Apocalypto

[Alex]

The personal lives of the people involved really don't affect my interest in seeing their product.

Are you wrong to feel that way? No. Though I don't feel the same.

Roman Polanski did things he shouldn't have and is a horrible person who has evaded taking responsibility for decades and still (sometimes) makes good movies.

David Lynch is a fervent proponent of one of the silliest new age psychobabble phenomenons to ever gain traction (TM) and still (sometimes) makes good movies.

John Ford was a homophobe and made many great movies.

Cecil B. DeMille made one of the great racist movies in history and still made many great movies.

O.J. Simpson killed his wife without impacting my interest in watching The Towering Inferno.

Walt Disney was a jerk and testified before HUAC and I still enjoy his theme park and many of his movies.

Half of Hollywood (hyperbole) has engaged in what I consider one of the most personally abhorrent actions (non-consensual adultery) and I still watch a few hundred movies every year.

Their personal lives may inform my interpretation of their art but it doesn't impact my interest in seeing it. However, if you feel strongly that what Gibson did means you can't give him any money then I say stand by the courage of your convictions and don't see the movie. "Stealing" the movie isn't right just because you don't like him.

[Moonliner]

I'm agnostic on Gibson. I really do think too much was made of one drunken tirade. When you are drunk and pissed you say words you know will hurt not ones you necessarily believe.

However I won't see any films by Woodie Allen or Tom Cruise based their moral standing.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

"Stealing" the movie isn't right just because you don't like him.

Sure it is. Two wrongs make a right.



I hear what you're saying but 3 of the people on your list are dead. I'm not worried that money I give them is going towards anti-gay or anti-Jewish causes. Mel's trying to build a church for an extremely fundamentalist sect of Catholicism. That's not something I want to support.

Also, isn't not paying to see a film a good way for studios to know who they should and shouldn't be green-lighting and supporting? Mel's a freak.

I mean, were John Ford and Cecil B out in the media preaching and trying to convince others how to think their way? Were they actively trying to get people to be bigots? I don't know the answer to that, but Mel does. He also uses his movies to get that point across. 'Braveheart' is chocked full of homophobic crap but yet it's embraced by a lot of my friends of mine as one of the great films of all time. Yow!

If I had lived in Cecil B's time and knew about his racism, I wouldn't watch his films. (Not that I was ever a big fan of his.) Same goes for Ford.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Also, isn't not paying to see a film a good way for studios to know who they should and shouldn't be green-lighting and supporting? Mel's a freak.

Hollywood has already experimented with only allowing people to work if they subscribed to certain predetermined world views. It isn't a period generally well though of. Just because this time you agree with it doesn't, in my view, make it any better.

For some reason I typed "Cecil B. Demille" when I was thinking "D.W. Griffith" and Birth of a Nation was the racist movie in question.

Personally, I don't buy into the anti-semitic reading of The Passion of the Christ and think it was a great film. It is anti-semitic in the sense that it is a version of the story that Jews don't like. The alternative would be anti-Roman, they just don't have an anti-defamatation league to speak up for them.

But I understand the idea of not patronizong financially people with views you find objectionable. I just find the actual practice to be inconsistent (the vast majority of people who views I find to be objectionable in some way or another).

Calls for the studios to deny work to homophobes and anti-semites are essentially the same as calls for the studio to deny work to gays and communists. We just find that some of those more directly align with our own personal preferences and would find the remainder abhorrent.


As for Apocolypto, everything I hear is that it is an incredibly well made B-movie with lots of gore. Because it is Gibson it will then be layered by observers with lots of hidden messages that wouldn't be seen if it were made by Rodriguez or Jackson.

I don't agree with Gibson's cosmology but I do admire his balls-to-the-wall attitude of making exactly the movie he wants and to hell with anybody who tries to temper it. That doesn't mean I'll like the result (I like The Passion but don't care for Braveheart) but he is doing exactly what I wish most artists in Hollywood would do once they achieved the economic security that comes with super stardom. Clooney/Soderbergh are the only other ones I can think of who consistently do that.

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

...Cecil B. DeMille made one of the great racist movies in history...

Which one? The Crusades or The Greatest Show on Earth?

Seriously though, while I mostly agree with Alex, I think that when someone's objectionable morals informs their work, it should be a valid reason for judging said work. While I've yet to see a Polanski movie that has a pro-"sex with minors" message (well, maybe Tess), and David Lynch doesn't preach the TM gospel in his movies, there's plenty of evidence that Gibson's hateful world view is certainly present in the films he directs - from homophobia (Braveheart) to anti-semitism (the PotC without Johnny Depp). I'll see Apocalypto when it comes to HBO, but I won't contribute to Mel's big box office opening weekend.