Talk:Mel Gibson

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon christianity.svg

This Christianity related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Everyone forgets Mad Max in favour of The Road Warrior. Such a pity. --Kels 20:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

We finally have an article on Mel Gibson. Our wiki is complete. SJ Debaser 22:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I kind of hated The Road Warrior. I'm also possibly the only fan of beyond thunderdome. I have a penchant for the dreadful. And Tina Turner. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

References[edit]

Wouldn't it be a good idea to reference the racist, a homophobe, an abusive boyfriend stuff?--BobSpring is sprung! 19:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, "Jew or Not Jew" cites him as the epitome of non-Jewishness, with only Adolf Hitler scoring lower (with a Jew Score of -1 to Gibson's 0).--Filby (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Great Films[edit]

I thought the Gallipoli film was one of the best films on world war 1 I'd ever seen. Surprised it doesn't get a mention. He was also praised for the Mutiny on the Bounty film with Anthony Hopkins which is quite good. Burkean (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

its not really that relevant to the point of the article to list all the films in his career. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. But I thought such films might be considered to have more cultural or artistic significance then, say, mad max, no offense. Apocalypto and Passion of the Christ as well, though I know both of those films annoyed and offended liberals for various reasons. Burkean (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

passion of Christ is mentioned and has its own article. Mad Max IS more culturally and artisticly significant than the other films you mention. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
mad Max is probably more significant than passion of Christ, its just not championed by fundies. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I realize my politics don't align with yours, but I don't see how it's a political point to say that an artistically significant film about one of the most bloody conflicts in human history might be more culturally significant than an admittedly successful but nonetheless ultimately action adventure picture about a post apocalyptic world. Mutiny on the Bounty is usually considered one of the best films of the 80s, at least by critics. Braveheart was an academy award winning drama, best picture no less. I think anyone would have to concede that it was more significant than Mad Max. Burkean (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

how is either Gallipoli or mutiny in any way significant? The events depicted in the films is irrelevant as is yours or my politics and the oscars mean nothing. In terms of impact within the film world with the amount of people influenced, claimed or evident in their work, Mad Max is immensely more significant. In terms how the film has seeped into popular culture, Mad Max's impact is huge. Brave heart has some significance but doesn't compare to Mad Max. Critics opinions are meaningless as are our opinions of the films, when you can point to so many references in other media and point to so many directors whose work has been impacted that is just not there for Gallipoli or mutiny on the bounty. Hell, Gibson's bounty isn't even the most significant bounty film. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Points taken. I think there was a misunderstanding on my part and I think I am perhaps misconstruing the meaning of impact. Perhaps what I'm thinking of more is artistic relevance as a film, and while individual opinions may be largely subjective, I think a film's artistic merits need not be subjective. In terms of impact clearly you're right. More people have connected with or at least seen mad max. I guess I should've said that I felt the artistic merit of those other films was more important then mad max's pop cultural appeal and that the recognition by the academy of Braveheart made it in many ways more significant. I think I could say with a great deal of confidence that more people have seen Braveheart as opposed to mad max. Gibson's bounty I thought was the most important for it's realism, depicting the captain not as the villain but rather the mob as the villain. Gallipoli I thought was important because there are so few genuine world war 1 films. I wasn't trying to take anything away from mad max but it seemed like saying Lethal Weapon was as important as In the Heat of the Night. Burkean (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I should stress I am not particular fan of the mad Max films, though they are entertaining. That said think any artistic of any film is entirely subjective. With mad Max, and in particular mad Max 2 a lot can be said of its artistic merits - its almost classic western structure, its myth building, its clash of civilisation vs savagery, character archetypes, and the way it spun with an Australian sentiment. Granted it is not as technically polished as other films mentioned but that really isn't relevant. I don't want to do down the other films (except brave heart, that sucks all kinds of arse), but you shouldn't write of mad Max for it populism. In addition, without sounding contrary, about lethal weapon... AMassiveGay (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course none of this relevant to article which seems to be solely about the dubious character of Mel Gibson. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No one can believe all art is subjective. We validate something based on it's contribution if only by our own personal tastes. And often the tastes of a society can reflect on that society in the larger outside world, good or bad. One has seen this throughout history. You begin by saying that it's all subjective then go on to say that braveheart sucks all kinds of ass. I have no problem with you saying that, but you have used your critical faculty to judge whether something is worthwhile as art or not. I'm glad you did that because we all as human beings should. Once we abandon our critical faculty to accept or reject something and judge it based on it's merits, all sorts of aspects of our society, artistic and otherwise will suffer. Subjectivism is not healthy either as a moral philosophy or an artistic one. Burkean (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

All art is entirely subjective. How else can you explain Damian Hirst or the Chapman brothers? I did say Braveheart sucked all kinds of arse, and I can use my critical faculties (such as they) to back that statement up, but it is still my subjective opinion. Art is only art because we believe it to be art or someone has told us it is art. This is what separates a urinal in a lavatory and a urinal installed in the Tate modern. Someone can paint a water colour landscape and then throw paint at a canvas and call them both art, while someone else will say that one is art and the other isn't. Both people can be using their critical faculities and still come to a different opinion. Neither would wrong and neither would be right because these things are subjective. The things that people judge as merits are different for each person. You may feel society suffers because of it but that is the world we live in. What is unhealthy is to believe the subjective is objective. It narrows your world and closes you off From new experiences and new ideas. It would stop you using your critical faculties and prevent you listening to any opposing view because why listen when you are objectively right and the other chap is objectively wrong? AMassiveGay (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It isn't about I'm right/you're wrong I'm just saying that even though one might not be able to prove that something artistic which represents this set of social/cultural values or institutions might have more to offer than something else in terms of what it says about humanity or how it engages us (aesthetics and all that), doesn't mean that moving away from it may have very palatable negative consequences. To judge one from of expression as having more redeeming social value than another is simply to exercise judgment. What kind of values a society has and what their art has to offer can matter a great deal. But since many people value the same things, it would be ridiculous to say that it's completely atomized and down to every single individual. Burkean (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

  1. Didn't he call that cop "sugartits" which would make him a sexist?
  2. The best part of all the Mad Max movies was that teen girl storytelling in that accent of hers. If Henry Rollins can do "'twas the night before Christmas" Apocalypse Now style and (wp) Ministry sample Full Metal Jacket, why can't they sample her?
  3. Gotta hand it for The Passion. He put up his own money, went outside most distribution channels, barely known language—like to get less as US partially supported rebels in Syria likely damage the villages where Aramaic is spoke.
  4. Wonder what he thinks of heterosexual anal sex, particularly the Bible doesn't ban it, and I think it's implicitly permitted in the new testament. I guess Mel Gibson is technically neutral on gays doing gay oral sex, circle-jerks, footjobs, and a kind-of-rubbing. Huh.
  5. Less forgivable is that P.O.S. The Patriot. Come on South Carolinians, fight for your slave-masters as they fight your largely absentee protectors!

Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 20:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

1. I think that cop was a man, so it was less a testament to his sexism (for which there is nonetheless much evidence to support) and more a testament to his strong tendency to get enormously banjaxed.

2. Remember that the strongest support for these hard core Islamic rebels against Assad has come from RINOs and Democrats.

3. Evangelicals are opposed to any kind of anal sex, but Gibson is a catholic so I don't know. Obviously Gibson behaves in an unconventional way that many catholics would disapprove of. Bottom line, much behavior of a sexual nature which has social sanctions based on restraint or damage to society if it was condoned long predates the bible. So, in the name of social stability and cultural tradition and emphasis on traditional family there is much behavior which is not endorsed though not specifically condemned in the Bible. For example, polygamy is wrong and often condemned and sanctioned and it's a form of sexual deviance that isn't even specifically associated with liberal or non traditional cultural values (as conservative Christians like Mormons practice it) but it is still a form of deviance regardless.

4. Nothing against the film but rationalwiki might as well be called the Mad Max fan club. What is the intrinsic liberal message in this film which the liberals find so fascinating?

5. The patriot is not a great film but not for the reasons you say. The film was about the importance of the war for independence. It did not have the best acting and could've been done much better but it was not a glorification of slavery, many of the founding fathers wanted slavery to end, and the fact that there were slaves in the states hardly validates England's position in that conflict. One would have to believe that England had the slaves' best interest in their heart when they used them to try and maintain power and control over the US colonies, something I have a hard time believing. There were free blacks who fought for the colonies who saw England as a legitimate threat, as there were slaves who fought for the colonies who were no doubt forced. There were some who were set free who still fought for the colonies. The film doesn't seem to excuse slavery and the moment where a man who was a slave who could walk away still choses to fight because for him, the colonies are home. The English had no intention of honoring blacks and merely used them as pawns in a game. The film is bad because there's no sense of the epic, no great cinematography or moving shots, not much relationship to ideas or history, just a rather pedestrian line reading with shots that are all filmed in the afternoon and no conception of the suffering that troops of both sides went through. It's bad because it's shallow, not because it tries to glorify slavery. Burkean (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

To Do[edit]

As he's mentioned all over RW, here's quick plan for improvement (for myself as much as anyone):

  1. Details on his branch of catholicism - there are refs in the article.
  2. His father Hutton GibsonWikipedia
  3. His violence and drinking isn't particularly missional but sexism/misogyny might be
  4. Antisemitism is missional - tie in with row over antisemitism of Passion, elements of RC church, and any other cases
  5. But The Passion of the Christ has its own article so avoid duplication
  6. Pseudohistory in films and how it ties in with nationalism/jingoism (Patriot, Hacksaw Ridge)
  7. Braveheart, Jus primae noctis, pseudohistory, and Scottish nationalism - it's mentioned elsewhere on RW so put in pointers
  8. Movie Conspiracy Theory referenced elsewhere (Serge Monast etc)
  9. Links to Hunter Avallone?
  10. Also crops up in Herbal supplement, Australia, Luke the Evangelist, Pocahontas
  11. Anything else relevant?

--Annanoon (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Gaelic myth references Jus Primae Noctis in one of Cú Chulainn's stories. So it probably existed in Scotland anyway if it existed at all. This being the same culture where you succed a kings nipples as a sign of submission.