|
| |
On Being a Jew and Mel Gibson Movies
14-Feb-2008
Written by: Sam Belkin
Inspired by recent news of Gibson’s probation situation.
There are two occasions when it’s not fun to be a Jew. One is Christmas. The other occasion is whenever a Mel Gibson movie is showing. I say this not because I think that Gibson’s movies are anti-Semitic or inspire prejudice. Gibson directed one film, Passion of the Christ, that was accused of portraying Jews as villains. I wouldn’t even know, because I didn’t get that far into the movie. Gibson did go on a drunken, anti-Semitic tirade, which was well publicized, but, sorry to say, it never appeared in any of his films.
I say it because for us Jews nowadays it is taboo to “support,” aka watch, Gibson’s films, and some of his films just happen to kick ass. And not just a little bit. They kick ass a lot. Putting Passion aside, Gibson was responsible for two other epics: Braveheart and the more recent Apocalypto.
Oh, Braveheart, I was 9 when you came out. My mom wouldn’t let me see you, o ye strange, forbidden treasure. She thought you were too violent, that you would scare me or corrupt my mind. But you didn’t let me down. When I finally did see you, we shared a moment that could only be described as glorious. Because you were f**king awesome.
As a species, human beings need violence. We crave it. It’s a desire written into the ancient code of our very existence, one that has been necessary for our survival. As our brains developed, though, we realized that we could simply observe violence, rather than take part in it, and still feel some of the same sadistic catharsis. Oh, how we’ve grown. So long it’s been since the days of gladiators and public executions. Now we have Kung Fu, Fight Club, video games, and hip hop, (which is as influenced by cinema as it is popular music.) The more that senseless violence is restricted in real life, it seems, the more brutal our films and entertainment become. And that’s not too bad a payoff, really. In fact, someone should lock President (soon to be former president) Bush in a room and show him repeated screenings of Hostel, holding his eyes open Clockwork Orange-style. Maybe then he wouldn’t so willingly condone torture as a CIA reconnaissance tactic.
But the topic at hand is director Mel Gibson, who expertly orchestrates scenes of both heroic and heinous violence that are unrivaled in the world of cinema. I really think Braveheart is one of the best movies of my time. It is emotional, suspenseful, inspiring, and funny, in addition to being violent. Every character is memorable. There was Robert the Bruce, a man torn between his desire to keep his land and noble title, and his deep admiration for Gibson’s William Wallace; not to mention the ruthless King “Longshanks” and his only son, who, to the King’s dismay, is a blatant homosexual; and let’s not forget the crazy Irish guy who thinks he converses with God and for some reason joins Wallace’s Scottish army. Historically accurate or not, this is an epic movie with many complex characters and situations that are as suspenseful and revealing of human nature as its battles are bloody.
Of course, there are a million war movies out there that have excessive violence, but in Braveheart, there’s no ambiguity as to whose side you’re on. And, more importantly, there are no guns. You have to fight with what you got, or whatever you pick up along the way. It’s hand-to-hand and face-to-face combat, and the outcome depends upon the strength, agility, and intelligence of each individual. There are no snipers or explosives, or bombs that give people mutant babies. It’s personal. And that makes William Wallace’s victories so much more rewarding, so much more cathartic. He’s a man fighting for freedom, for the people, while looking his enemies in the face. He defeats enormous, highly trained armies with his comparatively tiny band of disgruntled Scots.
And then there’s Apocalypto. What a delight! I remember when I went to go see it, many of my Jewish friends wouldn’t come along. “I can’t go see that,” they said. “I don’t want to support Mel Gibson because he’s an anti-Semite.”
Well, yeah … I don’t really want to support him either, I guess, but does that mean I am to deprive myself of Apocalypto’s beautifully executed (excuse the pun) scenes of excessive violence? There comes a point in every man’s life when he needs to see a guy getting his face ripped off by a vicious Jaguar. In addition, the film was visually stunning and directed with precision that borders on compulsion. I love this movie, and it is truly one-of-a-kind.
Apocalypto was great in a more "wow-Mel-Gibson-is-a-nutcase" kinda way. Unlike Braveheart, it’s not something I was able to take very seriously. It was more of a vehicle for Mel Gibson to exercise his uncanny talent of portraying bloody combat and gruesome deaths. But when have we ever equated enjoyment with seriousness?
The film really only begins to show its greatness when Jaguar Paw turns on the Mayans that are pursuing him and devises clever (and badass) ways to kill them off one by one. Since the first one and one-half hours of the film are devoted to showing him and his village being killed, enslaved, or tortured, it’s no wonder we are so turned on by his revenge. Again, there’s no doubt as to who is the good guy. The Mayan characters in the film are pure evil.
For me, this movie occupies the middle ground between Passion and Braveheart. Like Braveheart, it is about the peaceful simpleton who is mistreated by overpowering forces and ends up overcoming his enemy, despite his disadvantages. Both are films that honor the underdogs, the few against the many. Like Passion, though, much of the movie consists of the protagonist and his people walking silently toward their deaths and being physically abused along the way. And also, the characters in both movies speak an ancient language that 99.9 percent of the audience won't understand. Apocalypto is not as good as Braveheart, but its Braveheart-esque story and climax redeem its Passion-like sadism.
Critics complained the film wasn’t historically accurate, and they chided Gibson for his embellishments and his misrepresentation of Mayan people. I guess I just see things a little differently. Maybe the true story just wouldn’t have made a good movie.
Talk to other readers about this story.
|
|
|
|
|
