Sunday, October 24, 2010

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.


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)

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Substituting a goat

Substituting a goat

And in other miracle-related news, some people in Hollywood decided to stand on principle.

The issue was Mel Gibson, charismatic movie star, Oscar-winning filmmaker and drunken, bigoted, death-threat-issuing lout. Gibson was supposed to make a cameo in "The Hangover 2," the sequel to the 2009 hit "The Hangover," but was booted from the production, reportedly after cast members -- supposedly led by costar Zach Galifianakis -- told the film's director, Todd Phillips, that they were uncomfortable working with Gibson. The cast apparently was not uncomfortable appearing in the last "Hangover" opposite convicted rapist and onetime mugger Mike Tyson, who subsequently told ESPN radio that he did the cameo "for drug money."

[. . .]

If artists should be publicly censured and denied employment on the basis of offenses they commit in private life, how come Gibson is a pariah right now for threatening and hitting his ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva, while Alec Baldwin, who verbally abused his 11-year-old daughter on the phone, lashed out at a photographer, and has a long record of frightening behavior toward his ex-wife Kim Basinger, is currently one of the most beloved figures on network TV?

[. . .]

Instead of either/or, how about both/and? Baldwin is a hot-tempered, maudlin, navel-gazing bozo, and one of the great character actors and improvisational comics alive. Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite, a sexist, a homophobe, and very possibly a deranged religious fanatic; he's also one of the few bona fide movie stars of the last three decades and the most brilliant action filmmaker since Sam Peckinpah. Polanski is a great director and a sex offender. Kazan was a great director and a rat. Lohan and Moss are substance abusers and arresting beauties whose most interesting work probably lies ahead of them. Sheen is a master of droll self-parody and an unexpectedly charming sitcom star, and a wife-abusing scum that should be behind bars right now. (Matt Zoller Seitz, "‘The Hangover 2's’ Mel Gibson hypocrisy,” Salon, 22 October 2010)

What is it if you've never raped, if you're Tom Cruise

I'm with Matt, it smells. One wonders if the worst thing you can do is be someone we used to adore, and then not find some means to announce yourself as wholly willing to undergo whatever rehabilitation we ask of you ("I ... will suck ... your dick."). Even if you never really did anything. I'm pretty sure the only thing Tom Cruise did was jump up and down on a couch, showing he will never not be the possessed Tom Cruise we grew up with and loved. He needed to have been able to have quickly shown he thought himself an ass-clown for his behavior, to have some chance of figuring for continued relevance. The Tropic Thunder resurrection was a little late, a little too completely last straw: "kinda appreciate the gesture, but there's something of you, Tom, that though we take as staleness or complete derangement still smacks -- annoyingly -- of integrity, if you can believe it. As if something might be off -- WITH US -- for not wanting to stay related to you: We have no interest in even innocently being made to feel as if it us, in our jumping on cue, on and off trends, who is dancing fool.

Except of course for "grandma" Betty White. She could have humped a whole kindergarten and some would still kill to keep her cool. ("I literally screwed them for life -- two dozen of them, dripping in vagina goo -- and you still want me to repeat on SNL?" "That would be 'Yes.'") What does that say about our era?

. . . . .

If your artist stewed of small children, he never in fact created Art.

I still think, though, that finding out someone was "likely a killer" or was for sure a rapist should mean a pretty profound re-examination of what it is about us that drew us to like "his" films in the first place. (We condemn loudly, perhaps, so we feel less implicated.) I don't think we should be much drawn to artistic work done by people who raped or killed. Knowing that we were, and still perhaps are, amounts to a wonderful prompt to stop and see what is stalling us -- for something is indeed, for sure, off with us. The killer, the rapist, is NO DOUBT in my mind in the work itself (an artist of two temperaments, two minds -- one that creates, the other that rages -- is even in the sympathetic, saner part, "incomplete," still crazy). (Artists may be delegates; do what we wish/prompt but do not dare. But no one sane responds this way.) If you find out a culture was cannibalistic or sacrificed legions of virgins to some hairy god, take another look at the colorful art you used to praise: hopefully it required looking at it a bit distracted/askew or objective-intent, to deem it Beautiful. But the problem isn't just in the art or the artist, it is you too. Reassess, slowly; be kind to your former self; and hopefully grow. That creation fundamentally comes out of knowing love and tolerance is only made hard to see for it being historically rare. Amidst cultures that sacrifice children, substituting an innocent goat that-never-did-no-harm-to-nobody is a miraculous, beautiful thing.

Link: "The Hangover 2's" Mel Gibson hypocrisy (Salon)

Friday, October 22, 2010


The time has come to admit it -- Jodie Foster is not all that. Foster, beloved child actress turned two-time Academy Award winner, Yale magna cum laude, respected director and person who has lived in the public eye for 40 years without a nip slip, bar brawl or nutty Twitter outburst, seems in many ways the epitome of graceful modern womanhood. She is serious about her work, she is devoted to her children and she was honored Monday as one of Elle magazine's top women in Hollywood. And it was there that she spoke of "an amazing actor, an incredible friend, a loyal friend of mine for 18 years." She described him as "incredibly loved by everyone who ever comes into contact with him or works with him ... truly the most loved man in the film business, so, hopefully that stands for something."

She was talking about Mel Gibson. Say what?

[. . .]

Yet Foster's suspect loyalty to internationally acclaimed, unrepentant creeps doesn't end with "the most loved man in show business." She'll soon be heading to Europe to costar in "The God of Carnage," directed by Oscar-winning child rapist Roman Polanski.

[. . .]

Perhaps the oddest thing about Foster, however, is how she continues to be lauded as an icon. Aside from publicly thanking "my beautiful Cydney who sticks with me through all the rotten and the bliss" three years ago, she's steadfastly never acknowledged her personal life or relationships, which, frankly, for somebody of her power and influence, is pretty cowardly. (Mary Elizabeth Williams, “Jodie Foster’s baffling Mel Gibson defense,” 21 October 2010)

Whittling with your whip

I guarantee it, at some point Salon will go after Paul Krugman. With liberals, at least, the point for Salon isn't that you too are crazy, but that you're showing you may not be one to dutifully follow along when liberalism becomes one long crazed sequence of whip-lashings against the misbehaving. Fight to keep your head, to think for yourself, to reach out and truly do good, and Salon will hope to hurt you bad for reminding "them" of a fairness they know at some level they were so eager-ready to leave behind.

At some point too, MEW will join an emerging chorus and go after Joan Walsh as well (remember her [Walsh's] fair and genuine concern for Rush Limbaugh? It was too deeply rooted to be just a "be-careful-with-that," once-only.). Since I suspect that right now they're (MEW and Walsh) friends, the dynamics involved in this will be fascinating to watch.

However, I don't care who his friends are (or are not) and certainly do not judge people for staying friends with someone I myself would personally not hang around with. If you do that, MEW, in very short order you will find yourself with few friends (or none at all) as human beings are naturally and perhaps tragically very imperfect beings. (Laure1962, response to post)


MEW is at no risk of losing friends with this, because she is showing here that she is intent to smear anyone out there who suggests some kind of troubling independence, someone who can't ultimately be counted on to just defer, who isn't yet defeated and might balk, is resisting, stalling, beginning to talk/snarl back, and most of her friends will increasingly be defined by their "subscription" to this life prescription. Well, not friends, maybe, but a whole host of people conjoined in servicing the current ethos -- "show you will be no different; show you will defer." There will soon be lots of them, but for awhile they'll feel themselves first-ascendants to an exclusive, exhilarating adventure -- maybe the only one actually available right now: they'll be smeared by those they cast off, will feel themselves brave and afflicted, loyal and (therefore) loved: they'll think themselves friends, and may never know different.

The point of these early depression years seems to be about "familiarizing" everyone with the new ethos -- true individualism, pokings-about in what may be genuinely new directions rather than whatever sanctioned ones, resistance to trends that just must take over -- is over. You will be cued as to what you are supposed to think/believe "now" -- likely, first hate the stupidity/spoiled indulgence of everyone everywhere, then, when the depression has fully kicked in years hence, count yourself once again amongst the "injustly suffering masses" (i.e., the mass you did everything you could to create by not too much focusing on the economic decisions which ensured their creation during the first years of the depression, and instead mostly on the particular variant of craziness in the unveiling list of never-ending crazies -- such a perfect counterpoint to the distanced-but-rational primary Depression executor, Obama) -- and you will be made to feel as if your very survival depends on your speed of adoption.

They're starting off easy, for an assured trial run. Past-date Jodie Foster and anti-Semitism. Repeat. But so you're properly on the watch, notice now the long, long stretch required to dethrone (or at least submerge) Krugman, which you feel they're already "considering," finding some way of floating into consciousness, seemingly just to show their frowning-upon-it but actually also to venture out for further straight, larger public consideration, and which looks like it will commence shortly. The frown-prone Brits are currently frowning upon Keynesian economics (Krugman is all Keynesian: spend! Goddamn it, spend! -- what are you waiting for?!?). Will this luring, brutal British “stoicness” prove means for some sanity-intent liberals to join Republicans in venturing him as possibly too hippie, too permissive, for our current, deadly serious, economic conundrums?

. . .

Why Salon? Because it feels like where the fight for the soul of all liberals will be staged; lost or won. It looks like where we will determine whether hope, true straight-talk, is something that can sustain through the heat of battle, survive the light of day, or compelled to lurk in shadows, find friendship with the oblique, deform into it, to be less visible, more overlookable, but less penetrable/vulnerable. Right now, it's certainly "be alert to and fear the whip," but the fight hasn't fully settled yet.

Link: Jodie Foster’s baffling Mel Gibson defense (Salon)

My books at

Essays on the Lord of the Rings Draining the Amazon's Swamp Wendy and Lucy, Star Trek, and The Lord of the Rings (and free at scribd...