Mel Gibson, Apocalypto, and Racism

In perfect world a work of art would stand on its own merits and the morals of the creator would not be taken into consideration. If the work were allowed to stand on it's merit then JK Rowling wouldn't be thought of as a satanist/witch by some circles. People who write murder mysteries wouldn't be considered sick freaks by other circles.

But we're not in Perfect and that's why there's Walgreen's.

I think there answer is- a combination of the two.

A film or book or song or painting can be judged on its own merits as a work of art, however, the artist cannot escape the controversial aspects of their life which cloud any discussion of their accomplishments.

It is undeniable that "Triumph of the Will" is a powerful film produced by a skilled filmmaker but the fact that it was commissioned by and in support of Adolph Hitler and the Nazi's cannot be ignored.

If artists wish to be judged only on their produced work, then they should avoid the spotlight and any controversy.

I don't care for reviews that talk to much about the artist and not enough about the art. There is a band called The Residents who have kept their identities a secret for as long as they have been around. Most reviews talk more about that then they do about the music.

I haven't read the reviews you mentioned, so I can't say which ones were fair and which ones weren't. But in Mel Gibson's case, it wasn't simply a matter of him getting drunk and saying awful things. Many people believed that his previous movie "The Passion Of The Christ" to be anti-semitic, which he denied. Then, he happened to show up in public, drunk and saying the things an anti-semitic person would say.

After that, the concerns were that 1) maybe Mel Gibson was a bigot and 2) maybe Mel Gibson promoted bigotry in his movies. With that in mind, I can see why reviewers would mention it.

dolores haze said:

Should the art be judged separately from the artist? Or not?

Click to expand...

I dunno. Maybe.

A jerk can be a great artist; Mel is a good example. He's some sort of freaky genius in his particular bailiwick of ultra violent didacticism. If the work is of genuine interest it seems a shame to lambast it based on the sad sack who conceived it.

I think the cut off point is when the work itself is obviously bigoted.

tourdeforce said:

It is undeniable that "Triumph of the Will" is a powerful film produced by a skilled filmmaker

Click to expand...

Next up on my Netflix list.

dolores haze said:

But is this fair? Shouldn't a film, book, CD, painting, etc, be judged on it's merits rather than judged on the creator's morals, beliefs, etc. I know it's hard to separate them. But what do all you creative types out there think? Should the art be judged separately from the artist? Or not?

Click to expand...

I don't think it's possible to disassociate the two after it reaches a certain level. I want the artists I like to be quiet. Invisible except for what they produce whether it be acting, writing, directing, whatever. My reasoning for this is completely selfish.

I never was a big Tom Cruise fan but I simply don't go to his movies now because I'm repulsed by his behavior. He continues to ruin whatever reputation he may have had to begin with.

I enjoyed Grey's Anatomy for a while and I still watch it but it's tainted by Isaiah Washington's insult to T.R. Knight. T.R. Knight is playing a heterosexual on the series but is a homosexual. I don't care which he is I just wish that I had been deprived of the knowledge of his sexual orientation and Isaiah had kept his mouth shut I would be enjoying it much more. When I see Isaiah I think he is a jerk rather than separate him from his character. When I see T.R. I'm thinking you're a homosexual so play a homosexual because I can't forget. It doesn't matter that it's acting I'm just black and white that way. I don't want to know anything about them unless I meet them personally, I just want to know the character.

Books don't matter much because I can't think of a single author that I know anything about. Directors tend to fall into this category as well for me.

RumpleTumbler said:

I never was a big Tom Cruise fan but I simply don't go to his movies now because I'm repulsed by his behavior. He continues to ruin whatever reputation he may have had to begin with.

Click to expand...

I can't stand to watch Cruise anymore either. When he comes on the television, I change the channel, so visceral is my aversion to him. And it's a shame, because I've quite enjoyed some of his movies over the years. I've tried, but I can't separate his "art" from his public personality and his big blabby mouth.

There is nothing about an actor's, writer's, whatever's personal life that is going to make me have a higher opinion about the quality of their work. There is plenty that will make me feel less inclined to watch, read etc.

Okay everyone should back off Mel Gibson. He was Aussie for a while. Strange, he really changed since going back to America.

JJ

I will give an artist (of whatever media) a great deal of personal leeway. When you're creating something, whether it be a book, a movie, or a painting, you put the BEST of yourself into it. So I don't think anyone can live up to the standards that they almost set for themselves in their work.

In Mel Gibson's case, I support him. Why? Because I think he chooses to make good movies (I like them anyway). Everyone has parts of themselves that they hide. Maybe somewhere inside of him he has anti-semitic thoughts... which came out when he was drunk. Everyone says idiotic stuff when they're drunk. What you choose do when you're in control of yourself is what matters, and the Mel Gibson I see when he is sober is not anti-semitic. As far as I can see, the only REALLY BAD thing he's done is to get drunk in public. And if I condemned every person who did that... well.

Tom Cruise, on the other hand... well, I gave him leeway for a while. But he annoyed me even before it became clear that he was a sleazeball. If he was still a good actor, I might still watch his movies. But what really turns me off is that smile of his. Does anyone else get the feeling that there's desperation behind that forced smile? It just doesn't look genuine to me.

ETA: PS I know someone who has no fingers on one hand. One of our mutual friends got drunk, noticed it, and started yelling about it. Now do I think he discriminates against people with deformities or disabilities? Absolutely not. He's one of the most upstanding guys I know, and I know that he has a cousin who is disabled who he just adores. He just GOT DRUNK.

I will also give Mel a break for being drunk. Everyone knows someone who has been drunk and said/done some stupd things. But with Tom Cruise.....he is just a freak to me. I've tried to watch a couple of his movies since he went freak, but the whole time I'm watching I just keep thinking how weird this dude is. A friend of mine was joking and asked who would I choose to play the lead if my novel ever was made into a movie. I said anyone other than Tom Cruise. He'd make me hate my own work.

Gibson

Let he without sin cast the first stone.

I like Gibson's movies, and if I start throwing stones at him, then I'm going to get even more thrown at me.

Only a damned fool judges work by the worker. None of us are perfect, and what Mel Gibson says pales to what most of us think, and even to what three fourths of Hollywood types actually do on a daily basis.

Jamesaritchie said:

None of us are perfect, and what Mel Gibson says pales to what most of us think,

Click to expand...

I don't believe you have any idea what most of us think, James.

dolores haze said:

I recently watched Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto". ... I checked the reviews of the movie to find out why it sunk without a trace

Click to expand...

Hang on.

It was a film in a foreign language with no stars. And subtitles.

It made a bigger splash than the thousands of other foreign language films with no stars ... which don't even make it to the local cinema despite being brilliant.

Why on earth WOULD someone expect it to not sink without a trace? Just because the producer had managed to pull that trick off once before?

Here's a simple question: Would 'The Passion' have been successful if he'd made the film about an unknown person being tortured in the same period?

If the answer is clearly NO, then there is no reason that Mel's second foreign language/no-stars film would be a success .. even though 'The Passion' was. It lacked the one thing that made 'The Passion' a success .. and kept the things made it less attractive for audiences - the foreign language and subtitles.

Mac

People who write murder myseries are considered sick freaks?

I did not know that.
I did not need to know that.

Rosemerry just ruined my night.

Apologies for the threadjack, Dolores, but I'm a sick freak! And a little unsettled by the discovery. Haven't seen Apocalypto or Passion. Not much interested in seeing piles o' gore. Do you think someone, albeit a sick freak, who is not interested in seeing piles o' gore could like either film?

No I didn't call anyone a sick freak. I just know people who think that writers who write murder mysteries are sick freaks.

I have "Book of Poisons" and "The A to Z Guide to Serial Killers" they think I'm sick sick person and I write science fiction and fantasy. People do die in every one of my stories but they still think I'm a weird freako.

I think it is pretentious bullshit to film movies in dead languages.

Mac H. said:

Hang on.

It was a film in a foreign language with no stars. And subtitles.

It made a bigger splash than the thousands of other foreign language films with no stars ... which don't even make it to the local cinema despite being brilliant.

Why on earth WOULD someone expect it to not sink without a trace? Just because the producer had managed to pull that trick off once before?

Here's a simple question: Would 'The Passion' have been successful if he'd made the film about an unknown person being tortured in the same period?

If the answer is clearly NO, then there is no reason that Mel's second foreign language/no-stars film would be a success .. even though 'The Passion' was. It lacked the one thing that made 'The Passion' a success .. and kept the things made it less attractive for audiences - the foreign language and subtitles.

Mac

Click to expand...

That is a very good point, and I think that Mel Gibson's "incident" was probably NOT the main reason why Apocalypto did not do that well. And you are right, The Passion had something Apocalypto did not, which made it marketable.

However, the OP was noticing that his "incident" was mentioned in several reviews. I haven't read much of anything about this movie, but I don't doubt that she is correct. I do still wonder if this is fair, even if it probably didn't effect the box office.

He said something along the lines of Mentally ill people just need to excercise more and that they don't need a psychiatrist to help them because they aren't really sick or something like that.

rosemerry said:

He said something along the lines of Mentally ill people just need to excercise more and that they don't need a psychiatrist to help them because they aren't really sick or something like that.

Click to expand...

And he singled out Brooke Shields by name, and attacked her for the way she treated her post-partum depression.

Sure, he's a scientologist, but I think a lot of people felt he crossed a line in how judgemental he was of other people, and they way they choose to deal with mental illness.

The Passion of the Christ was a great movie. I've sat through it three times and I enjoyed it each time. What's interesting is that since I am not a very religious I found myself - being a mother - identifying more with Mary and the torture she went through watching her son die more than I was able to follow and appreciate the story of Jesus himself. I don't read the Bible, I don't go to church, but this movie made me feel a little more educated, as sad as that may sound.

If I only have Mel Gibson to thank, Thank you Mel, regardless of your thoughts, opinions and drinking habbits.

Apocalypto was fantastic. Again the mother/child relationship in this film gripped me.

As for the Actor Mel Gibson, I've seen maybe half of his films and I'm a fan.

PS...I still watch Seinfeld. Still a Kramer fan. Still enjoy a few Tom Cruise flicks, regardless of the Scientology crap... (new thread anybody?)

JoNightshade said:

Tom Cruise, .... Does anyone else get the feeling that there's desperation behind that forced smile? It just doesn't look genuine to me.
.

Click to expand...

It looks more like a, "Ha! I just stole your wallet and you don't know it," look to me.

Mel? I guess I missed whatever comment that was, although I do remember seeing people on the news putting words in his mouth, much like the protests against "Life of Brian" by people who never even saw the film. (Can you tell I like the Independant Film Channel?)

Celia Cyanide said:

I don't believe you have any idea what most of us think, James.

Click to expand...

There's indeed a reason for my tinfoil yarmulke...