Posts Tagged ‘Mel Gibson’
4 items.
Maybe I’m inviting trouble by poking fun at Mel Gibson’s The Passion of The Christ, but I figure if Penny Arcade can insinuate a business owner expires canines for sexual gratification, I can take my chances poking a bear with a short stick.
Clearly if you haven’t heard of Mel’s “labor of love”, then you’ve been living under some kind of rock for the last 5 months. No movie in recent memory has generated this much publicity – this much controversy – without being viewed by a mass audience.
The Pope has seen it. The President of the United States has seen it. Now it’s our turn.
I don’t know how much of my personal beliefs are fit for public consumption in this context because generally I’m not interested in what entertainers have to say about these things. I’m not particularly interested in investigating Mr. Gibson’s persuasion nor am I convinced my audience should care about mine. But let’s just say that if I make it out this weekend to see the film, I’ll cast a very skeptical eye on it.
I’m sorry, but as he ages, I view Gibson in a much harsher light. We Were Soldiers was a particularly distressing film for me to watch because I felt it put a high gloss on the complicated issue of Vietnam. In retrospect, it’s probably one of the more fierce PRO-Vietnam movies since John Wayne’s The Green Berets – a film viewed by most as propaganda hogwash. It’s this same rah-rah, conservative lean that makes me wary of Gibsons post-Braveheart directorial efforts. I simply don’t trust him to handle the last 12 hours of Jesus’ life without bias. This is explicitly the vision of MEL GIBSON.
For example, much has already been said about the level of gore, violence and torture in the film. If you follow The Bible, that’s how it was described. We’re all taught of His sacrifice. But in most Bible films, the crucifixion is seen in much less catastrophic light. Gibson has freely admitted to ratcheting up the shock value of these images to hammer home the point that Jesus suffered for all of our sins.
That sounds like a good reason. But if are we supposed to register this as historical fact or artistic interpretation? If money is the objective, I’m leaning toward the latter.
Of course all this debate is conjecture on my part. I haven’t seen the movie, so I don’t know if it’s good, bad or neither. If anything, Gibson has succeeded in making a very important movie. Clearly if it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be spending so much time discussing it!
I’m not looking to draw out anyone into a confrontation, nor am I here to debate what you believe. Just trust that I am sold on my convictions as you are in yours. We won’t change each others minds. But when it comes to the realm of cinema, this needs to be explored. If we can poke a little fun at it along the way, then the road becomes easier to tread.
On a totally unrelated note, please check out Syntax Error Comics. They’ve advertised with us before and now they’re back again! This time they’re doing some great Oscar-related comics I think you will all be interested in.
Any if you’re looking forward to any Oscar shenanigans around this web site, don’t worry. They’re coming soon!
[ No Comments ]
This is just a quick afterthought, but I felt it would help explain the comic a little better.
I decided to depict Mel Gibson as Ned Flanders-level religious co-dependent because it seemed to make sense in the context of the interviews Mel has been giving lately. Keep in mind this is a man who stated in interviews that he felt his Episcopalian wife would be going to hell – even though he admitted she’s much more pious than he.
Reading stuff like that made me think Gibson couldn’t pinch a loaf without getting approval from the Vatican first…
[ No Comments ]
Oct08
This isn’t the first time I’ve used to comic to explored the metaphysical. I never really understand my own motivations with these strips or what I hope to accomplish. But it’s a cartoon, y’know? It’s fun to play around in the sandbox sometimes. Frankly, I could see myself doing another strip set beyond the event horizon of irony – if for no other reason than to have an opportunity to use that phrase again.
As for the news that Warner Bros. is fast-tracking Lethal Weapon 5? I’m not sure what to think about it. I never really enjoyed the franchise even though it pretty much invented the modern buddy cop movie and, shamefully, I’ve seen all for of them. Certainly Mel Gibson could use a hit. And why not play into the dangerous, screw-loose persona of Martin Riggs one more time? It dovetails perfectly into Gibson’s off-screen antics in recent years. I mean, need I remind you of this?
But what about Danny Glover? The dude is, like, 62 years old. It was always a running gag in the movies that Glover was heading toward retirement and was getting "Too old for this…" Well, you know the line. It was funny up to a certain point. But 10 years after Lethal Weapon 4, it just looks sad.
The only interesting detail about this news is that Shane Black is supposedly writing the screenplay. If you don’t know Shane Black, he’s the guy who wrote and directed Kiss Kiss Bang Bang – a Robert Downey Jr. vehicle that was cool before RDJ won back audience love with Iron Man.
At any rate, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is a really sharp and funny movie that I highly suggest you check out. Personally, I thought it was a great post-modern twist on the buddy cop template that Lethal Weapon was responsible for. Really, what Shane himself was responsible for. Because he wrote the original Lethal Weapon as well. Actually… he pretty much worked on all of them.
OKAY! So you can take that one of two ways. Either Shane Black is a one-trick pony or you can be really excited that they are maintaining the integrity of the franchise. For me… I kind of felt like he said everything he needed to say with Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. That would have been the way to go out.
But what do I know? The movie isn’t written, yet. It’s not filming. It’s just another franchise Hollywood is looking to reboot because they have literally choked the life out of original film making and want a proven hit. Can you honestly say you wouldn’t see Lethal Weapon 5 when it comes out in theaters? Well, okay. Some of you could probably say that. But, at some point you’ll see it. On DVD or cable. You’ll see it.
AND THEN THEY’VE GOT YOU!
That’s it for me. We’re half-way through the week, folks! Make it a good one!
[ No Comments ]
Gotta give a shout out to Joel Watson from Hijinks Ensue who pulled me out of bog with some great suggestions for this comic.
I was painfully stuck on an idea Sunday night and couldn’t make it work. The original set up had Jared pointing out that Thor was an American comic book about a Norse God who was portrayed by an Australian actor in a film directed by an Irishman.
And then it just kind of died on the vine. I couldn’t think of anything more. No ying to the yang, so to speak. The punchlines that I did come up with were so bad, I scarcely remember them now. I think I was trying to tie the movie to the Swedes and their reaction to their Viking heritage being co-opted by Hollywood so poorly. At one point it was going to be something like “My Chinese sneakers are more Swedish than this film.”
Yeah. It was clumsy and bad.
Joel took the original comment and kind of steered it in another direction. He also came up with some of the more clever definitions for “Aussie Washing.” My particular favorite is “The old Vegemite paint job.”
So kudos to Joel for the assist! I appreciate it, buddy! Please be sure to visit Hijinks Ensue immediately after you finish reading this blog! 😉
I didn’t get a chance to see Thor over the weekend because I was pretty busy with a couple of other social engagements on Friday and Saturday evening. By the time Sunday rolled around, it didn’t sound like a particularly bright idea to see Thor on Mother’s Day. I’ll probably see the film sometime tonight.
I’m looking forward to Thor, but was kind of surprised that it only did $66 million over the weekend. I guess general audiences aren’t that familiar with the character. Iron Man managed to pull down $98 million in it’s opening weekend and the only thing people talked about for months before the movie hit theaters was how obscure and unknown Iron Man was.
I guess the other thing that kind of has me wondering is the reaction I measured online this weekend. Everyone seemed to agree that Thor was entertaining – and funnier than they expected it to be – but no one seemed to be over the moon about it. Apparently is was very adequate. People didn’t have much to complain about, but they didn’t have much to celebrate, either.
Did you have a chance to see Thor over the weekend? If so, what did you think? Leave your comments below and let’s all talk about my raging xenophobia against Australians while we’re at it!
[ 22 Comments ]
