Would you be willing to see Mel Gibson's new movie?

Post by **Jnyusa** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 1:20 pm

On the other hand ....

Wagner was driven by an ideology. He believed that he was remaking the German People's vision of themselves, so it would be very hard for a non-musician, I think, to separate the 'message' within the music from its purely technical aspects. It would be impossible to write a musical biography of Wagner without considerating the purposiveness of his works. It happens that his talent was sufficiently huge that his music transcends its purpose (imo), but there are plenty of lesser talents, marginal talents for whom yov's question becomes relevant, I think.

What should we think about the Soviet state-sponsored art of the 1930s and 1940s? It's of historical interest today, of course, but is it art if its primary purpose is function rather than form? Should civilization be required to preserve it as art (hence provide financial support for maintaining it as art)?

I do see a difference betwen that kind of work product and the product of Mozart, let's say, because Mozart's Emperor was buying music and not something else disguised as music, if that makes sense. Unlike the Soviets who were buying a message and hoping that by putting it in a particular form it could be passed off as 'the people's' art.

I would guess that Mel Gibson *imagines* that he is creating art when he writes, produces and directs something himself, but there's no question that his opus was written to a purpose other than art, considering that he claims God told him what to write. So I don't feel the same way about him, or Wagner, that I feel about Mozart ... assuming that any such comparison could be sensical. Though I don't think I could come up with an unarguable distinction between them, besides the obvious talent gap.

If an 'artist's' only claim to legitimacy is commercial appeal within a limited time frame, isn't it by granting or withholding commercial success that we 'vote' on whether or not the product is indeed art and worthy of consideration independent of the purpose for which the 'artist' might have created it?

Jn

Post by **Alatar** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 1:41 pm

It always surprises me how strongly people feel about a man they've never met and who has no discernable effect on their lives. None of you have the slightest clue what Gibson thinks or believes, no matter how much you think you can extrapolate from his (commercially driven) movies or his (media slanted) interviews. Protesting against your guessed ideas of his possible motives strikes me as futile.

Surely protesting against George Bush would be a better use of your time and effort? He interferes in your lives daily.

*crossposted on B77*

Post by **yovargas** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 2:27 pm

None of you have the slightest clue what Gibson thinks or believes

We don't have the slightest clue? Drunk or not, I think we have a pretty darn big clue. Drunk or not, his statements were completely inexcusable. (You don't get a free pass to do wrong things just cuz you're drunk). Drunk or not, I don't think he should get a free pass. I would want our society to make a clear statement that such anti-Semitic thoughts are not going to be tolerated. Right now, the only way I can think of for our society to do that is by not seeing his film.

Surely protesting against George Bush would be a better use of your time and effort? He interferes in your lives daily.

Uhh, not seeing a Mel Gibson movie requires no time or effort.[/quote]

Post by **Alatar** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 3:34 pm

yovargas wrote:
None of you have the slightest clue what Gibson thinks or believes
We don't have the slightest clue? Drunk or not, I think we have a pretty darn big clue. Drunk or not, his statements were completely inexcusable. (You don't get a free pass to do wrong things just cuz you're drunk). Drunk or not, I don't think he should get a free pass.

Just to clarify, what I mean is that all we actually know is what was reported of what he allegedly said while drunk. It may all be true, it may all be fabricated. Chances are its somewhere in between.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:19 pm

Given the phrasing of his apologies, Gibson at least seems to think it actually happened.

Post by **MithLuin** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:57 pm

As devotional art goes, The Passion is pretty good quality. I mean, compare it to any other "Bible Story" movie, and it beats it hands-down.

I have not seen Ben-Hur, so I wasn't including that one - but I know of at least 3 other 'Life of Jesus' movies: Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus, and the CBS two-parter from about 5 years ago. Jesus Christ, Superstar made a lousy movie, as most musicals do, so it should be judged as a musical, not a movie. Life of Brian is right out

I also have not seen the new Nativity movie yet, but my sister said it was decent. Anyway, in that company, I think The Passion of the Christ is *easily* the most enduringly artistic of the bunch. Many of the details are devotional, but the story told also hangs together convincingly.

I have seen several depictions of Old Testament stories as well, but the most popular are probably The Ten Commandments and The Prince of Egypt. The former is the better movie, but again....I think the Passion is better yet.

I do not agree with Mel Gibson's theology. He belongs to a church that is schismatic from the Catholic church, and in particular over issues such as religious freedom. Vatican II made clear that "no salvation outside the Church" does not mean "only Catholics can go to heaven - everyone else burns!" I hope that the Lefevbrists will (eventually) accept the Church's teachings and end their schism.

But when I watch the Passion, I know that it was made by people who had been reflecting on (and meditating on) these scenes for some time. I can appreciate that. It adds depth and connections that make it art, not just "okay, so now we do this. Okay, next station, we do that..." As an example....when the cross is being raised, they intercut scenes of the Last Supper: "this is my body". Also, John is watching this scene, and he 'gets' it as well - it is the dawning understanding on his face that justifies the flashback (it's 'his' connection). Tying that all together so neatly is just...wow. I am grateful I had the chance to see it.

Yes, there are other issues. I realize that the contention that Jewish people killed Jesus has led to violence throughout history. It is not an 'incidental' idea, and one that must be handled very carefully. CBS made it clear that it was a 'deal' between the authorities and Pilate, though the push for the idea clearly came from the Sanhedrin (in their version, Pilate took the whole thing as a joke). In the Jesus movie, it is mentioned that Pilate had crucified many men - he was portrayed as proud and powerful, unbending (he was the one in charge). I found this significant, because practically all the dialogues and events in that movie are taken directly from the gospel of Luke (very little adaptation, lots of narrative voice over, etc). IIRC, the gospel does not mention how many people Pilate had had crucified. Gibson's portrayal is more nuanced, but also more conflicted. Everyone standing near Judas in the crowd looks 'deformed' - what's that about? The Sanhedrin is having a secret meeting, and it seems all very rushed and unusual - but who is in charge and why are they doing this? That isn't really explained. The people of Jerusalem only get to voice their opinions as the crowd shouting for Jesus' death, with the exception of Veronica and her daughter. There is no voice over to explain the politics or the historical situation; it's all drama, up for interpretation. Much more...dangerous. But also....more artistic.

I certainly can understand why people would not want to see The Passion - it is very bloody, intensely violent. It is also a Christian devotional, so it wouldn't have much appeal to non-Christians to start with. Mel Gibson's style is fairly repetitive - the Patriot and Braveheart are the same movies, really. (Except the former has Lucius Malfoy in it

) You don't have to consider what he does to be "art" or "artistic."

As for not casting himself as Jesus.... The actor (Jim Caveziel) was asked in an interview, "had people ever told you you looked like Jesus before?" His answer? "No, but I have been told I look like Mel Gibson!" I found that comment interesting

I think movies should be judged as movies - if they're no good, don't see them, if they sound good, go for it. If you want to take a stand against a particular actor/director/producer/company, go for it, there's nothing wrong with that. I probably don't approve of anything that goes on at New Line, but I certainly wouldn't have foregone watching LotR on account of it. Letting "the industry" know that there is a market for something means that just maybe new projects that I like will gain backing.

Right now, I want to see Happy Feet - it has EW in it

. I doubt people who like Happy Feet will be the same people who like Apocolypto.

Post by **nerdanel** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:42 pm

Alatar,

You really seem to feel very strongly that not only should you not boycott Mel Gibson's (or any other person's movies for whom there is clearer proof, by your standards, that they are a bigot)...but no one should do so. I must say, I don't understand why.

Post by **Alatar** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:45 pm

I don't agree with boycotting anything based on something completely unrelated. Particularly when that unrelated thing is based on supposition.

Post by **yovargas** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:49 pm

It occurred to me that perhaps I'm seeing this like a worker spouting off a bunch of racist crap. I'd expect that worker to get fired even if they're a good worker. I guess I'm looking for Mel to get "fired" somehow and this is the only way I can think of that he can be.

And how can you call Mel Gibson unrelated to Mel Gibson's movie?

Post by **Alatar** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:54 pm

You think somone should be fired for being racist?

Post by **yovargas** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:59 pm

Not for being one, but for expressing that? Yeah, of course.

Post by **Alatar** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:06 pm

Ok. Lets assume said worker spouts racist crap, is slapped on the wrist, apologises and never does it again. They're likely still a racist, but do you think they should still be fired?

Post by **nerdanel** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:35 pm

Absolutely it would be legitimate, regardless of what form the expression took or whether or not it was at work. I.e.. if someone was posting on Stormfront's forums at work or harassing colleagues of a different race, it would certainly be legitimate to fire them. If we are talking about a private employer, I would say it would additionally be reasonable to fire an at-will employee who was discovered, say, to march at KKK or neo-Nazi rallies...or who happened to go off on a racist/ethnic tirade when arrested for DUI. After all, in most circumstances, the employer could choose at its discretion to terminate the employee for having the DUI*, which could also be a "slip in discretion," and is also a decision (to drive) made under the influence of alcohol. Why not for the bigotry that emerges when drunk?

Also, to answer your specific question, Alatar - yes, I think that the person who spouts "racist crap" at work should be fired before being slapped on the wrist. There is no good excuse for even a first offense, and especially if his or her racism was directed at other employees, they should know that their employer will not tolerate prejudice directed at them for even a second. Moreover, from the employer's standpoint, a willingness to make racist comments at work shows a stunning lack of discretion from the racist, and the employer would properly be as concerned about the lack of discretion potentially carried into other areas, as about the impropriety of racism in the workplace and the effect on the racist's coworkers who belong to the targeted group.

And, in my opinion, this applies even if the racist is the most stellar employee in the company (although, of course, the stellar employee would probably be given more leeway in reality.)

So, I guess my views here are merely equally applicable to Mel Gibson.

EDIT
To tie it back to Mel Gibson more clearly:
I think it is legitimate for an employer to terminate a racist employee because
(1) a(n uncloseted) racist makes other employees' work environment hostile, and has the potential of interfering with their productivity, especially if the racist is in a position of authority over them
(2) it is legitimate, in this day and age of at-will employment, for a private employer to choose not to support a racist employee financially. To me, this makes complete sense; after all, they can choose not to hire you, or choose to fire you, because they do not like how you dress, how heavy you are (in virtually every jurisdiction), or simply because they climbed out the wrong side of the bed on the morning and don't feel like paying you anymore. How much more legitimate is it to fire someone on the basis of reprehensible views?

To complete the analogy, seeing a movie made by an uncloseted anti-Semite (and Gibson's drunken tirade, combined retroactively with my reservations about the Passion, was sufficient for me to conclude that he was anti-Semitic) interferes irretrievably with my enjoyment of the movie. I cannot - nor do I wish to - make the mental effort to forget who Gibson is and what he thinks in order to enjoy his movie "productively." Moreover, it is legitimate for me to choose not to support a known anti-Semite (again, established to my satisfaction) financially.

Others have pointed out that Hollywood is filled with various forms of prejudice. I am not going to go on a "witch hunt" to look up every remark that every director or actor has made that might conceivably be indicative of prejudice -- much like an employer most likely does not go digging to see whether their employees have made a statement off-work hours that might possibly indicate prejudice. However, if it is brought to my attention, then at-will is at-will, whether I am the employer or the prospective movie-goer, and I will not financially support known bigots who are guilty of any ism or phobia to which I object.

*When I worked for Anheuser-Busch, all employees above a certain level were required to report, among other things, DUI violations...and the penalty could be as severe as termination for a first offense.

EDIT to remove too-dramatic wording

Post by **vison** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:58 pm

First, the "money" issue. There is nothing wrong or immoral or hypocritical about Gibson or anyone else making money from making movies. Making movies is how Mr. Gibson and Mr. Speilberg make their livings. Making money making movies is honest work. In our world, one measure of the worth of an artist's work is the measure of how much money people spend to enjoy it. It's a pretty good system, when it comes to movies, and it's hard to see how a better one can be devised. I can always NOT go to the movies. And I mostly don't. As Samuel Goldwyn was supposed to have said, "If people don't want to come, you can't stop them."

Second, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Speilberg may have set themselves up as "spokesmen" for their particular "group". Does that mean that WE, the movie-going public, have to accept their assumed "spokesmanhood"?

Third, I do think that I should be able to separate my dislike of an "artist" from the artist's work. Who of us would bear the kind of scrutiny these men are subject to? I'm not making excuses for Mr. Gibson; besides, I think he is the nasty little anti-Semite he appears to be, he's never been able to slither away from that truth about himself. The apple don't fall far from the tree.

Alatar can say we are going on supposition and gossip and rumour, but as someone else pointed out, Gibson himself seems to think he said terrible things. So he was drunk? No excuse. Would we excuse him if, as a drunk driver, he killed someone? He could have, after all this all came out because he WAS a drunk driver. As I said before, he got by for years on his charm and yeux bleu, and a modicum of talent suited for the role he always plays: Jesus Christ.

Mr. Gibson and Mr. Speilberg are free to make whatever movies they like, and I am free to not see them. There have been several remarks made in this thread implying or suggesting that there is something wrong in any person "boycotting" a product, in refusing to put money in the pocket of a producer or manufacturer who arouses our disapproval or disdain. Bollocks. I can spend or not spend my money as I like. If it hurts the people who work for Gibson or Speilberg, tough. It's not my problem, if they choose to work for such people.

I admit I'm being inconsistent, because I think I SHOULD be able to separate the man from the movie, so to speak. But then, as we all know, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". And I always thought they both made crappy movies, anyway. With the odd exception.

eta: cross-posted with nerdanel.

nerdanel, I must disagree in part with what you say. It would be wrong for an employer to fire someone for "being racist", unless that racism manifested itself in behavior that breaks explicit rules within the workplace. Every workplace ought to have very clear rules on these issues, and there are, besides, laws in place that might deal with it if the workplace doesn't. But no one should be fired for their beliefs alone, regardless of what they are. The fact that people are routinely fired for other "unfair" reasons doesn't change anything. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Post by **Faramond** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:16 pm

The only standard that I can use is to judge the piece as what it is, and not who created it or to what purpose it was created. Judging a piece for what it is takes care of any nefarious purpose that actually makes it into the piece, I think. And I could not handle the complication of considering the character of the creator as well.

I believe that Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite, though I also suspect he doesn't want to be one. I just think the way he approaches his faith makes it inescapable. But I don't believe every movie he makes will necessarily be evil or corrupted. I'll likely never see Apocalypto, so I'll likely never know.

nel wrote:a(n uncloseted) racist

Only a lawyer would use such a construction!

Welcome to the bar, nel!

Post by **Frelga** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:19 pm

Hullo, Andri, good to see you posting!

Andri wrote:
Frelga wrote: Art is supposed to be a projection of the Artist's soul into the world.
I think that a lot of the discussion here has to do with this statement. This is a perception of Art that was created in 19th c Europe. Thus, it is a limited way of understanding Art (as it is bound by time and place) I think it should apply only to those pieces of art created under this concept.

In 19c Europe, people started going around sticking labels on things. That made them feel as if they invented those things that existed from the dawn of time.

At the risk of going all mystical, I submit that anything we do is a projection of our souls, Art being a special case. When the first cavewoman put a wavy line on that lumpy clay pot, she was expressing herself artistically.

Commissioned art can be as great or greater as a free expression. The thing about artists is they must express themselves. Whether by writing symphonies or by writing Tolkien fanfic is irrelevant. A commission may give a particular direction to that expression, and often imposing limitation on an artist seems to stimulate creativity.

IMO, art ceases to be art at the point when the creator's soul is no longer invested in it. One way that can happen is when a piece is made solely for material reasons (money, privledge, fame). Then we have not an artist but a hack. The other way is when a piece is made solely to support a political, religious or philosophical belief. Then we have not art but propaganda, such as the Soviet works that Jn referred to.

Which brings me back to Mel Gibson.

There is more in your post, Andri, that invites an interesting discussion, but it belongs in the What's Art thread and I'll save Vman the trouble of moving my post.

Maybe when I have time...

So maybe we shouldn't use moral criteria in order to judge whether a piece of art is great or not.

Again at the risk of going all mystical, I think a person's moral criteria are central to making any judgements. Or not making any.

Ok. Lets assume said worker spouts racist crap, is slapped on the wrist, apologises and never does it again. They're likely still a racist, but do you think they should still be fired?

I suppose situation is different in Ireland because I imagine you are less likely to work with people against whom you are racially prejudiced. At my office, whoever you are prejudiced against is probably in the next cube.

If anybody spouted racist crap in my office it would not be a slap on the wrist. If they were my reports, they wouldn't know what hit them. Or, to quote Detritus the Troll, I would make sure dey knew it was I what hit dem.

All that said, I don't believe in stopping anybody else from seeing a movie.

EDITED to fix a typo in a poster's name.

Post by **Jnyusa** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:24 pm

Mith wrote:Right now, I want to see Happy Feet - it has EW in it

This is the movie I want to see, too!

Jn

Post by **Inanna** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:41 pm

It would be wrong for an employer to fire someone for "being racist", unless that racism manifested itself in behavior that breaks explicit rules within the workplace.

How else would you know that the person is being racist, unless racism does manifest itself? If a colleague passes racist remarks about me, my work but still does his work well, helps in my work even - should that behavior be tolerated? Where do you draw the line for explicit rules? A lot of bad blood is just when you feel you are being discriminated against. How do you make sure that the feeling is crossing the lines of really breaking the rules or not. I think in these situations - to send out clear messages - we should follow Frelga's attitude - they should not know what hit them.

Jn, am curious about your anti-Spielberg feelings. Why? a whole different thread, maybe.

Post by **vison** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:44 pm

Mahima wrote:
It would be wrong for an employer to fire someone for "being racist", unless that racism manifested itself in behavior that breaks explicit rules within the workplace.
How else would you know that the person is being racist, unless racism does manifest itself? If a colleague passes racist remarks about me, my work but still does his work well, helps in my work even - should that behavior be tolerated? Where do you draw the line for explicit rules? A lot of bad blood is just when you feel you are being discriminated against. How do you make sure that the feeling is crossing the lines of really breaking the rules or not. I think in these situations - to send out clear messages - we should follow Frelga's attitude - they should not know what hit them.

Jn, am curious about your anti-Spielberg feelings. Why? a whole different thread, maybe.

That was my point. If the person doesn't exhibit racist behavior AT WORK, then there should be no problem.

But suppose you knew the guy attended some "anti-someone-or-other" meetings, meetings where YOUR "group" was specifically hated? What then? It might very well make you uncomfortable in the workplace, but do you have anything to complain about? I say not.

Post by **MithLuin** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:04 pm

Commissioned art can be as great or greater than a free expression. The thing about artists is they must express themselves. Whether by writing symphonies or by writing Tolkien fanfic is irrelevant. A commission may give a particular direction to that expression, and often imposing limitation on an artist seems to stimulate creativity.

But then what do you do with something like Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead? It is a novel, written because she wanted to make it (not supported by the as-yet-nonexistent Ayn Rand Society

)... but also, it is pretty much just an excuse to play with her philosophy in novel form. Her characters each are designed to showcase a different aspect of what she thinks....a very intentional portrayal. I call it propaganda, but I realize that others might see it as art (it is an interesting and well-written book, after all).

I think this gets at the difference between allegory and applicability that Tolkien harped on in his intro to LotR - the former rests in the control of the author. If the artist is pulling puppet strings, you have a controling form of art, which veers into propoganda. If it is welling up from the heart and soul of the artist and just happens to shine through the work - that is something different.

But to distinguish between them is to make a moral judgement, not an artistic one. In essence, we are looking for authenticity. It doesn't matter whether or not you get paid (well, it does, but not to this). If you are paid to paint an angel, great. If you paint an angel because you wanted to, great. But what we are suspicious of is someone who paints an angel because the person paying them believes in angels, or someone who paints an angel because he thinks others should believe in angels.

I agree with what you said about something being made just for money or just to support an idea. But...well, lots of great art was done for money or in support of an idea, so who gets to add the label "just"?

As an example: this painting by Fra Angelico could be analyzed artistically without mentioning that one of the people in it is an angel. You could articulate whether you like it or hate it without mentioning what you thought of the subject matter. There is a lot that goes into art beyond the ideas or 'soul' of the artist. But I find nothing unauthentic about this work, and would therefore consider it Art - good art or bad art is up to the critics, but it is art. (Ie, I wouldn't hang it in my house, but I wouldn't strip it of the name Art).