Boycott the Mel Gibson movie. Do anything else. Watch the Pro Bowl if you're really desperate. Even rent IT'S COMPLICATED -- that's how much I want you to avoid EDGE OF DARKNESS starring Jew hater/drunk/adulterer/medocre-actor-anyway Mel Gibson. Send a message that character and behavior counts -- even for celebrities. See EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES even if it's sappy and you know the ending. There's some Belgian cartoon opening. Those are always crowd pleasers.Clean your storm drains, have elective surgery, even take Robert McKee's class. If you're really bored out of your mind listen to me co-host Car Talk on KABC radio Sunday morning. Just DON'T spend one hard-earned cent on Mel Gibson.
Hate him as much as he hates you.
Thanks.
Hear hear. A nasty little shrimp.
ReplyDeleteWV: prowlsin = medication for prowlers
Wait, what? Ken, what's wrong with McKee? I studied him at animation school, read "Story" a few times, didn't really see a problem.
ReplyDeleteMel called, Ken, he wants to know if you and he can collaborate on a sitcom idea he has... When do you want to meet him for lunch? He said he'll pick up the tab.
ReplyDeleteI'm in.
ReplyDeleteOh crap, you waited too long to tell me this... already saw it.
ReplyDeleteAnd according to SOUTH PARK, he also likes getting spanked with paddles full of nails . . .
ReplyDeleteSorry, I base my film choices on entertainment. If I based them on character, I wouldn't be able to attend the movies at all.
ReplyDeleteThis is the type of role Gibson is usually great in, and despite the dumb things he said once while drunk, I'll probably still go see it. Not the first weekend, but sooner or later.
I admit it's my choice, and Gibson said some repugnant things, but I'm kind of queasy when it comes to boycotting art or entertainment due to the politics of the people behind it.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you 110% on the Mel Gibson movie boycott ... you forgot that he also denies the Holocaust happened, just like his wonderful loving father. Time for Mel to go away and count his zillions of dollars ... and then he can hate full time.
ReplyDeleteout of curiosity, have you also called for boycotting every movie henceforth made by the ultra-talented billy zane and gary busey after they starred in the turkish epic, 'valley of the wolves'?
ReplyDeleteaccording to unbiased observer 'der spiegel', zane and busey took money to be in a movie that showed "the american's atrocities include attacking a wedding and killing the groom, as well as a child - in front of its mother, of course - before relishing in the torture of any survivors. the doctor (busey, evidently) who peddles organs is a jew who selects his victims as if in a concentration camp before readying their organs for export to israel and the USA." (...) "the film makes christians and jews appear as repugnant, conspiratorial holy warriors hoping to use blood-drenched swords to expand or reclaim the empire of their god. islam, naturally, is depicted as the opposite: a religion of peace and mercy."(LOL)
remember now, that's from 'spiegel', germany's answer to 'the guardian'. so who're the bigger assholes here? mel gibson, who said mean things about jews while drunk? or billy zane and gary busey, who whored themselves out - while presumably sober - to participate in widely disseminated blood slander? blood slander that came with a *marketing budget*?
now, if you ever did a post calling busey and zane assholes, then all this is moot. if not, why not? *clearly*, movie starts maligning the tribe is offensive to you. so if there's no "zane/busey/asshole" posts, does this mean your antipathy to poor dumb mel is based on something other than mere outrage over damn jews" and "sugartits"?
I don't buy the Jew-hater argument. We know about his upbringing and his dad and that church and so forth. So he's drunk and gets arrested, and the worst thing he can say is 'Jews start all the wars?' That's is not an anti-Semite.
ReplyDeleteShould I avoid movies that star actors who are adulterers?
ReplyDeleteOr actors who are drunks?
Or is it only the combination to go along with Jew-hating?
So if I have an actor who drinks, commits adultery, and tends to bash Israel, then that is someone to be avoided?
Isn't it also evident of poor character for an actor to support Communism? This also incorporates Jew-hating, but not necessarily adultery or drunkenness. That also caused the deaths of tens of millions.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteVery high and mighty statements from someone too cowardice to leave his real name.
If Bussey and Zane did that movie they're both despicable. Beyond that, you're welcome to express your opinions here but only if you leave a name.
Oy... my guess is that you'll get a lot of comments on this, Ken.
ReplyDeleteIt's just plain cruel to suggest that people see "It's Complicated." I saw that festering turd of a movie, and I wouldn't wish the experience on anyone. I know; I was warned.
As for Mel, I think his alcoholism is forgivable, but there's clearly something more sinister at play behind those bushy eyebrows. I think the technical term for his condition is HRN, which stands for Hateful Religious Nutbag.
My problem is this: do I now vet everyone involved in making the movies I see? What if I'm a fan of Martin Campbell (the director) or Ray Winstone (who co-stars)? A slippery slope indeed.
I only boycott Scientologists, but I don't plan to see the Gibson movie, either.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSee, I was more offended by him playing another Charles Bronson part instead of trying something new. No worries. It'll never see my $10. I'm going to an indie film festival this weekend anyway. Epic fun!
ReplyDeleteJust say no to Mel!
ReplyDeleteI haven't paid to watch a Mel Gibson movie since Lethal Weapon 3, 17 years ago, which was no great shakes. What I want to know is whether the charming young Mel of the late-'70s, early-'80s Australian movies (Tim, costarring Piper Laurie; the first two Mad Max movies) was the same SOB we lately learned he was. (I'm a Jew, of the East Coast non-New York semi-observant variety; my wife's father lost his family to the Nazis.)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Jew hater/drunk/adulterer/medocre-actor-anyway Mel Gibson"
ReplyDeleteYou omitted "homophobe." I stopped going to Mel Gibson's movies when he opened his mouth and let his views on gays out, in the early 1990s.
"Paul said...
This is the type of role Gibson is usually great in"
No such role exists. Mel Gibson and "greatness" are mutually-exclusive concepts.
"Anonymous said...
So he's drunk and gets arrested, and the worst thing he can say is 'Jews start all the wars?' That's is not an anti-Semite."
Yes it is. How is "Jews start all the wars" not a grossly-anti-Semitic statement? You mean the Jews started WWII by not just letting Hitler kill them? No wonder you're anonymous. You're as big a nutbag as Mel.
Haven't been to a Gibson movie since well before Braveheart, and haven't missed them either. You can live so easily without Mel.
D. McEwan-
ReplyDeletePayback is one of my favorite movies, so you and I will have to agree to disagree on him not making good movies. To each their own.
I enjoy your blog immensely Ken, but I have to wonder how your diatribe against him is any better than his drunken antics.
ReplyDeleteLove him or hate him, he's only an actor. And unless he's done or said something against you personally, I'd lighten up a bit.
There's plenty of more dangerous people in the world for you to show that kind of written venom towards in this type of forum.
If you're all that upset with him, seek him out and tell him to his face. He can't be that hard to find with a new movie out. Now that'd be something to put in your book.
Aloha
I suppose it's a little too late to boycott a certain Leni Riefenstahl documentary?
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with The Milner Coupe. Gibson had a drunken outburst and said some bad things. The world is still turning.
ReplyDeleteAs someone pointed out, it's easy to see where those bad things came from, and while that doesn't absolve those views, it goes a fairly long way to explain how he could say it while being drunk and aggravated.
If he had said it while sober and calm, that would be different. But as it is, I find it more than harsh to call on your readers to actually hate the guy.
I wonder why so many people think being drunk is an excuse for being an asshole! And, perhaps I'm mistaken, but wasn't Mel Gibson also drunk AND DRIVING! Oh, but we can't hold him accountable for driving drunk, after all he was drunk at the time.
ReplyDeleteGet over yourself Levine, this blog is pretty pathetic and while you may enjoy the mutual masturbation you engage with your sycophantic sheep like readers.
ReplyDeleteWho the hell are you to denounce Mel Gibson. the guy is a two time Oscar winner and you are some truly irrelevant hack who claims to be an Emmy winning writer (who incidentally hasn't won an Emmy for writing).
How long does a manic depressive alcoholic need to be condemned for what he may or may not have said at the lowest point of his life (there were no 3rd party witness)?
That's just my 2 cents, now... GIMMEBACKMYSON!!!
Pretty ridiculous Ken!
ReplyDeleteEveryone knows that It's Complicated is still in theaters and not available for rental yet!
Geez.
OK, I actually saw What Women Want.
ReplyDeleteI have been oddly disturbed by a certain Messianic trend that he has shown in his movies, at least as far back as Braveheart; then he actually goes for the real thing in Passion.
I won't see the film but it's more because I'm unlikely to enjoy the film than over a boycott, which stretched to its logical conclusion - there are lots of schmucks in Hollywood in front of and h=behind the camera - would sink the movie industry. Does one rent a Roman Polanski movie, e.g.?
To Radiodan- A pirated copy of an It's Complicated video can be found easily in any major American city.
ReplyDeleteI've (figuratively) been sitting on my hands since I initially read this post late last night; although I agree with much of what Ken wrote, I also knew that the comments would likely devolve into more of a discussion of whether or not the "entertainment" should be considered as being separate from the "entertainer" and I felt that this was a topic in which I'd rather not immerse myself within the comments section of this blog.
ReplyDeleteHowever, reading what James King posted - and I give him some credit for at least not trying to hide behind an "anon" screen nick - seems to have been my own commenting tipping point.
Broad-brush characterizations of "all Jews" (or all homosexuals, or all men with goatees ...) is dangerous, and inflammatory, and ignorant. It is a significant reason behind the perpetuation of prejudice and hate: When we stop viewing the individuals behind the labels, it's much easier to promote thoughts and actions that are derrogatory toward and harmful to the individuals falling under that umbrella.
People like James King, and like Mel Gibson for that matter, are why - in 2010, in an upper-middle-class exburb of a large East Coast city - my son and his Jewish classmates are *still* being called "kikes" and a "Jew-boys", told to keep their "Jew-germs" off of a fellow-student's belongings, and told that their "ancestors" killed Jesus. It's why 7th and 8th graders are throwing change in the hallways of the school and taunting the Jewish kids to pick it up. There was a "Kick a Jew Day" at his middle school this year, for f*ck's sake. (It was held the same week as "Kick a Gay Day".) That these types of thoughts are still being perpetuated is just staggering to me. (And, oh yes, we have informed the school administrators.)
And that my son never thought to tell us about the rampant anti-Semitism and anti- pretty much every other minority group mentality and speech and hate that is a regular part of the lives of kids at his middle school until we (fortunately) stumbled upon it during the course of another conversation with him is horribly sad and terribly wrong.
And while the reasons behind the hate are complex and far-reaching, folks who espouse things like "Jews start all the wars" are firmly in the camp of those who are responsible for the reasons that these attitudes continue to be harbored.
Ultimately, will Mel Gibson personally hurt me, or my family in any significant way? Probably not. Is he directly responsible for what happens to my son and his friends, or for the suicide bombings of coffee shops in Israel (or the bombings of abortion clinics in the Southern US, or the passing of Proposition 8)? Again, probably not. But he is still, I believe, a dangerous man, in that he has a platform for spreading the ignorant vitriol he considers to be "truth".
So, I, personally, choose not to support Mr. Gibson - I don't contribute to his box office receipts, or even choose to watch his films when they are shown on tv ... ever. While I'd love it if everyone took a similar stance, that's why it's called "discretionary income" ... how people spend money on legal forms of entertainment is, at the end of the day, left to their own discretion and consciences.
[to be continued]
[continued from above]
ReplyDeleteAnd to those who have complained about the subject-matter of Ken's blog today - why don't you deduct a portion of the subscription fees you pay him in exchange for reading what he writes here? Or, even better - just go read something else. Ken is entitled to write about the mating habits of Peruvian yaks if that's what he chooses to write about. None of us pay to read his blog, and all of our computers/PDAs have the capability of navigating away from Blogger if we would prefer not to read what pops up on our screens.
Ken, I apologize for the hijack, and for the diatribe. Some of these comments apparently hit a nerve. Please feel free to delete this if you would prefer to keep this particular can of worms better-contained.
Oh ... and Mel Gibson is a racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, misogynistic ass.
~ Ruth
Bravo.
ReplyDeleteWhat Ruth said.
ReplyDeleteIf we all boycotted movies because of the personal lives of actors, directors, producers, show runners, writers, composers, grips, etc. there wouldn't be an entertainment industry.
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, I believe more in boycotting movies for offensive content or crappy execution than in on behalf of the personal lives of those involved.
ReplyDeleteI think Gibson is an as*hole and probably psychologically ill but must say I avoid most of his movies more for their 'message' than because he is in them (that film he just did directed by Jodie Foster sure sounds interesting).
If I had to pick one thing to ask people to boycott it would be the TV show "24". For all I know Keifer Sutherland is a prince but that show uses torture for entertainment value and has (it seems) singlehandedly made torture seem reasonable and even heroic to the American public.
Compassion goes much further than hatred. It's just much more quiet.
ReplyDeleteTwo commenters have accused Ken of "hating" Gibson. I didn't get that. He just suggested people not see his movie. He's not claiming that fundamentalist Catholics start all the wars, or anything. Why are people who criticize racists and bigots promptly accused of being racists and bigots these days? Is that the best argument the Glenn Beck types can come up with?
ReplyDeleteI don't know much about Turkish cinema, but I do know that Zane and Busey are hardly Gibson-level names in this country. If this is the only work they could get, I'm sorry for them.
Is that the Click & Clack "Car Talk"? I'll have to catch a repeat.
D McEwan, my point is that 'Jews start all the wars' is the statement he said. If I told you a well known Jew-hater in a drunken stupor made some anti-Jew remarks, is that what you would expect? It's not what I would expect, and suggests to me that the Jew-hatred is not there. The statement is more along the line of Wolz to Tom Hagen
ReplyDeleteI don't care how many dago guinea wop greaseball goombahs come crawling out of the woodwork.
I'm German Irish.
Well listen here my Kraut Mick friend.
Gibson lined up to attack this Jew, but somehow that was the worst he could come up with, something that gets said by plenty of people in Hollywood and elsewhere.
I went with anon since it's easier.
I did the 3 comments after the Busey one but not that one.
this makes me want to watch it. is there a torrent?
ReplyDeleteGibson sure as hell wasn't drunk when he made THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, a movie that repeated every vile slander the Roman Empire spread about the Jews vis-a-vis the execution of Christ in the days after they essentially appropriated the Christian Church as a branch of the government in order to subvert its role as a center of dissent in the crumbling order. (This cynical move by Emperor Constantine also began the nasty tradition of churches as one more center of official, cynical power, something which probably contributed more than anything else to the decline of religious belief in Europe than anything else I can think of.)
ReplyDeleteAs for Gibson's run-in with the cops when he was drunk - well, alcohol is well-known as a lowerer of inhibitions. Which means that all of the nasty, wormy little thoughts that had been festering in Gibson's brain but which he might not share with the world at large when sober came tumbling out after a few quarts of whatever it was he was snorkeling down that evening.
Ray Sanford said: "If we all boycotted movies because of the personal lives of actors, directors, producers, show runners, writers, composers, grips, etc. there wouldn't be an entertainment industry." Other commenters voiced similar viewpoints, maintaining that they find the "character" of so many of those in the entertainment industry offensive that they would be left with no entertainment choices if they boycotted the work of these individuals.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, that's a strawman argument. Just because I don't *agree* with someone's politics or lifestyle choice, that doesn't necessarily mean I feel strongly enough about those issues to boycott their work. In addition, we don't all have the same "triggers" ... the specific "hills" I consider important enough to die on in this vein are very likely different than those others of you would find to be your own "deal-breakers". The degree to which each individual finds something offensive is different for everyone. For some, the "deal-breakers" might include those who are scientologists, or those who have been convicted of spousal abuse, or those who use the name of the Lord in vein; for others, "deal breakers" might be people who have contributed to the Libertarian party, or those who run dogfight rings (looking at YOU, Michael Vick), or those who drive SUVs.
The point is, the line in the sand is a very individual thing. So how would each of us taking stand against things we find particularly objectionable by "voting with our wallets" decimate the entertainment industry?
And, if someone conducts themselves in a heinous enough manner, or espouses beliefs that are anathema to so many people, that it would affect their bottomline or career prospects if those offended would boycott their work -- well, maybe that should be wake-up call for those individuals.
Anon 1/29 6:29 PM said: So he's drunk and gets arrested, and the worst thing he can say is 'Jews start all the wars?' That's is not an anti-Semite.
It's not? Just because the guy is drunk enough - or just not creative enough overall - that he can't think of a "better", more vicious slur against an entire religious group, he gets a pass??? This is not the first time that Gibson has disparaged Jews. This is a guy who has denied the reality of the Holocaust, who is a bigoted fundamentalist in every negative sense of that word. So, no, I don't buy that this was just the harmless, nonsensical rambling of a basically-decent guy who was a little tipsy. Why would it have been worse (to cite a follow-up post by the same commenter) if Gibson had made the comment sober? Sober or drunk, he is still an anti-Semitic jerk; the alcohol just loosened his "filter", and the DUI was the catalyst for the slur being reported in the first place. Had Gibson made this comment in another context - and I have every confidence that he has done so - how would we have known? Besides, as Steve Zeoli commented, being drunk is no excuse for being an a**hole. ~ Ruth
Shoot, I hate not being able to correct typos; that should obviously have been "use the name of the Lord in VAIN".
ReplyDeleteAnd kudos to Mike Patton - great post!! ~ Ruth
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"And to those who have complained about the subject-matter of Ken's blog today - Or, even better - just go read something else."
ReplyDeleteSo, you think if I disagree with Ken, then I shouldn't post about it in the comments section he provided, and should not read his blog? It seems you have the problem. You are unwilling to listen to differing opinions and you should be the one to leave. I am happy to stay and read and engage.
Trust the art, not the artist. Firstly, for those who think Gibson is not capable of greatness, well.... Braveheart.
Sadly, much great art is made by objectionable people. That does not make the art itself objectionable. If you learned Michelangelo or Da Vinci were mass murderers, would it make their works less beautiful? Sean Penn's support for the totalitarian regimes in Cuba and Iraq doesn't make his performance in Mystic River less compelling, and Chuck D's support for the murdering bastard Mumia doesn't make Public Enemy's music less ground breaking.
"Paul said...
ReplyDeleteD. McEwan-
Payback is one of my favorite movies, so you and I will have to agree to disagree on him not making good movies."
I have no opinion regarding the "greatness" or lack thereof of Payback, as I have not seen it, nor will I ever be seeing it, not if every film critic on earth called it superior to Citizen Kane, and even Pauline Kael crawled out of her grave to agree.
That said, the plot, as I understand it from reviews, is not something that would appeal to me even if someone I loved starred in it. I probably really love some movies you would not care for.
"James King said...
Who the hell are you to denounce Mel Gibson. the guy is a two time Oscar winner and you are some truly irrelevant hack who claims to be an Emmy winning writer (who incidentally hasn't won an Emmy for writing)."
Actually James, Ken's Emmy is real and is for writing, specifically an episode of Frasier Check your facts before you issue denunciations, or you end up sounding like a drunken Mel Gibson.
In any event, winning an Oscar doesn't not make one immune to criticism. Sometimes - Gasp! the are awarded when not deserved. Sometimes they are awarded to people who are appalling in many respects. John Wayne won an Oscar. Demille's The Greatest Show on Earth won an Oscar for Best Picture. Dances With Wolves won Oscars. Mel Gibson won Oscars. Emil Jannings, a Nazi who made movies for Hitler, won an Oscar.
Mel wasn't drunk when he ranted his hatred of gay people in the French press over 15 years ago. He wasn't drunk when he made The Passion of the Christ. And he's never been made drunk against his will.
The night Mel won his Oscars for the repellant torture-fest Braveheart (I am two-generations removed from my my Edinburgh ancestors, and you couldn't pay me to see Braveheart), I was watching with a roomfull of gay men, all of whom already loathed Mel. One, who was hoping Babe would sweep the awards (not what I was hoping for), moaned, "Ooooh, I wanted the pig to win." I said: "He did." and the whole room cheered. This was long before when, during Mel's drunken arrest, he let his true feelings out. Mel's famous arrest was a case of for me of "See? What have I been telling you about this pig?"
And what is with the "He was drunk" as a defense anyway? In Vino Vertas.
James King said...
Also the 'Jews started all wars' while clearly a fallacy isn't exactly far fetched.
Oh you really should have shut up while you were ahead, before launching into a rant which revealed you as an anti-Semite yourself. You know, if you reverse your name, you become the name on the Bible Mel rejects as wrong.
radiodan said...
Pretty ridiculous Ken!
Everyone knows that It's Complicated is still in theaters and not available for rental yet!
At last, a valid criticism of this column!
bee said...
If I had to pick one thing to ask people to boycott it would be the TV show '24'. For all I know Keifer Sutherland is a prince but that show uses torture for entertainment value and has (it seems) singlehandedly made torture seem reasonable and even heroic to the American public.
I'm actually with you on this point Bee, which is why I do not watch, and never have watched, 24. The right-wing slant of it's creator-showrunner is well-known. Lost has done a much better job of exploring all sides of the torture issue, and what it does to both the victim and the victimizer.
I don't know, Ken... I've actually worked with Mel and was around him often enough to see him pretty unguarded in his comments, and never once did I pick up any sort of anti-semitic or anti-anybody vibe.
ReplyDeleteWhat I do know is that when people get drunk, they say stupid things, and I am living proof of that. In fact, I can also dispel the thing that someone said about alcohol loosening your inhibitions so you say what you truly think... and my proof on that is that, during the 1970's, while drunk, at various times I have claimed to be John Glenn in an effort to get seated quicker at a Denny's... got in a shouting match with a Boston street sign that I thought was Jerry Lewis... pretended I had cocaine to impress a stripper and was almost killed for it... walked naked into the lobby of a hotel in Chicopee, Massachusetts and asked to see Bob Hope... stole a bowling pin... stood next to F. Lee Bailey's helicopter parked at a Patriots game and tried to pick up girls offering them a ride in it... and mailed by toe nails to Johnny Carson.
Anyway, all I'm saying is, I'm willing to at least think that Mel just might've been drunk and talking out his ass like a lot of us have done, only difference being, no one puts what we say on TMZ.
@Scott posted: So, you think if I disagree with Ken, then I shouldn't post about it in the comments section he provided, and should not read his blog? It seems you have the problem. You are unwilling to listen to differing opinions and you should be the one to leave. I am happy to stay and read and engage.
ReplyDeleteScott, I apologize for not qualifying my remarks specifically enough and leaving so much to interpretation. I should have explicitly addressed the comment that led you to reply to me as you did above to those who said that Ken ***should not have posted*** what he did on his blog. THOSE are the individuals who I thought were being presumptuous and unrealistic ... NOT those who merely disagreed with Ken's original post. It just bugs me when people actually try to dictate what someone should write about in a blog they don't pay to read.
Of course, you didn't do that, and of course all of us are entitled to our respective opinions about the issues at hand AND entitled to read whatever the heck we want to read. I appreciate the fact that you addressed my comments respectfully, and made your points without any personal attacks - for that, I thank you.
You said:
<>
You are free to approach it that way, of course. But it's not as clear-cut for me. In the instances of those "deal breakers" to which I referred in my earlier comments, it's much more difficult for me to compartmentalize the actions/attitudes of the artist/entertainer as a separate entity from the work itself.
I certainly don't go around playing out a judge and jury scene in my head before every purchase or reading/viewing/listening of a book, song, tv show, movie, painting, etc. But there are a few extreme cases - and Mel Gibson is one of those cases - in which I *do* make a judgment call based on the behavior of the artist being *extremely* repugnant to me. In those extreme cases, I may decide not to partake of the artist's work. And, it's my prerogative to think that way, especially since I don't try to dictate the actions of anyone else. I might tell you why I feel as I do if you ask me (or in the comments section of a public blog), but I wouldn't presume to expect your choices to mirror my own. I do, however, expect the same consideration for my perspective.
As far as the examples you provided:
<< If you learned Michelangelo or Da Vinci were mass murderers, would it make their works less beautiful? Sean Penn's support for the totalitarian regimes in Cuba and Iraq doesn't make his performance in Mystic River less compelling, and Chuck D's support for the murdering bastard Mumia doesn't make Public Enemy's music less ground breaking.>>
In these instances no, the work itself would not be less beautiful, compelling, or ground-breaking. However, I would not likely support these individuals (or, in the case of Michelangelo and Leonardo, whomever sponsored the exhibits) by paying to view or hear these or other works they created. To *me* (and I realize your own mileage may vary), that is akin to donating to a charity or organization whose cause is explicitly counter to my own beliefs; I wouldn't, for example, dream of donating to a neo-nazi group if they were soliciting donations. That way of thinking is my prerogative, and it works for me; I don't, however, expect anyone else to go along with what I decide is the right thing for ME to do in terms of the artists or entertainers I support through my purchases. (This is where I differ from Ken, I guess.)
[continued below]
[continued from above]
ReplyDeleteAnd, yes, I realize that I might well miss some rich experiences along the way, but there are myriad other rich experiences I can have without compromising my beliefs and principles. I don't keep kosher, but I would imagine that this is like someone who adores shrimp scampi trying to convince someone who keeps kosher that they are missing an amazing culinary experience because they don't eat this dish. Again, that may be true, and the individual who keeps kosher may never be able to savor a shrimp dish ... but they can savor plenty of other great meals and still be true to themselves and what they believe in.
I hope that this helped clarify my thoughts a bit; again, I apologize for not explaining myself more clearly in my previous post (I had a couple of very hungry family members whining for me to get off of the computer already and join them for dinner). Thank you for sharing your thoughts as well.
Hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend! ~ Ruth
Also as a postscript it looks like the movie did about $25 millionish this weekend, which is not bad.. not great but not bad.
ReplyDeleteHis next movie (the Beaver) actually looks quite interesting and not a retread of his other movies as this clearly was (how could it be, he is running around with a beaver puppet in his hand).
The reason for my outbursts on this thread is two fold. Firstly my admiration for Mr Gibson's work, the fact is he brings something to the screen that not many of today's manufactured stars can. He directs interesting projects (Vikings with Leo, come on.. that is pretty cool).
Secondly I despise lack of compassion as much as I do blind 'sheep like' following of the weak willed. Both of which I find in great abundance in this blog.
Plus after reading Ken Levine criticize Arrested Development, I never took the putz seriously again.
James King:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.imdb.com/name/nm0505867/awards
And I invite you to stop reading this blog any time. Your lack of presence will make it an even better place.
Hey Scooter, relax and reread my post, i said he did not win an Emmy for WRITING.
ReplyDeleteHe won one cause he happened to be one of the 12-18 producers on the show. For example Ron Howard won an Emmy when Arrested Development won best series.
Is that point so hard to get across?
You're 19. Ah. I should have realized you were a child.
ReplyDeleteAssuming Jesus ever existed at all, he was indeed Jewish. Your point?
Come back after you get an education.
Not sure while people don't get the basic point I'm making. It's not that he was drunk and that's a defense, it's that he was looking to hurt, and that's the worst he would say, even while drunk. Given his history and everything else, if he were hateful towards Jews, we would have heard worse, drunk or sober.
ReplyDeleteSo your point, Mike, is not that he's not an Anti-Semite, but that he could be worse.
ReplyDeleteHe's bad enough.
James King,
ReplyDeleteGo elsewhere. Think whatever you want to think. Once your rants get personal and scatological then I draw the line. I've deleted several of your more offensive comments and will delete any future comments.
I try to be open about keeping opinions that oppose mine but you've belabored the point. Is that fair? Who gives a shit? It's my blog. You're gone.
Well, you aren't missing very much. Mel Gibson is good, but there are plenty of plotholes, and as usual this is a violent bloodbath.
ReplyDeleteAs for the points in this thread, well in this movie the Jews don't start all the wars, big corporations do, and at one point he tells someone,"You have to decide whether you're the guy on the cross or the one with the nails." I didn't notice any Jews involved there either.
I had to sit through "The Passion of the Christ". That one movie made me hate Mel Gibson more than any of his political or social views. Anyone who can make Peggy Noonan swoon must be a bad, bad person. I'm sure Jay Leno will book him as soon as he gets The Tonight Show back.
ReplyDeleteI've never liked the idea of boycotting a movie because of the star's politics. I like to be entertained. But I suppose I have a line just as anyone else, but mine doesn't include what Gibson has done.
ReplyDeleteDrunk rants are just that. I don't think they reveal anything "deep" about your character.
Anyone here boycott Roman Polanski's movies?
Maybe this movie is Mel expressing his hatred for Jews. While no Jews are seen, the bad guys are a corporation that makes nuclear weapons, and in this case weapons for the US government that look like they are foreign. It is clearly going after the bad guys that lied us into Iraq, as Mel sees it the Jews, like GWBush, Dick Cheney, Bill Frist, Dennis Hastert, er I mean the neo-cons Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Krauthammer, etc.
ReplyDeleteWhat is anti-semetic about "The Passion of the Christ"? Seriously. I saw the movie. There were Jews in it. They did what the Jews did in that part of the Bible. I didn't notice any effort on Gibson's part to make them look bad or demonize them at all.
ReplyDeleteUnless you're saying the story itself is anti-semitic, I don't see what's wrong with "The Passion" in that regard. And if you're saying the story is anti-semitic, then you're saying Christianity is anti-semitic, not Mel Gibson in particular.
Mike
Mike--Several have asserted that Gibson's characterizations of the Jewish characters in "Passion of the Christ" veer dangerously close to blood libel:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel_against_Jews
I haven't seen the movie, and don't intend to, so I can't speak with accuracy but Charles Krauthammer, one of the most conservative columnists around, had this to say:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/immigration/passion_christ.htm
"Which is what makes Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" such a singular act of interreligious aggression. He openly rejects the Vatican II teaching and, using every possible technique of cinematic exaggeration, gives us the pre-Vatican II story of the villainous Jews.
His Leni Riefenstahl defense -- I had other intentions -- does not wash."
Yep, that's right, he compared him to Leni Riefenstahl. Read the whole thing, as they say.
I'm pretty sure It's Complicated is still in theatres and NOT on video (yet), unless you're talking about a bootleg copy, Ken...
ReplyDelete