http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/09/08/mel-gibson-judah-maccabee-movie/

The movie fan in me is curious. The cynic in me thinks: Ahhh this is his attempt to try to regain favor with Jewish fans he lost after his outburst.

I'm amazed anyone would be willing to give him money to do a film now, needless to say, Jewish groups are NOT at all happy at the prospect of Gibson making a film about Judah.

If Pier Paolo Pasolini could make The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Mel Gibson can make a film on Judas Maccabeus (or, as I like to refer to him, JUDAH THE MUTHAFUCKING HAMMER!!).

All I have to ask is... why is it being written by the guy who wrote Basic Instinct and Showgirls? (Don't get me wrong, maybe he would've made my eighty-sixth reading of the Torah more interesting while on my to manhood, but still).

I REALLY don't see why people have a problem with Mel Gibson making films about or starring Jews. Most directors seem to hate people in general, and enjoy prosperous careers full of critical acclaim for that reason. What more personal statement has Mel Gibson made regarding the human race that is as vile or bleak as the plots that form 'Dog Days', 'Happiness', or even 'Blue Velvet'? American society, and especially the field of film criticism, is unfathomable in its logic. Mel might be an anti-Semite and quite an asshole, but if that's your criteria to enjoy an artist's work, well, how many directors have you met? Better free up your calendar.

It's probably stemming from cynical speculation on his motives for making a film about a Jewish hero. I'm one of those who think that Mel is shamelessly trying to kiss Semitic ass in Hollywood to try to revive his dead career.

How many directors do YOU know personally, btw? I find it interesting that you feel a need to defend directors based on characteristics that you haven't confirmed to be true ones. When we look at ANYONE'S motives, we often have to base our speculations on their *actions*. Mel Gibson made anti-semitic remarks, so it's reasonably safe to come to the conclusion that he harbors at least some anti-semitic sentiments. Mel then announces that he's making a film about a Jewish (Semitic) hero. This seems to go contrary to his established behavior patterns where it comes to Semitic people, so it's also reasonably safe to speculate on what his *true* motivation is for making such a film.

Yeah. Isn't Michael Bay's treatment of women just as distasteful as Gibson's of Jews?

Additionally, the idea that The Passion is anti-Semitic is pretty off-base, given that it follows the Biblical account pretty strictly (if Jewish leaders want to call the Bible anti-Semitic, then okay, but they can't restrict that accusation to Gibson).

I bet if the news broke that a producer had asked him to make this movie and he declined, then there'd be all sorts of furor over that move too. Can't win either way, Mel, so do whatever the hell you want. If it's quality, I'll se it; if it's crap, I won't.

Alas, though it may have seemed I was positioning wholeheartedly in this direction, my point is not that you need to set up brunch with a director or a scribe before viewing their respective films*, because the work is important, not the director. If Mel's film is compelling, and even powerful, without resorting to overt sentiment and ass-kissing, what is to be thought of critical opinion if the film nevertheless comes under fire for its very existence? A critic once told Ebert in confidence that he could never truly enjoy Kazan's On The Waterfront since it served as an explanation for the director's controversial actions during the McCarthy era. I hardly think this is sound critical logic; the film he mentioned, regardless of whether he liked it or not, was iconic, establishing Brando as a major star and birthing one of the most famous and enduring lines in all cinema. I personally believe the responsible critical reaction in this case is to say that Kazan served his motivations with excellent story-telling technique and utilizing some of the very American acting of the 50's. And what of Jim Sheridan's 90's films, which are reactionary and obviously motivated by more than simple artistic whims, yet were enthusiastically and universally praised?


I'd say a director's thematic approach to his material, used for decent or less than noble purposes, does little to mask the weaknesses or strengths of the film he has crafted. So, if Judah Macabee's story is handled with ample skill and genuine artistic commitment by Gibson, who insulted the Jewish people (yet, mind you, never testified against them in a court of law as Kazan did the people who came to despise him, nor otherwise infringed on any Jewish individual's personal rights), and you cannot overcome his previous statements and enjoy the film, does that speak to the idiocy of Mel's actions, the media's overbearing scrutiny of his personal life, or your personal inability to overcome some rather obviously flawed critical thought? Some combination of the three, perhaps?


I know no director personally, the same way you do not know Mel Gibson. I believe that people are far too complex to reach A-to-B conclusions about them. Ever read the short story 'A Rose For Emily'? The idea that Mel made a drunken statement about Jews and angrily called his girlfriend a slew of horrible descriptors (the first man in history to react angrily and immaturely to a break-up, by the way) has irrevocably tainted his image in some people's eyes saddens me, since I think that's a poor, hopelessly shallow way to interpret another person's life or personal feelings. Mel has deservedly received mockery for losing his bearings, but to claim anything more substantial about his character than that reeks of phoniness, and those same actions will certainly NOT be considered when his films are taken under critical microscope many years into the future (where, who knows, maybe Michael Bay will be reverentially considered a pioneer for his 'satirical' mistreatment of women in films). I'll watch the film, react honestly, and post my feelings up. Situations like this arguably separate good/bad critics from much better ones; let's see what happens when the film reaches screens.


* -

I'm much more bothered by the screenwriter than by the director. Gibson certainly knows how to direct a good film, and Judah the Hammer's certainly a good subject for a movie.

Objectification of women is hardly something that only Michael Bay is responsible for. Anti-semitism or any other type of bigotry, however, isn't nearly as widespread a cultural phenomenon, for a reason.

In any case, justifying one person's behavior by pointing at someone else's bad behavior is what is generally called a "strawman argument". That is hardly an effective way to get your point across.


This is one of the reasons why I feel religion sucks.

Because Americans believe that one type of inequality is fine, but other kinds are monstrous? I don't see how this makes Gibson's sin anything more than just that, a sin. Or mistake, if you prefer.

Michael Bay vs. Gibson, yes to your question and would make an excellent smack-down as well.

However, while I haven't seen The Passion, I always thought that accusing it of being anti-Semitic was well, problematic. Except Gibson did have that little breakdown and gave a drunken anti-Semitic spiel to a cop once, or at least that's what I remember reading. Doesn't make The Passion anti-Semitic, but one could reasonably infer from such a spiel that Gibson himself is.
-Jeremy

If it's a good film in terms of structure and general execution, then it's a good film. But guess what? Film tastes are a matter of *subjectivity*, and people's opinions can be based on more than simply the merits of the film itself. If I don't like a particular director as a person, then I probably won't ever go out of my way to see his works no matter how good they're considered to be by others.

My advice to you is pretty simple: accept that others will have a different opinion than yours. If you can't accept the opinions in question, then perhaps it's better to just ignore the thread, unless you're looking to get into an argument.


You seem to be equating speculation on a person's motives with evaluating that person's actions or works based on those motives. No one in this thread ever talked about how awful Gibson's film about Judas Maccabeus would be; the talk has been purely about his motives given his well-publicized anti-semitic outburst. It could be the greatest film ever, but that wouldn't change the fact that Gibson did it to kiss up to the Jewish contingent in Hollywood so as to revive his career, if that were indeed the case.


You missed the point of my last post here, which is especially funny since you tried to defend Gibson in your last post by saying that other directors were as misanthropic. My point is that obviously no one knows exactly how another person thinks, so one is forced to look at that person's actions as an indicator. Gibson made an anti-semitic outburst while drunk, then launched a tirade on his girlfriend that also included death threats. Those actions are generally not considered to be anything other than negative ones, so guess what? The opinions of others about Gibson will also be negative. Maybe Martin Scorsese dreams of being a child serial killer, but his actions so far haven't borne out that theory to be anything other than deluded speculation. The impression that many of us (including me) have of Mr.Gibson is that he is a bigoted douchebag who also has an issue with women. That isn't to say that people can't change, but until we see Mr.Gibson contributing to Jewish charities and sincerely admitting and being repentant for being a douchebag, those negative impressions of him will persist.

Again, if this bothers you so much, maybe it's just best if you ignore these kinds of threads, no?

I don't recall saying that either type of inequality is fine. My point in that particular post is that it is ludicrous to compare a cultural phenemenon that is first off hardly unique to Americans (just look at ANY patriarchal society, especially the ones in Muslim-dominated countries) to a form of prejudice that has led to one of the most heinous crimes against humanity in history (re: The Holocaust).

The other point I was making, which you've clearly missed, is that defending one person's behavior by making reference to a completely unrelated person's behavior isn't a valid argument. That's like saying, "That man has committed murder, but that woman raped a baby, so it's OK!".

This catch-22 is all of Mel's own making. Next time, he needs to learn how to shut his mouth after having a few drinks.

I'm not bothered, at all, more or less just saying, yes, people will undoubtedly have reactions to Gibson (or any director) that will smack of negativity and it will affect their opinions of the film. However, my entire post is to express doubt as to whether or not that is a wise way to judge art, and indeed doesn't doom the attempt to criticize. I'm not championing motives over actions as much as saying, yes, Mel has made personal mistakes, but that does not in itself excuse a mistake of context. As long as you're aware that there is indeed a correlation between a negative response of Gibson's film based on personal feelings of the director and numerous historical instances in the 50's, 60's, and 70's and on which have repeatedly failed the test of time by a very large degree to judge a director based on contemporary events, then I'm fine. My condition right now, regardless of what my text projects, is one of calm. I just see the outrage that people people feel over Gibson's decision to make a film depicting the life and action of a Jewish hero to be contextually understandable, but also silly and not a little short-sighted. I don't disrespect your points or feelings (or really, anyone's) as much as I think you are being strident and giving me knee-jerk responses to questions that, like it or not, may just require more significant examination. Just because someone is offended by the cinema that is playing now, that doesn't mean future generations long after I am dead will be.

Hmm, you're the one who's been failing to see the points behind my previous points in your haste to reply, yet you're calling my responses "knee-jerk"? I'm offended by Gibson's behavior, but that doesn't mean I would never watch any of his films, past or present. I just said that I wouldn't go out of my way to do so because of his personality. Maybe future generations will indeed not give a damn what Gibson was like outside of his work, since humanity does have the ability to forget. Does that make an invalid proposition out of looking at his work in light of the knowledge of his personality traits? Of course not.

Invalid? Maybe. Irrelevant to the quality of the product? Very reasonably. My point, again, is that the director's personality doesn't necessarily need to draw an audience's response to be negative or positive when viewing their films, and that, although Mel is quite responsible for each letter of each word that comes out of his mouth, so too is the media for exploiting his faults the people who read or become involved with reports of Mel's personal life. There are a a number of more complex factors that figure into Gibson's situation, including the magnified attention paid to his actions because he was an A-list actor at his career's peak, but that does not make questions of his character or subsequent examinations made of his art any more valid.

I understand social stigma (as I'd imagine most people who have gone through the public school system, college, or work probably do), and while I don't wish to mock some people for becoming so accustomed to it, it's still something created and perpetrated by people, and not always for noble or well-realized ends. In this case, Mel's bastardization in the media, while made possible by him first and foremost, was not assuredly the reason he received infamy; people from all levels either participated in or indeed posted articles saturating the net, and still yet people read them and devoted attention to paparazzi schlock. Which is one reason why I personally think it is much better that people have the ability to forget that nonsense with time and focus on the artist's actual work.

Agreed on that part. If Mel wants to make this, he should either just write the script himself or hire someone like Paul Schrader to write it.

Yeah, Gibson's a schmuck. But if he makes a movie that looks interesting I'll still see it. Hell, Roman Polanski is even more of a schmuck than Gibson and I'll still see his films if they look interesting.

As a celebrity, Mel is under the proverbial magnifying glass due to the media. Could the scrutiny of his character outside of his work be considered unfair? Perhaps? Does that make it invalid? Of course not. If Mel didn't want to be publicly demonized, then he should have kept his mouth shut. The lack of willingness that he's shown in later statements about those remarks to take responsibility for his actions is likely a factor in the continuing perception of negativity by the general public towards him.


Whether or not people are looking at Mel's situation with a sense of schadenfreude, it doesn't for a second change the fact that he's in a pit of his own creation. People do forget, so if Mel is lucky, this may happen in his lifetime.