Maybe someday we can agree that only He can be judge and jury on such matters...

Anyway, I need to hit the sack... and you need to have your lunch lol...

This Pussy ( ) is outta here! 'night, babe... see you soon!

Anyone can be the judge as long as I'm not, and if everyone is as reluctant about judging as I am, we might end up with the same option you've in mind. So I think I can agree with you already.

Good night JG! Sleep tight.

I don't think the specificity of my nationality feeds into my indifference for Braveheart. I actually used to love it. I don't know what point you're trying to make here.

I've not read enough of Gibson's press coverage to arrive at a point of satisfaction regarding his authorial intent. I'm not sure how the films were intended, but I'd be surprised and annoyed if Passion was made for laughs, if Braveheart was made for yawns, and Apocalypto was made for simple egde-of-your-seat thrills (and eye-rolls). I mean, to consciously make a film specifically about an ancient culture, to learn their language and utilise it in the dialogue; there's politicisation in that, surely.

Well, for the record, I'm not defending the Bond franchise either (nor did I bring it up, nor would I have brought it up). But, to be fair, I'm not sure if Mel Gibson simply wants to make money from his films, like Bond's producers do.

Actually, it's not British. Even the Connery films were American-funded.

Because, as I've said, I'm not sure if the intentions behind each are the same. I can't buy into the fact that Gibson went to the lengths of having his films in archaic languages only so as to make profit. Cultural and linguistic authenticity in a film don't put bums on seats. In fact, whereas Passion had a surefire audience, the trailers of Apocalypto had absolutely no dialogue in whatsoever. "OMG subtitles" would have been quite a common, off-putting reaction, I think. Instead, you get all the general clichés of an ancient civilisation dying out, "from the director of Braveheat and Passion of the Christ, etc., etc. On the one hand, Gibson making language-specific films is a brave aesthetic choice - and I'd be very, very surprised if it was done in the name of making money, or simple "entertainment" (a slippy defence; read on).
300 especially is a different ballpark altogether from Gibson's projects and the Bond films, for a whole boat of other reasons.

And defending things in the name of "Entertainment" is quite a vague concept. Do you mean, "economic profit"? I'm entertained by many a bomb.

I never suggested anything along the lines that Gibson is popular, or well-renowned, or critically acclaimed, or successful, or talented, or skilled. You brought him up, in parallel to Spielberg - or more specifically, Spielberg's use of violence.

Well, we'll agree to disagree, here. There are hundreds of thousands of directors out there; from the very few I've seen, Gibson's made three movies - one dull, one mediocre, one absolutely shite. The (subjective) stats don't look promising.

I think Spielberg's violence is graphic when it wants to be, not where it needs to be; there's a certain attraction in it, a pornographic appeal. All that washed-out cinematography does little to make it more adult. It's theatrical, it's superficial.

As far as violence goes in film, it's all superficial of course, but as an example of where I'm coming from, I'm moved by the likes of that seen in Gaspar Noé's Irreversible, Bruno Dumont's 29 Palms, in Tobe Hooper's The Texas Chain Saw Massacre; recently, I watched a short film called Cutting Moments by Douglas Buck - that was good. None of those skirt around the issue of violence; it's not glitzy, it's visceral and immersive - and as a result horrific. Michael Haneke is capable of capturing violence, too.

Cronenberg is interesting, too; violence is a strong theme of his, recently, too. He's working within the realms of Hollywood now, and beating everybody at their own game. A History of Violence and Eastern Promises depict horrific violence; the former is even a comment on mainstream violence and how we consume it.

^^^ Most incoherent post ever. Sorry.

Sorry, it is not directed wholly at you, you know, this spirit of Passion bashing, Gibson bashing or 300 bashing and so on, most of the time is tribal. But I didn't mean it to be directed at you specifically. svsg also didn't like it and he isn't British, I was merely ranting. Nowadays when you mention Gibson, people with their torches jump on the bandwagon if you know what I mean, which is very irritating. I merely pointed out a lot of it is tribal, rather than anything technical in the movie or directing.



Passion delivered. The base for this claim is how it was received by the Christians. Any religious matter maybe laughable to either you or me, but we couldn't be the judge of that. Using the local dialect could pass a movie as more authentic. I figure for the passion he needed this more than in Apocalypto, but in Apocalypto the dialogue was so scarce, it couldn't hurt the crowed interested in pure entertainment, also it could help make it more believable than our average thriller about the same subject in English language. And I really don't remember any yawns during Braveheart but it was many years ago, so I refrain from giving an opinion on that count just yet.



No of course you don't. Sorry about that, but I just couldn't resist.



Well, he tries to rise from the ordinary, that's for sure. And that's the reason he tries to seem more authentic by using the local language. But at the end of the day, doesn't he want to entertain as well? Wouldn't it be more dramatic if they throw spears like a pro? No, I don't mean just economic profit; I mean it being better received, though that's a side effect of it being more entertaining and engaging.



Very well, you gave some examples of what you consider more effective ways of showing violence. I'd be more interested that you take one of the scenes from Munich and tell me how you'd have arranged it to make it more effective. Take a pick, any of them that was more superficial to you.

Yeah, fair enough. Though FWIW, my problems with Gibson's films have little to do with him as a person, or what he's said outside of his filmmaking practices. I'm the judging the films as how I see them.

My problem isn't the subject matter, it's Gibson's treatment of it. I don't laugh out of heartlessness, I don't laugh at the fact that Jesus is getting tortured to death; I laugh at how self-serious it is, at the slow-motion, at the utter seriousness with which it's all depicted. The music, the performances, the sense of pornographic ritual to it all. It's bloated, it's rubbish.

But that's quite a unique, odd choice to make, no? To shoot your film in a language nobody no longer speaks. And does that make it more believable than our average thriller? Is it merely a case of authenticity? I'm not sure.

I was being facetious. I'm pretty sure Braveheart wasn't made to bore or tire people.

Firstly, I'd be interested in what you make of the films I referenced - watching them, and seeing how their depiction of violence may differ from Spielberg's. Spielberg uses violence as a plot device, a gimmick. Those I listed employ it more as an experience in itself, to be felt and endured. You might argue Spielberg does the same, but I'd totally disagree; it's an emotional manipulation as much as the crescendo of strings we hear when E.T.'s bicycle rises up into the air. I don't find any of his violence horrific.

Take that scene in Munich wherein someone has a knife forced into their skull. It's artificial, it's detached, it may as well be a clay model. And I'm talking abstract, here, which I know is very difficult to understand (even for him writing it), and argue against - for which I apologise. It's not horrific at all. All that music, the washed-out cinematography; it just strikes me as very obvious an attempt by Spielberg to seem very sophisticated and mature. There are moments in Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan that are extremely well-done when considered in isolation, but in the context of the woolly narrative, none of it seems alive. It's all mannerism; nothing screams style over substance more.

In contrast, I watched Waltz with Bashir at the cinema the other week and was floored by its daring and ambition, neither of which Spielberg has shown in years. In that film - an animated documentary - the director and protagonist visits several close friends with whom he served in the military years ago, with the intention of finding out what truly happened on a day he can only remember in fleeting memories. Some of the violence in that was not only necessarily brutal, and effective, but affective, too. I think it had something to do with the nature of the narrative - what we were seeing were reconstructions of someone's memory, a memory scarred into "forgetting" past events; and so what we are seeing, what is being revealed, is also a revelation for the protagonist. It's very immediate, very urgent.

Munich, on the other hand, seems tame and pedestrian by comparison.

Isn't the concept of religion something very self-serious? Wouldn't preachers crucify Christ in their sermons, describing it with such slow painful words that make audience flinch? We obviously have problem with the subject matter. We can't take it. It's all loaded. We simply can't look at objectively.



It certainly stands out. But other than that, what do we learn about their culture or customs? They could be any tribe, anywhere in the world. It merely passes as more authentic.



From those you mention I think I've seen "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre," but don't remember much. I remember Irreversible though. I've to say I simply disagree when you put Munich as pornographic, but Irreversible as genuine portray of pain and violence. To me it is quite the opposite, though you put your finger on a very interesting scene at Munich that felt artificial to me as well. I also agree that Spielberg uses emotional manipulation, but how else would you make viewers feel what an assassin would feel in course of a long time with what you have to offer in course of a couple of hours?

Of course Munich is emotional manipulation, compared to Irreversible that's merely projection of violence and serves little to take you anywhere; it is so abstract and detached.



I've heard a great deal about this one. But isn't a bit strange comparing an animation to technical aspects of Munich? At any case, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Spielberg has always felt artificial and detached to me. This was the closest emotional experience for me among his movies.

I watched Planes, Trains and Automobiles last night and it gets better with every viewing... classic.

I've never been into most comedies, and hardly ever pay to see a comedy at the theater, BUT, yesterday, on tv they had "What About Bob?" with Bill Murray. It was hilarious. I had seen it only once, but it's been years. I loved it.


TIS

Bill Murray is typical Murray in that movie, but Dreyfuss makes it great! Anybody need "Death Therapy"?

MMMMmmmmMMmmmmMmmmmmmmMMMMMMMm mmmmmMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmMMMMMmmm

I just watched Mrs. Doubtfire

....why?

I'm currently watching Casino

Ha ha ha ha!!! Or... "I'm sailing, I'm sailing" or "Is this some kind of radical new therapy?"

Yes, Dreyfeus is great too.


TIS

I enjoy Robin Williams movies

What part was that from?

The Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmiddle?

Mmmmmmmmmmaybe you're right. *shrug*

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmy God, Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmman up

Oh wait, was that the part when he's eating?

Yea, that's right.Here's the trailer with a small portion of that "mmmmmmmmm" clip. Makes me laugh.

TIS


Trailer

Thanks for the video TIS! I need to watch this again soon!

Okay, one more quote from What About Bob? and I'll stop.

This is when they were on television, on Good Morning America:

"It doesn't work as quickly for everyone as it did for Boob here, I mean Bob." -Dr. Leo
"You can call me Boob if you want, I don't mind"- Bob
"I don't wanna call you Boob!" - Dr. Leo

I just watched "The Curse of Dracula"

Absolute turd.

Roses are red
violets are blue
I'm a schizophrenic and so am I. Love that one too.



TIS

I just watched a double feature of the Oscar-winning documentary March of the Penguins (2005) followed by Bob Saget and company's all-star cast in Farce of the Penguins (2006). I thought the former would be boring (hell, minutes before I was falling asleep during the beginning of the classic Doctor Zhivago (1965) before I switched to March figuring I wouldn't miss much if I did fall asleep). And I didn't! Fascinating stuff. But I couldn't help but wonder why evolution couldn't include just a bit more practicality in a penguin's life.

The Farce, on the other hand, lives up to its name. Saget, believe it or not, is one of the dirtiest and funniest comedians around (when not on TV), and the casting was superlative. Trouble is, everything else about it, for the most part, sucked. Corny as all hell, with less-than-indie-budget editing and production. Fun idea, but not fun enough to enjoy as most other adolescent slapstick comedies. Ahh well. Maybe the other Oscar-winning penguin film within a year -- Happy Feet (2006) -- will be better.

I just watched The Harlem Boys.

I watched The Bourne Identity last night, enjoyed it very much was a bit confused at first but got into it at the end..

I watched Independence Day. I've seen it a bunch of times, but it's still nice to watch it again, especially the ending. However, I always miss the part about the President's wife - does she die?