Replies

I think he's nuts, too.

Technical expertise doesn't prove sanity. Neither does artistic skill.

Tarantino I have always thought disturbed. I just haven't seen his name in a story lately, while Gibson's came up this week.

Both men are exhibiting an unhealthy obsession with violence, as far as I am concerned. I realize a lot of people don't agree with me, and that's ok.

Mark my words, though. Gibson one day will act so nutty even his staunchest defenders will finally realize that he's gone round the bend.

"Both men are exhibiting an unhealthy obsession with violence, as far as I am concerned. I realize a lot of people don't agree with me, and that's ok."

========================

I understand your sentiment, but I also understand that violence is a part of life. Just ask our men in Iraq, or the deer I shot a few weeks ago.

Matthew 11:12

12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

Mel is one very disturbed man.

Just because a movie makes money, it doesn't mean it is worthy. It just means that people are attracted to this violence as the Romans were to the gladiators. Nto saying much about our society is it?

An 18 yr old girl likes it? Yeesh.

I had a friend who refused to take her then 12-year old to see Patriot becauee of the violence. That may or may not have been a good decision, but one can hardly study the story of the American Revolution without understanding the sacrifices made through violence, blood, gore and death. Same with Passion of the Christ and Braveheart. Bloody movies all.

The history of mankind is replete with violence, blood and gore. So we're supposed to make movies only about Mary Poppins? Mel Gibson is NOT Walt Disney.

His likely personal nuttiness should be segregated from his artistic product. So far, his sins seem to be related to an innate anti-semitism. That is not ok according to the secular Jews who rule Hollywood (or most of us, for that matter). That would be fine, except that other, 'acceptable' Hollywood moguls are outright perverts, whose rtistic output is ok by Tinsel Town.

Both men are exhibiting an unhealthy obsession with violence, as far as I am concerned. I realize a lot of people don't agree with me, and that's ok.

Mark my words, though. Gibson one day will act so nutty even his staunchest defenders will finally realize that he's gone round the bend.

I don't have a problem with "violence" in the movies, so long as it is a legitimate part of a legitimate movie. Unfortunately for me, my knowledge of ancient Meso-American history is somewhat impoverished. For some reason, it just never sparked as much interest in me as did the history of ancient Rome, ancient Greece, World War One and Two, etc. However, if I recall correctly, the ancient Mayans were not holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" and hosting tea parties. Life for them was just a tad rougher. Bloody human sacrifices were a part of the lives of the Mayans, the Aztecs, and (I believe) the Incas. In order to tell the story of those people, the human sacrifices should be touched on at the very least.

What bothers me so much about the latest condemnation of Mr. Gibson is that it appears to be fashionable by the establishment elites to complain about the violence in his movies.

Why?

Where on earth were these same elites when the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" came out? Where have these elites been for all of the "Halloween", "Nightmare on Elm Street", and "Friday the Thirteenth" movies? Where were these same elites when Tarantino was making movies with bucket loads of fake blood? I believe that Tarantinos movies are far more gratuitous in the exploitation of violence than the "Passion". When the movie "Saving Private Ryan" came out, it proved to be far gorier and more bloody than anything that was depicted in the "Passion". Where were the protests of the elites then?

Once again, we're left with the question of the criticism of the elites. Why?

I believe that the elites are not really so angered or disturbed by the "violence" in the "Passion". I think the reason for their objections run far deeper and are far more profound. I think it's their anti-Christian bigotry shinning through (please do not think or assume that I'm necessarily including any FReepers in this statement). It was not the "violence" in the "passion" that bothered the elites. I think it was the Christ in the "Passion" that bothered the elites. When the movie proved to be a huge unexpected success, the elites went on the war path to harm Mel (not that he needs a lot of help mind you) and to harm everything that he produces. There has been a little war on Mel that has been going on for a while. I think that when the elites who control the vast majority of the media go on a constant drumbeat, many other people get sucked in to focusing only on the negative aspects of Mel Gibson's work.

As far as Mel acting like a nut, you are right. Mel is not a bad man, he just handles himself badly on occasion. Then again, considering the "lifestyle" that comes with the territory in Hollywood, I'm not convinced that it wouldn't drive all of us a little nutty too. I'm not blindly defending the guy, but I'm not willing to condemn him on what I consider to be flimsy criticisms.

You do have to give Gibson credit for being gutsy enough to make popular films in dead languages. Personally I plan on either going to the movie and/or buying the DVD.