What does this say about Mel Gibson?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Friar_David_O.Carm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
otm:
Underlying all of this conversation seem to be the implications that making any movie, other than a religious movie is somehow sinful or wrong, or if not outright sinfull, at least tainted (My, he makes so much money! Isn’t there something wrong with that?) and that making a movie which is not religious is also somehow sinful if it is anything other than a “G” rated movie. I find that rather curious, to say the least.

I haven’t see a lot of his movies, but some of them seem to be of the “mind candy” category, specifically Lethal Weapon and following. I thought Brave Heart was well done as a history genre. Why are we picking at him? Are we all so truly “above” the mundane that we expect him to dweel with us in the heights?
Click to expand...
Yes I can see where you would get that idea but it was not my intent.

I do not agree with any movie having sexual content. This should occur off camera if necessary. The premise of this movie, revenge, is also wrong in my opinion, but it might be dealt with in a way to show now revenge can ruin your life, but I doubt it in this case.

I also do not like the scene of the pictures being take after a car accident. I think this is disrespectful to the family of Princess Diana.

Making movies that are not religious is not sinful. But what is put in those movies maybe.
 
40.png
catholiclady:
PS: The way you quoted my posts look as if I directed my remarks all to Darcee - this is not the case nor my style to talk about you but only to you.

I am very sorry you feel attacked.

I am also sorry we can’t agree on this as we have on many, many other issues and for this reason I withdraw all further comment from this thread.
Click to expand...
I do not see what you see in the way I quoted your remarks in such a way then I apologize.

I did feel attacked but maybe that is just my feelings and I should deal with it.

I do not expect us to agree on all issues, I just hope we will always agree on those issues that really matter.

As far as this one goes. To each his/her own. This one is not a deal breaker for me.

On of the other reasons I started it was to get a topic of discussion going. Maybe I should look into myself a bit more and see what really was behind the motivation for this post.

Once again, I apologize to everyone and ask for your prayers.
 
Hi Byz and all,

Byz, I understand your comments to be regarding whether the Passion movie is just part of the Hollywood money making machine instead of a true interest in Christianity and our values. I respect that question.

I would maintain that I truly do think Mr. Gibson is at least somewhat sincere. He does seem to have Catholic family values in his personal life. Some of his previous movies before the Passion were a bit questionable especially for an actor/director/producer who claims Catholic values.

However, his latest PG-13 movie would indicate that he is moving in the right direction. The content of the movie seems to have a decent message and the movie seems to have a very interesting story. This is surely much better than a lot of the trash being put out in Hollywood today.

So, I would say that Mr. Gibson is may be beginning a subtle transformation of the kinds of movies Hollywood produces.

Any thoughts on that Byz? Would you consider giving him the benefit of the doubt and observe what Mr. Gibson continues to produce?

Greg
 
Why are we picking at him? Are we all so truly “above” the mundane that we expect him to dweel with us in the heights?
Click to expand...
I think its called in some cases, projection: we project onto someone we don’t know, ideals, expectations, etc. and then when the person proves to be mere flesh and blood with an independent life from our “projection” we blame them, not ourselves.

The other is about envy, some cannot bear to have others “elevated” or “lionized” and so they chew and tear and gnaw; as Martin once wrote, “the world makes great men, and then seeks to destroy them.”

The way I see it, the work talks. The Passion is a milestone in moviemaking for many reasons. This does not mean that Mr. Gibson must now make only religious movies, or movies with an especial rating or anything else. The work of the Passion is ours to view, enjoy and celebrate. He owes us nothing, anymore than an author who writes one great religious themed book and then writes other things. The projections on him personally are unreal expectations. He oughtn’t to be judged oon them.
 
40.png
Greg_McPherran:
Hi Byz and all,

Byz, I understand your comments to be regarding whether the Passion movie is just part of the Hollywood money making machine instead of a true interest in Christianity and our values. I respect that question.

I would maintain that I truly do think Mr. Gibson is at least somewhat sincere. He does seem to have Catholic family values in his personal life. Some of his previous movies before the Passion were a bit questionable especially for an actor/director/producer who claims Catholic values.

However, his latest PG-13 movie would indicate that he is moving in the right direction. The content of the movie seems to have a decent message and the movie seems to have a very interesting story. This is surely much better than a lot of the trash being put out in Hollywood today.

So, I would say that Mr. Gibson is may be beginning a subtle transformation of the kinds of movies Hollywood produces.

Any thoughts on that Byz? Would you consider giving him the benefit of the doubt and observe what Mr. Gibson continues to produce?

Greg
Click to expand...
Greg,
Very compelling post. Made me think. Yes I think you are correct in this statement.

Maybe I will even make the time to view this movie when it makes it to Netflix.
 
Well if you want to avoid sex and violence avoid the Old Testament it has plenty of it.

IF Mel made a movie about the sex and violence in some of the OT stories no one would have a problem here.

Another point is the Mel is not a Catholic movie maker look at his body of work! He is a secular movie maker who happens to be Catholic and for one glorious movie showed us his faith in one Catholic movie. Perhaps and hopefully he will make more catholic based or influend movies.

THis Paparazzi movie is certainly not one of them. For one thing is a producer of the movie meaning he’s putting his money behind it but he’s not starring, writing or directing this movie. ITs not from his sould per say he probably thinks its farily entertaining and can make a buck its a purely finanical decision. WE all make financial decissions every day that have nothing to do with our faith. Its not porgnographic or anything so while it may not esttem good value it may not promote sin. Its probably a brainless violent film made for adults. Mel makes a lot those people

As far as MEl’s more direct endevours which he acts directs or writes the screenplay he seems to move in more spiritual direction with the Passion of the Christ, Signs, and When We Were Soldiers their is spritual conflict and signficance in each of those films so I do expect some films in the future that will invlove faith in some facet but I do expect some mindless violence that Mel does its a trademark in his career you know.
While I am sure we would all have ideas on how to handle Mel’s career ultimately its his career to waster or uplift… WE Catholics do beleive in free will. HE is not Pre destined to do Christian films from now on folks.
I think God put sex and violence in the Bible for the reason to show us the reality of the human condition and films show us a mirror of the human condition while Hollywood goes way overboard violence say in the Passion, Schindlers List, Saving Private RYan is necessary to convey the evil that can exist in the world. And yes Sex when tastefully done and suggest but does not exploit has a place in celluloid just check out the human form very naked in the vatican. Of course each indivudal has his own degree of what cuases him to sin and to some no sex even suggested is best for that’s persons flesh but to other some can observe the human form and not succum to lust. But hey that’s my take reading the Song of Songs is pretty desriptive of the naked body so to me there can a place for that to be desribed in lieratiure, sculpure, paintings and the film if tastefully done of course the diiffult part is that each person has a differnt threshold of what is art and waht is pornography. I am sure Michaelangleo and Raphael wouldnt past muster with some overly pius catholics.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
Ploting revenge? Intense violence, sexual content?
Click to expand...
Hmm. Sounds suspiciously like much of Genesis.

Don’t forget that other movie Gibson did. It had gory scenes of torture, a suicide, and some frightening demonic images.

Now, quick! Everyone condemn a movie you haven’t even seen!

😛

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
asquared:
it says that Mel Gibson makes violent movies. Mad Max, Lethal Weapon, Braveheart, Patriot, the Passion. What were you expecting?
Click to expand...
Yet we learn again that our church is a house for sinners not a home for saints.
We all have issues to work on, no one said Mel was perfect not even Mel himself. He was very humble throughout all of this.
I don’t always agree with the things people do, but when they do something good by all means applaud them. I think that is what happened with The Passion. We should never put anyone up on a pedestal but Christ, Mary and the Saints. The rest we are merely human, making mistakes everyday and trying to work our way to heaven.
 
I have seen it.

Violence: There was some, but some was implied and not all was graphic.

Sexuality: One brief scene of implied. However, it was not gratuitous becaue it was part of the story. Also, there was a bar scene but the message was subtly good because the dancers we wearing outfits. There was no nudity in the movie.

Language: There was some profanity but I would say a bit less than is common for a movie with a story like this. There also seemed to be little if any using God’s name. This is also less than common for a movie with a story like this.

**Message: **The message that focused on the paparazzi was morally good. The message that focused on revenge was (slightly) morally not good. However, if one observes carefully, the “revenge” could actually be accidental or self-defense. (I’ll leave that for the viewer - I don’t want to spoil the movie).

**Interesting: **The movie was very interesting and not a dull moment. Well done.

**Acting: **The acting was superb.

I do not see this movie as a bad reflection on Mel. I think he is gradually trying to lean Hollywood back in the right direction. If he does this all at once, it will not be subtle. I wouldn’t say the movie was excellent from a moral standpoint either, but we must remember, it is a movie.

I think Mel did an excellent job strictly from a movie-making perspective. He is good at his profession.

He also seemed not to cross any serious lines that would be morally problematic even if as part of story in a movie.

Mel is still on my good list and he is still a hero of sorts to me. I look forward to observing his future work.

Greg
 
Thank you very much for the review, Greg. My son was invited to go to this movie by three of his friends, and he knows we always have to approve the movie before we allow him to go. He was very anxious for my answer, and I could find no moral reviews on-line.

Your review helped me make my decision. Thanks again.
 
Thanks for the review Greg - based on your evaluation, I may go see this movie.
 
The USCCB review for Paparazzi is morally offensive. They base it on the sadistic plot and ending that gives a bad message.

They also mention a scene in a club. I already mentioned this but that the women were all wearing outfits. I think the USCCB reviewer may have missed Mel’s subtle message that women need not be degraded (the outfits were not that different from pro football cheerleaders).

I respect the USCCBs rating. However, I still question how dark the message was since there seemed to be some basis of self-defense involved.

Greg
 
I’m probably going to take some fire here, but just where do some of you get off judging ANYONE?

How about we analyze your job, and how you conduct your daily affairs, etc.?

“Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone”.

To do otherwise would be hypocritical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top