Skip to main content

In consideration of all he has accomplished

BOYCOTT THE HACK ZACH ... in perpetuity

I think it's simply a "travesty" that a supremely spoiled sophomoric pack of so-called ACTORS can RULE the film industry. LIKE anybody in THAT CAST has EVER DONE anything (frankly) remarkable in THEIR ENTIRE LIVES.

WHO HASN'T DONE THINGS THEY REGRET ?? ... THAT they SHOULD JUDGE MEL GIBSON?

Basically "character" actors, which NEVER had the IMPACT in this industry -- or THE WORLDWIDE audiences Mel has. (iconklee, response to post, “‘The Hangover 2’s’ Mel Gibson controversy, Matt Zoller Seitz, Salon, 22 October 2010)

. . . . .

Roman Polanski is a child molesting douchebag. he doesn't seem to have stopped his shenanigans, evades punishment, has been arrogant and crazy and makes movies I won't watch. (mrsmonkey)

. . . . .

Significant artists throughout history have had reputations

Not all guys who do questionable things are great artists or creators, but many of the most respected and lauded artists of the past have had remarkably controversial lives.

In the end, the ART or the CRREATION won out, regardless of what all the lip smackers and victorian prudes today have to say about it.

So I would not worry about it so much. I personally do not watch much of Gibson's output, but it is not unlikely that future generations would laud his Christ movie of Braveheart or some other output. Already, Road Warrior has become a legend in sci fi, MOSTLY due to Gibson's acting in that film.

Let the ninnies have their stand. I am sure future generations will have long forgotten the Hangover while Gibson's output remains in the public consciousness. (Liberty2Day)

. . . . .

Something that does allow for continued acceptability in the public eye, for right or wrong, is the public apology. Alec Baldwin issued one of those along with a promise to work on behalf of those suffering from parental alienation (whatever that is). But this kind of apology/redemption narrative is demanded for continued work. This is alongside the punishment.

The problem is that Mel Gibson, at this moment, has fallen in to the repeat offender category, with each revelation and instance more appalling than the last. As anyone with a sense of history knows, it has not been his anti-Semitism that did him in. While it was a bad moment, people were willing to look past-- but then after that comes some fairly powerful racism, more sexism, and violence (punches to his girlfriend’s teeth) and I suppose all we can say at this moment is: too soon. There is no sign of remorse or betterment. (Hunterwali)

. . . . .

Hey, out there, whoever you are: So you don't watch "30 Rock" because Alec Baldwin is an asshole? So you don't buy the "Mad Max" trilogy on Blu-Ray because Mel Gibson is an anti-semite? So you can't ever watch a Woody Allen film again because he's a dirty old man? You don't listen to the Dixie Chicks because they insulted George W. Bush? So you don't buy Norman Mailer's books because he stabbed his wife (a lot bigger deal than simply getting in some drunken fights, aarong, and it's awfully cheap of you to minimize it the way you did). So you don't watch any Leni Riefenstahl's documentaries because she was Hitler's cheerleader, and you won't buy "Birth of a Nation" on DVD because D.W. Griffith was a racist and you don't want any of his family members getting a dime of your money.

Bully for you for drawing the line against an artist, alive or dead, current or ancient, and making your own principles plain. Whoever you are, whatever your rationale is, I don't disagree or agree with you. Do whatever you think is right. Go with God.

I'll be over here watching, reading and listening to the work.

All of it. (Matt Zoller Seitz)


Ralph Nader, Geraldine Ferraro

I think it is misleading to focus on things like racism, murder, (notably) wife/child abuse, to rightly get at what is so readily condemnation-worthy at this point. We can get closer, I think, when we consider how aggrieved the mounted defenses are that someone who has evidently accomplished so friggin' much, consistently, over such a long period of time, someone who has impressed themselves on the national psyche owing to their brilliance and originality, could be so readily, presumptively, be assailed by those "constituted" of nothing more than spirited vacancy. “YOU are in authority (and we note -- however incredulously -- that you indeed are) over (legendary) HIM/HER -- HOW is this possible?!?”

It's possible, predictable, because when nations are being driven by guilt over their previous selfishness, there is no greater crime "before you" than personal, unique accomplishment. If you've done something -- good, that is; truly noteworthy -- you may be suspect, for no one accomplishes anything noteworthy who isn't focused heavily on their own craft, that is, intently on their own selves -- who didn't follow their own inclinations enough to mature into their own distinctive, unique person. Past personality, your crime in being too much self-lead, now shows up rather obviously in your not automatic response/repositioning to the daily changes in mood.

The vacuous are full of themselves, will continue laughing their way through all of us, because they are the way they are from being foremost responders to other people's cues. They are much more truly selfLESS, and for this abandonment, for their being beaten enough to have succumbed to being lifelong puppets of others' whims, they get now the long, assured, easy ride, as retributive History assumes them and uses them, and hunts those still seemingly intent on building on themselves. Here at Salon we've seen Mel Gibson, (recently) Pat Buchanan, Jodie Foster, Geraldine Ferraro, Ralph Nader get this arrogant treatment. Jew-hating Gibson, that is, actually gets it for the same reason Hippie-man Nader gets it: It's not about having once raped/viscously hated somebody, but about having spent enough time in your past being loyal to yourself. We point to all they've accomplished, and try to make the presumed verdict the crime, when all we're really doing is laying out the proof that justice has here clearly been served.

Link: “Hangover 2’s” Mel Gibson controversy (Salon)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   


2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…