Mel Gibson To Produce Holocaust Miniseries

[Irvine511]

apparently he called one of the female officers "Sugar Tits."

hot.

 

[verte76]

Was this payback for "Passion"?

I'm not sure because he's an alcoholic, which is a disease, not a crime. He was arrested because driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal. That is a crime, true. But the underlying cause, alcoholism is a disease and Mel has entered a treatment program. I have a cousin who's an alcoholic. She is currently in rehab at a place in California. There are all sorts of places that offer treatment for alcoholism.

 

[80sU2isBest]

all that blood spurting -- when they pound the nails into his hands, when they stab him in the side at the end, when Mary cleans up the blood after the 100% unrealistic scourging (which no one would have survived).

reminded me of cumshots. and other reviewers, too.

total money shots. bam! blood! spurt! how exciting!

That is sickening.

What "other reviewers" are you talking about? People who are obssessed with all things sexual?

 

[Irvine511]

That is sickening.

What "other reviewers" are you talking about? People who are obssessed with all things sexual?

well, it is a porn film.

and by porn, i mean the reduction of human beings into flesh, into raw meat.

i'll see if i can dig up the review tomorrow, but most mainstream reviewers were sickened by the violence.

 

[80sU2isBest]

well, it is a porn film.

and by porn, i mean the reduction of human beings into flesh, into raw meat.

i'll see if i can dig up the review tomorrow, but most mainstream reviewers were sickened by the violence.

I have never read a review of the movie in which a reviewer finds sexuality in the violent scenes. In fact, you were the only person I have ever heard that from.

 

[trevster2k]

I have never read a review of the movie in which a reviewer finds sexuality in the violent scenes. In fact, you were the only person I have ever heard that from.

Pornography is not just sexuality, it can be interpreted in terms of violence also like a snuff film or extreme violence.

Violence appears to be may more acceptable in US society than sexuality which is a natural part of life.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Pornography is not just sexuality, it can be interpreted in terms of violence also like a snuff film or extreme violence.

Violence appears to be may more acceptable in US society than sexuality which is a natural part of life.

What I was referring to was an earlier comment about the violence, not the statement about pornography.

 

[randhail]

sugar tits huh? I wonder what the recipe is Maybe Mel can direct a cooking show about it.

 

[yolland]

And maybe you could create a journal for this and your other giggly schoolboy jokes rather than "lightening up" our discussions with them.

 

[Irvine511]

I have never read a review of the movie in which a reviewer finds sexuality in the violent scenes. In fact, you were the only person I have ever heard that from.

well, i've pointed to the Christopher Hitchens review where he talks about the homoerotic sadomaochism in the film -- beautiful (he really is beautiful) Jim Caviezel is stripped nearly naked and beaten by thuggish, bearish, hooded soldiers. in many S&M fantasies, there's usually an element of power-play, of domination and submission, and in stereotypical gay terms, it's usually between an older, bigger, dominant man (usually termed a "bear" or a "daddy") and a younger, smoother, thinner man (usually known as a "twink" or a "boy"). this is a twist on heterosexual S&M, which usually involves a dominant female, a "mommy"-type who humiliates and makes her "slave" submissive to her whims.

"Passion" incorporates this dynamic.

and Travester pointed out nicely what i mean by "pornographic" -- porn isn't the depiction of sex, necessarily, it's the reduction of a human being into a sexual object, which differentiates porn from erotica. in "Passion," it's the reduction of a human being into a torture object.

what these films also have in common is the "money shot." in porn, the "money shot" is usually a shot of male ejaculation, you'll notice that, unlike in real sex, in porn films men pull out so they can ejactulate all over a femal's breats or face or back or wherever the filmmakers think the male audience finds most attractive. in "the passion," the money shots are usually of blood spurts (that recall ejaculation). having not seen the movie in months, the one that comes to mind is when they pound the nails into Jesus' hands. i distinctly remember how the blood slurped/splurted in an upwards direction, and it recalled a "money shot" in a porn film. the "money shot" is designed to give the viewer a sense of climax, as all the shots that have been selected to shape the scene and build tension lead up to the "money shot" -- and a release of tension follows.

the reviewer who pointed out the orgasmic spurts of blood was Frank Rich from the NYT.

he's the critic that Mel Gibson said he wanted to have his intestines on a stick.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Oh honestly Irvine, how can you think that a man who responds to questions like that with

"Do I sound like a homosexual? Do I talk like them? Do I move like them? I think not."

could possibly have issues with his sexuality, im shocked - shocked at the suggestion.

Lets hope that Gibson gets onboard agianst Hitch, I reckon he would be willing to go after Hitchens for a few more things than a lousy review, 'The Missionary Position' for one and his basic philosophy towards argument on matters religious which takes such a strong anti-theist stance - one that I must confess an admiration for that style and the notion that respect is not a given in debate and that if you are to suceed in any argument you cannot allow an opponent to define the middle ground, a philosophy that definitely served me effectively today (when a Pole starts ranting against "The Jews" and calling Hitler a great statesmen and admirable even after Krystalnacht it demands them to be called on it).

Basically the right to offend is grat, it gives Gibson the ability to make a movie that puts his own deep seated psychosexual issues at the fore and likewise it protects Hitchens to write such eloquent and wryly amusing reviews.

 

[Irvine511]

i don't always agree with Hitchens, but his writerly formulations are sometimes breathtaking.

he's at it again today! some good bits:



[q]There's a lot to dislike about Gibson. He is given to furious tirades against homosexuals of the sort that make one wonder if he has some kind of subliminal or "unaddressed" problem. His vulgar and nasty movies, which also feature this prejudice, are additionally replete with the cheapest caricatures of the English. Braveheart and The Patriot are two of the most laughable historical films ever made. (Englishmen don't form picket lines outside movie theaters when "stereotyped," but still.) He has told interviewers that his wife, the mother of his children, is going to hell because she subscribes to the wrong Christian sect (a view that he justifies as "a pronouncement from the chair"). And it has been obvious for some time to the most meager intelligence that he is sick to his empty core with Jew-hatred.

This is not just proved by his twistedly homoerotic spank-movie The Passion of the Christ, even though that ghastly production did focus obsessively on the one passage in the one of the four Gospels that tries to convict the Jewish people en masse of the hysterical charge of Christ-killing or "deicide." It is validated by his fealty to his earthly father, a crackpot who belongs to a Catholic splinter group of which our Mel is a member. This group more or less lives off the stench of medieval anti-Semitism. Allow me (as one who has Mel's father's books to hand) to give you an example. In an attempt a few years ago to heal the breach between the Vatican and the Jews, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger did his best to make nice. Jews did not accept Jesus as savior and redeemer, said the man who is now the pope, but they did originate monotheism. Therefore, Judaism could perhaps be regarded in some ways as an "elder brother" of Christianity. The response of Gibson senior was to say that Abel also had an elder brother. … You know what? I think that this qualifies as anti-Semitism, too.

I do not believe for an instant that (as God told Moses) the sins of the fathers should descend to later generations. But when asked about his old man's many effusions on this subject, from the cheery view that the Jewish population of Europe actually increased in Hitler's day to the no less upbeat opinion that persons unknown brought down the World Trade Center, the younger Gibson stonewalled consistently by saying that "my father has never told me a lie." At the time he said this, I was impressed despite myself. He was being invited to disown a raging Jew-baiter at the same time that he was trying to cash in with a Hollywood epic. And he wouldn't do it! All credit for true and staunch conviction. (But don't run away with the sentimental idea that he had to stick by his father. Scott McClellan had been on White House spokesman detail for only a few days when his male parent produced a book arguing that LBJ had murdered JFK. Even in this tussle over two dead Democrats, McClellan had enough dignity to say that he loved his father, even though the old boy had some wacky ideas. Try and get Gibson to say that.)

At the time when The Passion of the Christ was being released, many nervous evangelical Christians tried to get the more horrifying bits of anti-Semitic incitement toned down. (The crazy scene where the rabbis demand the blood of Jesus on their own heads was taken out of subtitles, for example, but left as it was in Aramaic.) Many conservative Jews, from David Horowitz to Rabbi Daniel Lapin, stuck up for Gibson as a man who defended family values against secular nihilism. And the Muslim world allowed the movie to be screened widely, though from Ben-Hur to King of Kings it had prohibited the physical representation of any "prophet" mentioned, as Jesus is, in the Quran. (Don't ask yourself why this was, unless you want to feel stupid.) It was even proudly announced that Gibson's next big project would be about the Holocaust.

http://www.slate.com/id/2146880/nav/tap1/

[/q]

 

[80sU2isBest]

well, i've pointed to the Christopher Hitchens review where he talks about the homoerotic sadomaochism in the film -- beautiful (he really is beautiful) Jim Caviezel is stripped nearly naked and beaten by thuggish, bearish, hooded soldiers. in many S&M fantasies, there's usually an element of power-play, of domination and submission, and in stereotypical gay terms, it's usually between an older, bigger, dominant man (usually termed a "bear" or a "daddy") and a younger, smoother, thinner man (usually known as a "twink" or a "boy"). this is a twist on heterosexual S&M, which usually involves a dominant female, a "mommy"-type who humiliates and makes her "slave" submissive to her whims.

"Passion" incorporates this dynamic.

and Travester pointed out nicely what i mean by "pornographic" -- porn isn't the depiction of sex, necessarily, it's the reduction of a human being into a sexual object, which differentiates porn from erotica. in "Passion," it's the reduction of a human being into a torture object.

what these films also have in common is the "money shot." in porn, the "money shot" is usually a shot of male ejaculation, you'll notice that, unlike in real sex, in porn films men pull out so they can ejactulate all over a femal's breats or face or back or wherever the filmmakers think the male audience finds most attractive. in "the passion," the money shots are usually of blood spurts (that recall ejaculation). having not seen the movie in months, the one that comes to mind is when they pound the nails into Jesus' hands. i distinctly remember how the blood slurped/splurted in an upwards direction, and it recalled a "money shot" in a porn film. the "money shot" is designed to give the viewer a sense of climax, as all the shots that have been selected to shape the scene and build tension lead up to the "money shot" -- and a release of tension follows.

People can see things in film that the filmmakers never intended, because of their own viewpoints, interests and, environments, and other factors. For instance, I have a cat named Bubba. When I saw the new King Kong movie, it occurred to me that I saw a lot of Bubba in King Kong. Bubba makes a lot of the same facial expressions, believe it or not, and looks a little like him in the face. So now, I sometimes call Bubba "Kong Kitty". But that's what I see in the movie. It's not what Peter Jackson intended when he made that movie, and of course people who don't know Bubba would never draw that conclusion.

the reviewer who pointed out the orgasmic spurts of blood was Frank Rich from the NYT.

he's the critic that Mel Gibson said he wanted to have his intestines on a stick.

Frank Rich was also the man who was at the time conducting a dirt-finding investigation of Gibson's father. That's what made Gibson so mad, not Rich's review. I would have been steamed. I probably wouldn't have said what Mel said, but it's understandable. I definitely would have wanted to beat the heck out of Rich if he were hounding my father.

 

[verte76]

I think Mel's father is totally irrelevant in this controversy. Just because the father has anti-Semitic views doesn't mean he does. I don't necessarily share my parents' views. I don't blame Mel for being annoyed with the guy who dug up the dirt on his father.

 

[A_Wanderer]

People can see things in film that the filmmakers never intended, because of their own viewpoints, interests and, environments, and other factors. For instance, I have a cat named Bubba. When I saw the new King Kong movie, it occurred to me that I saw a lot of Bubba in King Kong. Bubba makes a lot of the same facial expressions, believe it or not, and looks a little like him in the face. So now, I sometimes call Bubba "Kong Kitty". But that's what I see in the movie. It's not what Peter Jackson intended when he made that movie, and of course people who don't know Bubba would never draw that conclusion.

Contextualising film is very often subjective and can go to far, but there are definitely cases where it is useful - for instance the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers in the context of McCarthyism and the example of the Passion of the Christ and the sexual undertones albeit sado-masochistic ones is valid, a good deal more valid than your example given Gibsons record of homophobic statements and his religious beliefs (which view homosexuality as a sin) as well as the psychology of homophobia.

Frank Rich was also the man who was at the time conducting a dirt-finding investigation of Gibson's father. That's what made Gibson so mad, not Rich's review. I would have been steamed. I probably wouldn't have said what Mel said, but it's understandable. I definitely would have wanted to beat the heck out of Rich if he were hounding my father.

It is completely relevent since Hutton Gibson does hold crazy viewpoints, adheres to the same nut strain of belief.

It's fine if Gibson wants to make with the violent talk over it because that is very far from a refutation.

 

[Irvine511]

People can see things in film that the filmmakers never intended, because of their own viewpoints, interests and, environments, and other factors. For instance, I have a cat named Bubba. When I saw the new King Kong movie, it occurred to me that I saw a lot of Bubba in King Kong. Bubba makes a lot of the same facial expressions, believe it or not, and looks a little like him in the face. So now, I sometimes call Bubba "Kong Kitty". But that's what I see in the movie. It's not what Peter Jackson intended when he made that movie, and of course people who don't know Bubba would never draw that conclusion.

but there's a huge difference between noticing a similarity between a pet and a character in a movie and noticing a very specific dynamic that is depicted through deliberate cinematic choices made by the director. also, artists tend to make choices, and they don't always know why they make the choices they do, and it often takes a third party to evaluate the work of art to realize all that's going on. the subconscious comes into play.

for example, in another thread, i made the case that Boy (one of my favorite U2 albums) is loaded with homoerotic imagery, specifically the song "Twilight." now, Bono isn't gay. i don't think Bono has any "issues" in the way that someone like Gibson seems to have "issues." but that doesn't mean that a whiff of the homoerotic can creep into one's work without even noticing it.

anyway, here's the thread -- i thought it was great, for a while ...

http://forum.interference.com/showt...6&perpage=15&highlight=gay album&pagenumber=2

 

[Justin24]

Question Irvine, Why is everything Homo Erotic to you?? No offense.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I fail to see how any comments on the Middle East or Stem Cell Research may be conscrued as homoerotic - or does preference make all of it laden with homoerotic verbs and nouns.

A film involving the sadistic whipping of a half naked Jesus should be raising questions for most people regardless of sexuality, a homoerotic subtext either deliberate or unconcious may not be an inherently bad thing but it is pertinent when the artist makes statements against homosexuality.

 

[80sU2isBest]

example of the Passion of the Christ and the sexual undertones albeit sado-masochistic ones is valid, a good deal more valid than your example given Gibsons record of homophobic statements and his religious beliefs (which view homosexuality as a sin) as well as the psychology of homophobia.

But to me that doen't make sense at all. If someone with faith in Jesus were a homophobe and thought homosexuality is a sin, why in the world would he put homoerotic elements in his movie about Jesus, the man he professes to be savior?

 

[Irvine511]

But to me that doen't make sense at all. If someone with faith in Jesus were a homophobe and thought homosexuality is a sin, why in the world would he put homoerotic elements in his movie about Jesus, the man he professes to be savior?

i think you just answered your own question.

 

[Irvine511]

Question Irvine, Why is everything Homo Erotic to you?? No offense.

please read A_W's post.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Because if one believes homosexuality to be a sin and at the same time has latent desires to that effect they may react more violently (not neccessarily physically violent) in their attitudes towards gays, how does one assert themseleves as normal instead of deviant - especially when your moral system places strict provisions on sexual behavour, a place were religious morality has no great claim to being humane.

The evidence on the table is Gibsons own statements about gays paralelled with the contents of the film.

 

[Justin24]

I fail to see how any comments on the Middle East or Stem Cell Research may be conscrued as homoerotic - or does preference make all of it laden with homoerotic verbs and nouns.

A film involving the sadistic whipping of a half naked Jesus should be raising questions for most people regardless of sexuality, a homoerotic subtext either deliberate or unconcious may not be an inherently bad thing but it is pertinent when the artist makes statements against homosexuality.

So are you saying that when Slaves were whipped or enemies were flogged, the person whipping got off on that?

 

[A_Wanderer]

I am sure that there are people who derive sexual pleasure from sadistic domination and that people all through history have done so (tales of Elizabeth Bathory come to mind). I do not however think that in making the artistic choice of showing the suffering of Jesus with flagellation for ten minutes straight raises just as many questions as John Travolta and Tom Cruise and the claims made about how Scientology allowed them to control their own alleged desires.

I also think that slavery and flagellation was about punishment and control for purely functional reasons. But putting and emphasising that element in a piece of art in the year 2004 and making the stylistic choices of how much gore and when (which are aesthetic, the choice and style may just have appealed to Gibson for his telling of the passion plays, the reason that may be has already been aluded too).

 

[Justin24]

I don't think Gibson filmed the flogging of Jesus to be art, it was to show the pain and punishment he went through by the hands of the Romans.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Oh it is art, it is a representation to convey a message and this fixation with the pain and punishment of Jesus is the centerpiece. He may be trying to convey the pain and punishment of Jesus but it doesn't mean that the piece isn't repleat with sadomasochistic faggotry thats as subtle as a sledgehammer. I don't have anything wrong with that per se, I do have a problem when this artist turns around and proclaims the homosexuality to be sinful when they themselves clearly have a fixation on subject matter that could easily be conscrued in that way, especially in the manner which they choose to present it.

Homosexuality - fine
Homophobia - abhor but respect the right
Homophobia w/ homoerotica - hypocrisy / closet case.

 

[Justin24]

So if you asked any art student if those scenes are homo erotic they would say yes, or asked a professor?

 

[A_Wanderer]

I don't think so, thats the problem since the humanities are not objective (and they generally don't claim to be) and opinion may differ, but the contention in relation to Gibsons treatment of the crucifiction has multiple strands of supporting evidence.

If you read The Picture of Dorian Gray without knowing anything of Oscar Wilde you may pick up on a similar but frankly much more for want of a better word (I have to defend my heterosexuality don't I) beautiful subtext than Gibsons in the Passion of the Christ.

 

[Justin24]

Well you and Irvine may find it Homo Erotic, but I don't. Would you find Saving Private Ryan Homo erotic with soldiers being shot up or in Glory when Denzel is being flogged for stealing a pair of shoes?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Saving Private Ryan depicts the Horror of War, the gruesome scenes in that reconstruction of the Omaha Beach landing is done for dramatic effect and historical detail, in the case of the Passion of the Christ the historical accuracy argument goes out the window since he is depicting a theological event and the emphasis on the Suffering of Christ and this ancient blood debt is what underpins his theolgy, and tied into this is his stylistic choices which multiple and independent observers of various stripes have picked up on.