Mel Gibson To Produce Holocaust Miniseries - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-31-2006, 09:50 PM   #91
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 02:59 AM
apparently he called one of the female officers "Sugar Tits."

hot.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-31-2006, 09:55 PM   #92
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
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.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-31-2006, 10:08 PM   #93
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




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?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-31-2006, 10:38 PM   #94
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 02:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


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.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-31-2006, 11:37 PM   #95
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



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.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-31-2006, 11:42 PM   #96
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 04:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


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.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 07-31-2006, 11:51 PM   #97
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k


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.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-01-2006, 12:27 AM   #98
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 02:59 AM
sugar tits huh? I wonder what the recipe is Maybe Mel can direct a cooking show about it.
__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 08-01-2006, 12:46 AM   #99
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 08:59 AM
And maybe you could create a journal for this and your other giggly schoolboy jokes rather than "lightening up" our discussions with them.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 08-01-2006, 10:05 AM   #100
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 02:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


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.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-01-2006, 10:34 AM   #101
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:59 PM
Oh honestly Irvine, how can you think that a man who responds to questions like that with
Quote:
"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.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-01-2006, 10:59 AM   #102
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 02:59 AM
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]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-01-2006, 11:01 AM   #103
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




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.

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
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.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-01-2006, 11:10 AM   #104
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:59 AM
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.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 08-01-2006, 11:14 AM   #105
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:59 PM
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com