[The Daily Fail] He may have faced criticism for his interpretation of William Wallace's battle for Scottish independence in Braveheart, but that hasn't deterred Mel Gibson from producing another history-based movie.
This time the actor is planning to turn his directorial skills towards the Viking invasion of England and Scotland in the ninth century.
Gibson, 54, will follow a similar route to his previous films The Passion Of The Christ and Apocalypto by filming all of the scenes using Old Norse language, with English subtitles
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1244769/Mel-Gibson-plans-recreate-Viking-invasion-England-Scotland-latest-movie.html#ixzz1N6sVdYeA
15 comments:
Some 'Poms' don't like Gibson because he is an hideous man, a physically abusive, racist, adulterous oik and a sedevacantist to boot. The fact of his being publicly maligned is evidence perhaps of the memory of virtue still glimmering in his critics (hypocritical although it may be). His films are entirely absorbed with the brutally wronged hero, striking out against the Oppressor which, I suspect, is how he sees himself.
Quite apart from all of the slurs you've applied to him which seem to be born of a brutally bruised ego of your own, what's wrong with films about brutally wronged heroes? That's actually the point of many dramas and tragedies.
Hey, at least Gibson's not an effete Socialist toff.
He he! I don't like men who cheat on their wife and abandon their numerous children so I simply must be an effete socialist toff with a bruised ego of my own. Way to go, pop psychologist! But... what does this imply in the inverse?
I think you need to research Gibson a bit more; he may make watchable films but he is a genuinely awful man. Go trawl the news sites; he's unhinged, possibly possessed.
I know Mel Gibson is troubled, but are you really a better man? On second thought, you sound more like an aging suffragette who's discovered Methodism in her dotage and wants to impose it on others. If anything seems unhinged, it's your rush to judgement.
No one's making excuses for his adultery, but there are cowards who like to kick toothless lions.
Get off the fence. He's not a toothless lion, he's an exceedingly rich, exceedingly influential maker of popular kitsch.
And in terms of not being a racist, abusive, adulterous gore-monger, I am indeed a better man. I know this because I read it in a book. It's called the Bible. There's another book, it's called the Catechism which sort-of backs-up the first book. Hey! Why don't you have a look for yourself?
Some people are worse than others.
I'm glad Mel Gibson's various personal failings, as imagined by you, have provided you with an opportunity to feel good about yourself.
Bravo, it's almost a perfect analogue of the Pharisee and the Publican. That's in the Bible too, since you're citing it to me.
And I challenge you to find the term "racism" or "gore-mongering" in the Bible. Those are simply the criteria of the domesticated English house rat.
Really, such malaise is unbecoming Cecil.
It was my distinct pleasure to have been in regular contact with the late, great actor, Patrick McGoohan during the mid-late 1990s. During that time he was offered a role in BRAVEHEART, and while he was honored to be asked to be in the film he was at the same time deeply troubled by the silly historical inaccuracies which he found in the screenplay. McGoohan, good Catholic that he was, was fearful that Mr Gibson's taking that fascinating historical incident and transmogrifying it into a childish "freedom fighter" movie (with some historically dubious and typically childish incidents inserted as the "rebels" baring their derrieres toward their advancing enemies) was going to do damage to the truth. He flew to London prior to filming and attempted to convince Mr Gibson that he would do much better by sticking to the actual facts.
He failed, of course, and the movie turned out to be yet another hack 'em and stack 'em epic. It always amused me that of all the Oscars it was nominated for the only one it wasn't nominated for was Mr McGoohan's performance - the only real performance in the entire film. Rather funny.
It may seem that I am again dumping on Mr Gibson but you musn't take it that way. The man has potential to one day become a creative maker of films but he wont be able to achieve that if he continues on his present course. His historical forays are every bit as unhistorical as the ludicrous spectacles of Ridley Scott. But both of these men are sadly trapped in the current mire of popular taste, which seems to have a blood-lust and a "bread and circuses" approach to movies. Sensationalism and excess are therefore the order of the day. I really do hope Mr Gibson (whose courage I certainly admire) will break away from this dead-end type of movie making and start trying to be a story teller, nothing more. If he will make the decision to do this he will then be on his way to becoming a competent, perhaps a fine, director of films.
I think you should see some of his other work. "We were Soldiers Once", which was no less historically inaccurate than Braveheart, or Patriot, was fantastic. I think he was coming into his own at that point in his mastery of communicating those fairly complicated concepts like patriotism, honor, duty and professionalism to ordinary people.
I think Braveheart was his first major film and he was eager to prove that he could play ball with the various agendas that people think they need to mollify in order to make a film; including the stupid Hollywood coitus scene which was somewhat mitigated by a Gnostic appeal to reincarnation as his wife was somehow incarnate in the soul and body of the Princess he was having an adulterous relationship with, but that's probably as bad as this film gets on the moral hypocrisy area... I really don't know how he rationalized that, but hey...
Ultimately, Gibson's make of the thing was part Errol Flynn. It's an action film with a rousing patriotic [and also immoral] message. I think most people don't expect historical accuracy in a film anyway. So, historical inaccuracy is the least problem with this film... there were some elements in it that were hollow and rang untrue, like the interaction between Wallace and the Stuart Prince. Anyway, like with Yankee Doodle Braveheart, the Patriot and We Were Soldiers Once, he simplifies and condenses historical periods, in some cases like Braveheart, conflating several periods and individuals from Scottish history into one. Again, it's historical fiction... so what.
I don't think Braveheart lacks for those reasons, but many other films, with far less politically controversial directors, have far fewer critics attempting to discredit their work because of "historical inaccuracies". I think people hate Mel Gibson's underlying Catholicism enough to attack the man in any way they can. I don't know of any critics who slammed Puzzo and Coppola for their historical inaccuracies.
I'm still disappointed that the remake of the Prisoner wasn't something Patrick McGoowan
I wish I'd been fortunate enough to see some more work by Patrick McGoowan, especially his Prisoner reprise, and I agree his performance was the best in the film.
He was passed over for James Bond because he objected to the immoral bits. PM was a very great man for defending principles that counted. A real unassuming and quiet hero.
Nobody actually stated the historical inaccuracies? Besides the French queen and the love thing, I didn't notice any glaringly obvious flaws. There was a little dramatic license (its a movie?) but no blatant inaccuracies. Perhaps I'm just a historical neophyte. Please, enlighten me?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16r8XSvBu9c&feature=related
Most Hollywood films are not historically accurate, and I don't think Gibson made any pretension of historical accuracy anyway.
People who are desperate to attack the film for other reasons will always look for any place their foot can find purchase.
Wow, you guys are nuts. Braveheart was a GREAT movie-and without it, who the hell would have really known who William Wallace was or if they would show interst in it. So, a movies job is to spark imagination.
Also, going off of this Gibson's a bad person, how many people in Hollywood are really good people. They show their crotch, beat there women brutally (see Chris Brown), abanond their kids, hell even rape them (see Roman Polanski)-and Mel Gibson we pick on because he says some slurs when drunk (who honestly doesnt) and threatens to kill his gold-digger wife (wouldn't you at least be ripping pissed if you had an ego like a hollywood star and felt you'd been had).
If Gibson doesn't make the passion, an outspoken-and odd-religious person, a little conservative, do you REALLY think he would be treated this way? Come on, lets face it, he made a Religious movie that a lot of h-wood lefty's don't believe, he's a conservative (of some sort) that they don't like, and the LIberal Media jumps all over him. Everyone else they are quick to forgive, hell they give em a reality show [different anonymous]
Mark my words, the same people wouldn't complain about historical inaccuracy in Battleship Potemkin. They'd likely be using terms like "tour de force" and "masterwork" to describe it.
The thing they really object to are Mel's political and religious beliefs.
you cant name many men who havent done the exact things. he 1) got drunk and said some stupid shit. 2) He left a angry voicemail to his hollywood gold digger wife - he may be unstable but i worked in hollywood for a few years as a PA and every actor is nuts. every last one. so what? they act well. gibson acts and directs well. As a filmmaker i respect the hell out of him. Apoclypto was AMAZING yet everyone boycotted it. stupid -- more movies from Mel!
The world has turned men into a bunch of pussies...you can't say gay, you have to listen to everything women and jews say or you are social scum and should be excomunicated from society...and this is the pussy stuff that fuels the worlds polotics. Men its time to take back your balls, and do what you say and stand up for what you do.
This ones for you Mel, cheers.
Post a Comment