Gallipoli- Peter Weir seems to have abandoned the mystical approach he took in Picnic at Hanging Rock and The Last Wave in favor of a more direct approach. Like Samurai Rebellion, the expected violence in Gallipoli is held off to the very end. This prolongation works to the films advantage in that it avoids any glorification of war common to many anti-war films, Apocalypse Now comes to mind. When the violence comes it's particularly powerful, but man, having to wait around so much, you start to wonder what this movie is really about: war or a bunch of dudes clowning around, Samurai Rebellion had a similar problem. Of particular note is a beautiful underwater scene towards the end of the film, not to be missed.
So I just went through that review without mentioning Mel Gibson, here are my impressions of him in the film:
-I was surprised to see that Mel had established his character type and mannerisms so early on. Maybe I'm more surprised that he's been playing essentially the same character for over twenty years
-Mel didn't actually direct this picture so the cause of WWI wasn't blamed on the Jews
Verdict: not anti-semitic, more anti-British
Braveheart- I'm sure everyone else has seen this movie so I'll be brief.
-In the beginning Edward I is described as pagan, now I'm no English history scholar but I doubt Edward I was pagan; according to wikipedia the last pagan Anglo-Saxon king died in 655 AYPS.
-Jews are again not blamed for this war, I get more of a sense of Gibson's Christianity and anti-English sentiment.
-Edward I actually expelled the Jews from England, but Mel has nothing positive to say about him. Maybe Mel's silence on this issue in the course of the movie says something, but I don't see how this subject would really relate to the movie.
Verdict: again not anti-Semitic, but anti-English.
I don't know the history of Mel Gibson's opinions of Jews but it wasn't until The Passion of Christ that his anti-Semitism started to become evident. I don't think someone could have predicted Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic tirade until The Passion of Christ. One could point to Mel's strong Christian beliefs, but that is not really an indicator of anti-Semitism in this day and age: Jack T. Chick loves Jews*, even going so far as to see African famines as God's wrath against the tribes who mistreated Jews in the Bible.
With Michael Richards recent outburst some comparisons have to be made and here are my thoughts.
-Why is it that the Michael Richards outburst seems more the more offensive of the two?
-Is it because there is no video tape of Mel Gibson slurring Jews?
-Is it because Mel Gibson was drunk and Richards was not?
-Is it because Gibson's rant was the more expected of the two? Considering the buildup from Passion of Christ, to statements he made about Jews, the drunken outburst was as expected as the Jen and Vince break up. If one looks through Michael Richards filmography one can see evidence of his racism, Whoops Apocalypse, but it still seemed less apparent than Mel's
-Richards is being more active in apologizing but he still is the less liked of the two: a friend told me of a segment on Howard Stern where Stern interviewed people in Harlem on their opinions of Richards and Gibson; Richards was universally hated while interviewees stated that they would still watch Gibson's movies
-Finally, is anti-black racism a bigger issue in America than anti-Semtism?
*http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1000/1000_01.asp
No comments:
Post a Comment