear that cxrap all the time.  This conversation actually happened to me:

"Have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior?"  
"Well, not as such... I'm Catholic"
"If you're Catholic you're going to hell."

Yeah.  That'll convert me.

Still, people in this nation have every right to espouse their religious views.  Again, I am glad that he's not being raked over the coals for what he said - which, to him, was probably a simple testament to his faith.

As for Tim Robbins and his wife Suzie, they were victims, pure and simple, of bad timing.  It's okay not to support the president.  Not so much less than a month after a devastating attack on our nation.  Did they deserve the reation they got?  Probably not.  Should they have expected it?  Most definately.

I also seriously think that they didn't support the president because their political views prevent them from believing that a republican can ever be right about anything.  Where were they when ol' Bill Clinton sent me over the Sava?  Of course, that's another issue entirely...

[Chris K.]

Jim H wrote:

> I'd agree Mel isn't a great actor, I'm not so sure about his
> directing.  I'd say he is very good at directing, at least he
> did on Braveheart.

I don't know. I mean. as a director on BRAVEHEART I felt Mel should have done his history homework. Let's be honest, nobody goes to the theatre to watch a documentary on a historical fact. But then again, TORA! TORA! TORA! is said to be way better than PEARL HARBOR. And why is that? Because the director decided to follow in the footsteps of history to tell the story.

With BRAVEHEART, Mel didn't do that and to me it really shows that he had very little care for it. His direction was also quite dull in the "action" film type of way. He also focused on too many montage scenery shots as if he were trying to pad the running time. And the script from Randall "PEARL HARBOR" Walace had the worst dialouge I ever heard. BRAVEHEART could have been better, for only it had a better writer, a better director and a better actor. As for winning Best Picture, I personally thought it was a joke. Oh well.

[Chris K.]

Grumpy Guy wrote:

> Ahem...
>
> You know, I recall an incident from last year.  I was
> confronted by my district manager for my refusal to conform to
> one of his policies.  He berated me in front of my employees (I
> was a store manager at the time).  Once he left, I turned to my
> employee (who was embarassed at having overheard the debacle),
> and I said (I'm paraphrasing, here) "I so want to kill him
> right now.  Or maybe just his dog."
>
> The point of this story, dear friends, is that we all say
> things we don't mean.  I no more wanted to kill my boss than
> Mel wanted to festoon his room with this critic's guts, or
> whatever.  It was an offhand comment that he probably should
> not have said (all those years of Perry Mason and Matlock, and
> people still say things like that...), but that's all it was.
> I, personally, am glad that, for once, an actor is not being
> taken to task for an offhand comment that no one should really
> think he ment.
>
> As to his comment about anyone who is not of the church is not
> saved, well, yeah - he probably shouldn't have said that,
> either.  But one again, I hear that crap all the time.  This
> conversation actually happened to me:
>
> "Have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior?"  
> "Well, not as such... I'm Catholic"
> "If you're Catholic you're going to hell."

Well then, if Mel's comment is really just an offhand remark, which he made in an interview, then shouldn't he apologize to Frank Rich for that threatening comment. After all, Mel should at least show his Catholic-Christian ideals and be the better man and thus apologize. Yet, it's been a week or two and low-and-behold, Mel has not apologized. Again, smart move there Mel. Proving to me that he comes off as a hypocrite.

> Still, people in this nation have every right to espouse their
> religious views.  Again, I am glad that he's not being raked
> over the coals for what he said - which, to him, was probably a
> simple testament to his faith.

Look, I don't think Mel should be "raked over the coals for what he said". I think that he should at least be challenged for what he said. But nobody is doing it! I don't care as much for Mel's personal religious agendas. But, to go on an interview and say "If you are not part of the Church, then you are not saved" in a wide general public is just the wrong move when you have a religious film on your back and that some of the audiences might not even be Catholic. Hell, it's almost as if he is saying only Catholics are allowed to see his film, as I mentioned before. It might have been a simple testament to his faith, but is should be done in a more personal and private matter. It's free speech, of course. But then, their are some forms of free speech that might offend or hurt somebody.

Like what one person said here in this message board, it is not up to Mel to decide who is a sinner or not, but it is up to God the Almighty to decide. And their is an old saying that somebody should say to Mel: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

[Scott]

I enjoyed LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST and am hoping to see something of interest in  THE PASSION OF CHRIST. You don't have to see a film as "truth" to enjoy an alternate version of events.

[Bernie]

Re: the "it's only a movie" argument --

We love art because it has the power to arouse us, emotionally, spritually, intellectually.  If not, then why even bother?

Throughout history, we see over and over the power of art to move people to act --whether for good or bad is not the point.  Great (or even poor) art can move us to act.

About a century ago, the famous forgery, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, appeared in Europe -- a tome that supposedly details the plans of the Jews to rule the world -- it has been used over and over again to justtify anti-Semitism, from verbal slights to mass slaughter.  (It still sells in the Middle East and parts of Europe.)  

Medieval passion plays used to spark riots & pogroms against Jewish communities.

So IMHO the "it's only a movie argument" is no argument at all.  Because of mel's fame and the subject matter, this film will reach millions.  If it's any good, it will probably be seen by MANY millions.  Therefore, what is says and what it implies are important.  It is quite possible that virulent, perhaps violent, anti-Jewish feeling could be stirred up by a film that portrays the "collective guilt" of the Jewish people
for the death of Christ  (a view repeatedly disavowed by the Vatican in recent decades).

And from what I've read of Mel's beliefs, as well as the nature of some of his source material (he's already said that the film is heavily based, not just on the gospels, but on the writings of an extremely anti-Semitic medieval nun), I expect the worst.

Now can we go back to talking about Ed Wood??

[Grumpy Guy]

You want to change the name of this thread?  This is just a suggestion, but I think a more appropriate title for the thread, based on your (Chris K.'s) comments might be as follows:

I hate Mel Gibson, and think all his work is worthless.

I'm not going to say the guy's an acting genius, here, but it seems to me that you're giving the guy a hard time as much because you don't like him as becasue of any offense you might have taken at what he said.

For the record - MY STAND ON MEL GIBSON, THE ACTOR:

Mad Max - BRILLIANT
Mad Max Sequals - CRAP
LEATHAL WEAPON 1 - best action/buddy film ever made, hands down.  Both Mel and Danny were perfect for their parts, and brilliant.

LEATHAL WEAPON 2&3 - Not worthy of their predecessor, these are still damn entertaining films.  They lost a lot of the romance of the first film (especially 3), and don't stand up in any way to the first one, but they are fun none the less

Braveheart - Horrible documentary.  Outstanding film.  You don't understand how it won best picture?  Gandi won best picture.  What does the Academy know, anyway?  Who cares if it was "historically accurate?"  and, let's be honest - no film about William Wallace and Robert the Bruce is going to be accurate.  Neither the English nor the Scottish were exactly what you'd call impartial, compulsive note-takers.

The Patriot - Crap.  Don't get me wrong, it definately has its moments - realistic portrayals of the effects of cannon balls, a depressingly sad doomed romance, a totaly ruthless Kung-Fu villian, and a couple of cool battle scenes...  But it was Braveheart with a happy ending.  -100 for lack of creativity.  (Incidentally, you'll notice no complaints about historical innacuracies.  I'm not an historian, and as such, don't notice such things.  Besides - Mel Gibson's character being ALIVE at the time showed me that they were ignoring history).

HAMLET - Mel Gibson as Hamlet?  *shudder*  Okay, who greenlighted THAT fiasco?

MOST OF THE REST OF MEL'S WORK - Fluff.  Enjoyable fluff, but fluff none the less.

My opinion of Mel as a person -
I've never met the man.  I think he tends to let his tongue get away from him, and his religious ferver makes me a tad uncomfotable.  But he seems like a pretty resonable guy.  But what the hell do I know - I've never met him.

And, I am willing to bet, neither have you.

[Cullen]

I hate this thread and wish it would go away; religion and politics tend to make nasty threads.

However, I thought it might be interesting to point out that Shakespeare’s King Lear is quite inaccurate, is widely celebrated in spite of that, and has been with us for several hundred years.  It may well outlive us all.

Just something to mull over.

[The Burgomaster]

Cullen wrote:

"However, I thought it might be interesting to point out that Shakespeare’s King Lear is quite inaccurate, is widely celebrated in spite of that, and has been with us for several hundred years. It may well outlive us all."

I totally agree.  And I believe that artistic works should concentrate more on being entertaining than being historically accurate.  If you want a history lesson, read history books.  Don't go to a movie in search of a two hour education.

[Bernie]

Excellent point about historically accuracy --

only --

What about movies where "historical accuracy" is a major selling point (whether it's true or not) -- other than this one, Oliver Stone's JFK comes to mind as a movie that sold itself with the "TRUE true story" bit.

If the filmmaker/studio is out there making the claim, don't we have a right to hold them to a higher standard than with, say, the Adventures of Robin Hood?

[Cullen]

Bernie wrote:

> Excellent point about historically accuracy --
>
> only --
>
> What about movies where "historical accuracy" is a major
> selling point (whether it's true or not) -- other than this
> one, Oliver Stone's JFK comes to mind as a movie that sold
> itself with the "TRUE true story" bit.
>
> If the filmmaker/studio is out there making the claim, don't we
> have a right to hold them to a higher standard than with, say,
> the Adventures of Robin Hood?

If they make the claim (if they, say, make a documentary), then they need to be as accurate as possible.

As a rule, if it's not a documentary, it's going to be inaccurate to some degree.  No one's going to get it all right.

[Jim H]

" But then again, TORA! TORA! TORA! is said to be way better than PEARL HARBOR. And why is that? Because the director decided to follow in the footsteps of history to tell the story. "

I thought TTT was boring.  Extremely dry.  Another key difference is that the history of Pearl Harbor is actually known. Most of Wallace's story comes from a poem by a monk which is partly legend and partly truth.

BTW, Mel Gibson didn't write Braveheart - so I fail to see how him doing history studies would be relevant.