Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter T Chattaway

mel gibson's OTHER movies

Recommended Posts

In preparation for Mel Gibson's upcoming The Passion of the Christ, I have decided to take a look at his previous directorial efforts, one of which I had actually never seen before, until today.

The film I had never seen before is The Man without a Face, his 1993 directorial debut, which in some ways is a safely generic film about a boy befriending a social outcast with a mysterious past, but which also touches on a dicey issue or two, especially in the last half-hour or so when we discover that Gibson's titular character is believed to be a child molester. I remember hearing about this plot element before, so I kept waiting for it to come up, and I was a bit surprised when I saw just how late in the story the film got around to raising this point.

Back in the 1990s, Gibson was considered politically incorrect not because of any alleged anti-Semitism, but because of alleged homophobia -- witness his treatment of the sissy-ish Edward II and his gay lover in Braveheart -- and IIRC, it was said that Gibson's character in The Man without a Face actually WAS gay in the book, but the film played it safe by saying he wasn't, so that (a) a major movie star like Gibson wouldn't have to play a positive gay character, and (cool.gif a mainstream audience would find it easier to dismiss the accusations against Gibson's character. Does this ring a bell with anyone, or am I just misremembering all that?

Speaking of alleged anti-Semitism, Gibson's character in this film is a decertified teacher who decides to tutor a persistent neighbourhood boy in the ways of Latin and Shakespeare because he thinks the boy's unexpected and initially unwanted arrival on his doorstep is a "moment of grace" that can help him to prove to himself that he still IS a teacher even though his certificate was taken away from him oh those many years ago ... and the first of many Shakespeare quotes to come from Gibson's lips is Shylock's "hath not a Jew hands? ... prick us, do we not bleed?" speech from The Merchant of Venice. The film harks back to this moment near the end, when Gibson is 'on trial' and he gestures to his scarred self and says, "I assure you, it is a human." Gibson's character, ostracized from the community because of prejudicial suspicions and the burn scars on his face, identifies with Shylock, who was ostracized from the Christian community for being a Jew. (Oh, and of course, the fact that Gibson's character teaches Latin is also a foreshadowing of The Passion, you might say.)

An intriguing cast this film has, too. The boy who plays the film's protagonist seemed awfully familiar to me, but I couldn't figure out what OTHER movies I had seen this child actor in ... and then the end credits came up and I realized that the boy was Nick Stahl, who I know through his grown-up roles in films like In the Bedroom (2001) and Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003). It was funny to see what Nick Stahl looked like back when he was the age that Edward Furlong was in Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991). One of Stahl's character's sisters is played by Fay Masterson, whose only other film that I recognize is Eyes Wide Shut (1999; she played 'Sally', who I'm guessing was one of the prostitutes that Tom Cruise meets?), and the other sister is played by Gaby Hoffman, about mid-way between her roles in Field of Dreams (1989) and Now and Then (1995), in which she played the young Demi Moore; that film was the first one that imprinted Hoffman's name on my memory.

Also interesting to see the old Icon Productions logo, which consists of an explosion that gives way to the image of an angel bearing a sword. For as long as I can remember, the logo has been a detail of what appears to be an icon of the Virgin Mary (with a bit of lightning flashing just before the icon appears onscreen, I think?); I wonder when Gibson changed it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...in the last half-hour or so...we discover that Gibson's titular character is believed to be a child molester.  ...

Back in the 1990s, Gibson was considered politically incorrect not because of any alleged anti-Semitism, but because of alleged homophobia ... IIRC, it was said that Gibson's character in The Man without a Face actually WAS gay in the book, but the film played it safe by saying he wasn't, so that (a) a major movie star like Gibson wouldn't have to play a positive gay character, and (cool.gif a mainstream audience would find it easier to dismiss the accusations against Gibson's character.

Strikes me there's another possible angle. Linking a homosexual character with possible child molestation actually plays into another whole stereotype that's very offensive to the gay community: perhaps Mel was being politically sensitive in setting aside that element of the book, rather than the opposite?

Speaking of alleged anti-Semitism...  the first of many Shakespeare quotes to come from Gibson's lips is Shylock's \"hath not a Jew hands? ... prick us, do we not bleed?\" speech from The Merchant of Venice.  The film harks back to this moment near the end, when Gibson is 'on trial' and he gestures to his scarred self and says, \"I assure you, it is a human.\"  

Nice discovery, Peter! I hope you put that front and centre in your treatment of the film, at least when you handle the anti-Semitism angle. If folks are going to draw massive conclusions about an artist based on micro-examination of the minute details of the movies he makes (which seriously annoys me, to be quite honest), then this ought to be "entered into the public record."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron wrote:

: Strikes me there's another possible angle. Linking a homosexual

: character with possible child molestation actually plays into another

: whole stereotype that's very offensive to the gay community . . .

True, but if the POINT of the film is that the character is the victim of prejudice, then the film would clearly demonstrate that the link between homosexuality and child molestation exists only in the minds of the townsfolk. (It's funny how Mel Gibson's character keeps chastising the boy for his 'black-and-white' view of things, when the film itself actually doesn't allow Gibson's character all that much ambiguity -- he is the blameless victim, etc.)

: Nice discovery, Peter! I hope you put that front and centre in your

: treatment of the film, at least when you handle the anti-Semitism angle.

I'm definitely thinking about it. FWIW, I just played that scene over again, and here's the correct quote, expanded: "Is it this? Is this what you see? I assure you, it is human. But if that is all you see, well, then, you don't see me. You can't see me."

Hmm, it occurs to me that another reason Gibson might have suppressed any gay elements in the novel (assuming that there WERE any) is because it is so much easier to blame people for their prejudice over something as obviously superficial as burn scars, whereas it is NOT so easy to blame people for their prejudice over something as invisible and intangible and murky as sexual orientation. As it stands, I don't quite buy the scene, because Gibson seems to be suggesting that the townsfolk are accusing him of child molestation purely because of his scars, which seems like a ridiculous accusation to me -- certainly, if I were one of the other characters in that room, I would not let Gibson's character get away with such an insinuation. If the novel DOES have gay elements, and if they came up at this point in the story, then that WOULD make more sense to me. (Keeping in mind that this film came out in 1993, the same year that everyone thought Tom Hanks was being oh-so-brave by playing an AIDS victim in Philadelphia; the gay community was also pretty livid at the time over the depiction of gay and lesbian murderers in 1991's Silence of the Lambs and 1992's Basic Instinct. If Gibson's film reflected a 'conservative' sensibility at that time, it wasn't the only one.)

Anyway, on to Braveheart, the middle film in Gibson's directorial troika. Released in 1995, just two years after The Man without a Face and nine years before The Passion of the Christ, Braveheart shows Gibson coming into his own as a director, I think, and it is of course also the film for which he won the Best Director Oscar, while the film itself won Best Picture. (The other nominees that year: for both awards, Chris Noonan's Babe and Michael Radford's Il Postino; for Best Picture, Ron Howard's Apollo 13 and Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility; for Best Director, Dead Man Walking's Tim Robbins and Leaving Las Vegas's Mike Figgis. Gibson was not even nominated for Best Actor.) In the commentary, Gibson says he only wanted to direct the film, but the studio wouldn't make it unless he starred in it, too; but from now on, he says, he'll never appear on both sides of the camera again. I suspect this is one reason it has taken him so long to direct again (and even then, only on a film that he himself is financing).

Certain themes do seem to come up in all three of Gibson's films. First, they all take place in the past -- from the 1960s to the 13th century to the 1st century. Second, they all feature a character whose face has been disfigured (Gibson has burn scars across half his face in The Man, Ian Bannen has leprosy across half his face in Braveheart, and Gibson has said the Roman soldiers will destroy one of Jesus' eyes in The Passion -- I'm betting it's his right eye, to follow this pattern). Third, all three films arguably deal with father-son issues of one sort or another, e.g. the protagonists in all three films have surrogate dads, sort of (though it doesn't sound like The Passion will deal explicitly with the role of Joseph in Jesus' life -- the only parent of his that one hears about in all the reviews is the Virgin Mary). Fourth, all three films feature dialogue in Latin (and the first two films make a point of suggesting that children should be taught the language). And finally, all three films feature men who become martyrs of one sort or another -- sacrificing their lives for the benefit of someone else. I almost said all three films feature 'innocent' victims, but, well, William Wallace CAN get pretty savage and uppity, even if the film goes out of its way to show the English striking the first blow in his life.

The film's prologue and epilogue are narrated by Robert the Bruce (Angus McFadyen), though the post-epilogue is narrated, in the past tense, by Wallace -- suggesting that he has observed the final events of the film from the afterlife, or something. Certainly there is a much more pronounced religious element to this film than I remember noticing when I saw it for the first time back in '96 (I didn't see the film during its initial release, only after it was nominated for all those Oscars and re-issued). Bruce begins the film by saying that history is written by those who hang heroes, so he doesn't care if people call him a liar for praising Wallace (in other words, who cares about historical inaccuracies?), and he calls Edward I (Patrick McGoohan), the King of England, a "cruel pagan". For his part, Edward I dismisses William Wallace as a "heathen". But both sides of this battle are, in fact, Catholic -- the difference is, whereas Edward I is seen attending the wedding of his son in a church, and whereas there seems to be a religious significance to the people who torture Wallace to death for his "purification", it is only the Scots who are shown actually doing devout religious things, like praying, crossing themselves, receiving "battlefield absolution" (as Gibson calls it in his commentary), and so on. In addition, Gibson films certain Scottish characters in ways that accentuate the film's religious subtext; in the commentary, he says "Christ-like, isn't it?" when the young Wallace sees his dead father in a dream, and again, he says "parallels to Christ's death" when Wallace is stretched out in a cruciform pose just before his disembowelment.

For all the religiosity, though, this is still very much a revenge movie -- and the revenge is not just limited to acts of violence. I have said for years that this film's basic theme is 'If you f--- our women, we'll f--- yours,' and while I mean that in a tongue-in-cheek way, I AM semi-serious about that. As soon as the childhood prologue is taken care of and the real story gets under way, Edward I declares to his court that the problem with Scotland is that it's full of Scots, so he gives the English lords the right of prima noctae, i.e. the right to deflower every new bride on her wedding night, before her husband can get to her. "If we can't get them out, we'll breed them out." This, I think, is a somewhat preposterous plan, given that many couples back than had way more than one child (especially in the plague-ridden Middle Ages, when infant mortality was very high), and Gibson himself admits in the commentary that this part of the film is unhistorical but he wanted to make the English, and especially Edward I, "more villainous". So, what happens? Wallace and his lover Murron (Catherine McCormack) marry on the sly (Gibson says here, too, he was "kinda going for that clich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more comment on the violence.

Consider that, in Braveheart, the violent deaths of the 'good people' are generally handled in a discrete manner (Murron's throat and Wallace's abdomen kept off-screen, etc.), while the deaths of the 'bad people' are shown in explicit detail so that the audience can, as it were, 'get off' on the violent images (the sheriff's slashed throat, the nobleman's crushed head, etc.). Now, how easy will it be for Gibson to switch gears and make an explicitly gory film about the crucifixion, in which most (but not all!) of the violence will be perpetrated against the ultimate 'good person'? How will the violence of The Passion of the Christ come across to his audience after Gibson has done his part to do what nearly all Hollywood filmmakers do, which is to train us all to cheer the blood and gore? For lack of a better word, how LEGITIMATE can the violence in Gibson's newest movie be? (For example, what if Gibson uses the abuse heaped on Jesus to stoke our desire for revenge against his tormentors? When the crows attack the 'bad' thief's eyes, will Gibson expect us to get some satisfaction from this?)

I cannot help but wonder to what degree Gibson himself, as the man behind the camera, will still be, as it were, the sadist running the show -- only now his victim will be not a villain, but Jesus Christ. When Gibson says that he himself is culpable in the death of Christ, does he mean to include his filmmaking technique itself as one of the instruments of execution? And by making us watch the execution with him, will he be implicating US in the sadism on display? (Oh, sure, we are all responsible for the death of Christ in some way, but is each of us responsible for every crack of the whip, for every thorny prick, for every single hammer blow?) Or will there be room to disengage from Gibson's filmmaking technique, to ask what Gibson is up to? I.e., will Gibson's film allow us to be AWARE of the fact that we are watching a film?

Hmmm, let me try this from another angle. Most people, I think, have a natural instinct to look away when someone they love is being tortured or killed. Gibson knows this -- this is why he spares us the gruesome details of Murron's death and Wallace's too in Braveheart, even though he revels in the vengeful slaying of the sheriff and the nobleman, etc. So what does it say about a film, or a filmmaker, when the whole purpose of the film is to take someone that many people, if not most, love above all others, and to force the audience to look at all the gory details? Gibson flinches for us in Braveheart, but it sounds like he won't in The Passion of the Christ. Why is that? Is there something WRONG with looking away, with being discrete (and if so, why did Gibson look away in Braveheart)? Is there something especially RIGHT about dwelling in a purely vicarious manner on the details of the suffering of someone we love?

Just mulling over some thoughts here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to say that I enjoyed reading your thoughts, Peter. They reminded me of why I don't really ever care to see Braveheart again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee Peter, THAT'S analysis. I've always thought you were just about the best faith based critic around (no offense to others here, some of whom I feel are on the same rung, which is why I consider this board a privelege).

What always made me cringe at the disembowelment was the warmup show performance by the dwarves as Wallace is being brought into the square, complete with delightful roar of the crowd. This only makes me more anticipatory in a dread way, of what is to come and multiplies what I imagine as it occurs off screen.

As to your manly v. homosexual man, what is to be made of the finesse and stealth tactics, such as they are, presented by Edward II and his "court", as opposed to his father's approach (ha! is this mirrored by the aggressive tactics touted constantly by Wallace and the negotiation approach favored by the various clan chieftains?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gawrsh, you people are going to make me blush. smile.gif

BTW, I just remembered something -- was it ever revealed WHO, exactly, re-shot a fair chunk of the Mel Gibson vehicle Payback after writer-director Brian Helgeland (A Knight's Tale, The Order; he also wrote but did not direct L.A. Confidential, Conspiracy Theory, The Postman, Blood Work and Mystic River) was sacked? ISTR hearing once that Gibson himself might have done the honours, but I have never heard anyone confirm that one way or the other.

DRose wrote:

: THANK YOU for saying this. This has always bothered me, although I've

: heard the excuse that the Princess reminds Wallace of Murron . . .

Yes, at their first meeting, Wallace even tells the Princess he sees in her the same strength that he saw in his wife, or some such thing. But I hardly think this justifies the idea that he would fall in love with her or be driven to adulterous activity with her (and it is very definitely he who makes the first move when he and the Princess meet the second time). If anything, it edges towards that creepy "There is only one woman in the world, one woman with many faces" stuff that the Devil tells Jesus in The Last Temptation of Christ (both book and film).

But the women aren't really the point, here. The film is much more about father-son relations than husband-wife relations, so the whole point of getting Wallace in the sack with the Princess is that it is he, and not Edward II, who will get to father the next king (and come to think of it, isn't it presumptuous of the Princess to assume that the child she carries is a boy and not a girl -- especially at a stage so early in its gestation that she isn't even "showing" yet?). (BTW, there don't seem to be any mother-son relations to speak of in this film, do there?)

Rich Kennedy wrote:

: What always made me cringe at the disembowelment was the warmup

: show performance by the dwarves as Wallace is being brought into the

: square, complete with delightful roar of the crowd. This only makes me

: more anticipatory in a dread way, of what is to come and multiplies what

: I imagine as it occurs off screen.

Interesting. FWIW, Gibson says the dwarves just happened to be there among the other extras, so they improvised that bit on the spot.

: As to your manly v. homosexual man, what is to be made of the finesse

: and stealth tactics, such as they are, presented by Edward II and his

: "court", as opposed to his father's approach (ha! is this mirrored by the

: aggressive tactics touted constantly by Wallace and the negotiation

: approach favored by the various clan chieftains?).

Could be!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, at their first meeting, Wallace even tells the Princess he sees in her the same strength that he saw in his wife, or some such thing. But I hardly think this justifies the idea that he would fall in love with her or be driven to adulterous activity with her
Well I'm a bit unconvinced by the speed at whjich he gets in the sack with her but he's not being adulterous, and from a cultural point of view, as Rob Roy shows any sex with the wife of your enemy is a bonus (as distatsteful as that view certainly is). Its not so unlikely, just perhaps out of keeping from the Christ Figure that Gibson is trying to portray Wallace as (and if sexual politics was what was going on here then its unconvincing that he seems to fall in love with her so soon) - then again I suppose he hardly hung about with Murron either, then again its murron he sees as he dies.

I thought the dwarves scene was good, becuase it would have been objectionable if the real torture scene had happened, but prefiguring it kind of worked.

I'm with you on the ball and chain bit tho'

Matt

PS Did I ever mention that Mel came up the aisle to something from the Braveheart soundtrack? (That cos she liked the music, not beacause we like the film that much btw)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MattPage wrote:

: Well I'm a bit unconvinced by the speed at whjich he gets in the sack

: with her but he's not being adulterous . . .

Actually, I almost described the sex act there as fornication AND adultery, but I decided to simplify it to simply adultery, especially since Wallace clearly still feels some sort of attachment to his wife, even though she has gone on to the afterlife.

: . . . and from a cultural point of view, as Rob Roy shows any sex with the

: wife of your enemy is a bonus (as distatsteful as that view certainly is).

Hey, that fits perfectly into my "If you f--- our women..." interpretation of the film! smile.gif

: PS Did I ever mention that Mel came up the aisle to something from the

: Braveheart soundtrack?

For a second I thought you were referring to Mel Gibson. wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Man Without a Face

It's funny how Mel Gibson's character keeps chastising the boy for his 'black-and-white' view of things, when the film itself actually doesn't allow Gibson's character all that much ambiguity -- he is the blameless victim, etc.

You know, I saw this film only a few months after reading the book, and I remember being very frustrated about the lack of ambiguity in the film. The book is very ambiguous. IIRC, the teacher is clearly homosexual, but the boy's own sexual identity is less clear. And whether there was molestation is not enitrely clear. There was no court case in the book, and the court case is where the film fell apart for me. The book requires the reader to draw his or her own conclusions about what happened, whether the relationship was appropriate, etc. I got the impression when I saw the movie that Gibson didn't like that there was a possibility that this teacher-student relationship was anything other than inspiring and beneficial, and so he gave the teacher an opportunity to defend himself against the accusations the book's readers--indeed, the book itself--would level against him. So what is a complex and difficult story becomes overly simplistic and not very interesting.

--Teresa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

teresakayep wrote:

: There was no court case in the book, and the court case is where the film

: fell apart for me.

Thanks for your comments! Yeah, the 'court scene' in the film range all sorts of false notes for me, like climactic court scenes often do. Interesting to hear it wasn't in the book at all. I wonder if Gibson or a screenwriter was responsible for this change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:: PS Did I ever mention that Mel came up the aisle to something from the

:: Braveheart soundtrack?

:For a second I thought you were referring to Mel Gibson.

:scream:

lol

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a couple articles that might be pertinent to this thread:

- - -

Mel Gibson's Jesus Christ Pose

His canon may heavily favor jokey action thrillers and grandiose war pics, but closer scrutiny reveals that Gibson (who does not appear in The Passion of the Christ) has long been in piecemeal rehearsals for his divisive passion play. As his clout and asking price have increased over the decades, so has the degree of Christian overtones and iconography in his films. (Passion marks only the third time Gibson has taken the director's chair, but his oeuvre presents an excellent argument for the actor-as-auteur.)

Jessica Winter, Village Voice, November 5

Mel Gibson's Longstanding Movie Martyr Complex

Eyes often misted over with anguish and sorrow, Mr. Gibson has been martyred on screen more often and more photogenically than anyone since Joan Crawford. . . . He has shown a heartstopping aptitude for -- and interest in -- the portraiture of the martyr. His taking on "The Passion of the Christ" was, as the old song goes, only a matter of time.

Elvis Mitchell, New York Times, February 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought it might be interesting to compare The Passion of the Christ's earnings to those of other Mel Gibson films. Gibson has directed only two other movies, The Man without a Face (1993, $24.8mil) and Braveheart (1995, $75.6mil), and with $26.6mil in the till yesterday alone, The Passion could easily out-gross them both this week.

Beyond that, here are all the films he's ACTED in, or at least the ones for which the IMDB has their North American grosses. (Of course, ticket prices have gone up as the years go by, so while Lethal Weapon may have grossed only $65.2mil in 1987, it was still the 9th-highest-grossing film of the year, whereas We Were Soldiers grossed $78.1mil in 2002 and was only the 33rd-highest-grossing film of that year.)

1. 0.3 The Singing Detective (2003) .... Dr. Gibbon

2. 228.0 Signs (2002) .... Rev. Graham Hess

3. 78.1 We Were Soldiers (2002) .... Lt. Col. Hal Moore

4. 182.8 What Women Want (2000) .... Nick Marshall

5. 113.3 The Patriot (2000) .... Benjamin Martin

6. 106.8 Chicken Run (2000) (voice) .... Rocky

7. 0.1 The Million Dollar Hotel (2000) .... Detective Skinner

8. 81.5 Payback (1999) .... Porter

9. 129.7 Lethal Weapon 4 (1998) .... Martin Riggs

10. 14.0 FairyTale: A True Story (1997) .... Frances' Father

11. 76.1 Conspiracy Theory (1997) .... Jerry Fletcher

12. 28.7 Fathers' Day (1997) .... Scott the Body Piercer

13. 136.4 Ransom (1996) .... Tom Mullen

14. 141.6 Pocahontas (1995) (voice) .... John Smith

15. 75.6 Braveheart (1995) .... William Wallace

16. 101.6 Maverick (1994) .... Bret Maverick, Jr.

17. 24.8 The Man Without a Face (1993) .... Justin McLeod

18. 56.0 Forever Young (1992) .... Capt. Daniel McCormick

19. 144.7 Lethal Weapon 3 (1992) .... Martin Riggs

20. 20.7 Hamlet (1990) .... Hamlet

21. 31.1 Air America (1990) .... Gene Ryack

22. 71.0 Bird on a Wire (1990) .... Rick Jarmin

23. 147.3 Lethal Weapon 2 (1989) .... Martin Riggs

24. 41.3 Tequila Sunrise (1988) .... Dale 'Mac' McKussic

25. 65.2 Lethal Weapon (1987) .... Sergeant Martin Riggs

26. 36.2 Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985) .... 'Mad' Max

27. 4.4 Mrs. Soffel (1984) .... Ed Biddle

28. 8.8 The River (1984) .... Tom Garvey

29. 8.6 The Bounty (1984) .... Fletcher Christian Master's Mate

30. 10.3 The Year of Living Dangerously (1982) .... Guy Hamilton

31. 23.7 Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (1981) .... 'Mad' Max

32. 5.7 Gallipoli (1981) .... Frank Dunne

33. 8.8 Mad Max (1979) .... 'Mad' Max Rockatansky

Or, re-arranging these from top-grossing to not-so-top-grossing (and skipping all the films that made less than $100mil):

1. 228.0 Signs (2002) .... Rev. Graham Hess

2. 182.8 What Women Want (2000) .... Nick Marshall

3. 147.3 Lethal Weapon 2 (1989) .... Martin Riggs

4. 144.7 Lethal Weapon 3 (1992) .... Martin Riggs

5. 141.6 Pocahontas (1995) (voice) .... John Smith

6. 136.4 Ransom (1996) .... Tom Mullen

7. 129.7 Lethal Weapon 4 (1998) .... Martin Riggs

8. 113.3 The Patriot (2000) .... Benjamin Martin

9. 106.8 Chicken Run (2000) (voice) .... Rocky

10. 101.6 Maverick (1994) .... Bret Maverick, Jr.

It will be interesting to see how The Passion ranks, compared to these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For all the religiosity, though, this is still very much a revenge movie -- and the revenge is not just limited to acts of violence. I have said for years that this film's basic theme is 'If you f--- our women, we'll f--- yours,' and while I mean that in a tongue-in-cheek way, I AM semi-serious about that. As soon as the childhood prologue is taken care of and the real story gets under way, Edward I declares to his court that the problem with Scotland is that it's full of Scots, so he gives the English lords the right of prima noctae, i.e. the right to deflower every new bride on her wedding night, before her husband can get to her. \"If we can't get them out, we'll breed them out.\" This, I think, is a somewhat preposterous plan, given that many couples back than had way more than one child (especially in the plague-ridden Middle Ages, when infant mortality was very high), and Gibson himself admits in the commentary that this part of the film is unhistorical but he wanted to make the English, and especially Edward I, \"more villainous\". So, what happens? Wallace and his lover Murron (Catherine McCormack) marry on the sly (Gibson says here, too, he was \"kinda going for that clich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clint M wrote:

: If we are going with the "if you f--- our women we'll f--- yours", couldn't

: one interpret Wallace's sex act with the Princess an act of revenge?

I think it functions that way in the narrative, but it is not how the two characters see it, exactly -- Wallace says he is drawn to the Princess because she has the same strength as his wife. In other words, he is not consciously trying to use her, but is genuinely attracted to her (though perhaps we could say he is attracted to what he sees of his wife in her).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter T Chattaway wrote:

: Gibson has directed only two other movies, The Man without a Face

: (1993, $24.8mil) and Braveheart (1995, $75.6mil), and with $26.6mil in

: the till yesterday alone, The Passion could easily out-gross them both

: this week.

And did it ever!

: 1. 228.0 Signs (2002) .... Rev. Graham Hess

: 2. 182.8 What Women Want (2000) .... Nick Marshall

: 3. 147.3 Lethal Weapon 2 (1989) .... Martin Riggs

: 4. 144.7 Lethal Weapon 3 (1992) .... Martin Riggs

: 5. 141.6 Pocahontas (1995) (voice) .... John Smith

: 6. 136.4 Ransom (1996) .... Tom Mullen

: 7. 129.7 Lethal Weapon 4 (1998) .... Martin Riggs

: 8. 113.3 The Patriot (2000) .... Benjamin Martin

: 9. 106.8 Chicken Run (2000) (voice) .... Rocky

: 10. 101.6 Maverick (1994) .... Bret Maverick, Jr.

Well, by the end of its first weekend, The Passion had already leapt to the #8 spot in Gibson's filmography (or boxofficeography). And as of yesterday, it had grossed $153 million, which takes it to #3. Yep, this could be the biggest movie of Mel's entire career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter T Chattaway wrote:

: Yep, this could be the biggest movie of Mel's entire career.

And now it is. Until now, Signs had been the biggest movie of Mel's entire career, grossing $227,966,634 in North America. But no more. As of Wednesday, its official 15th day of release (though the figures include $3 million in church-sponsored previews from the 2 days before), The Passion of the Christ has grossed $228,133,890. FWIW, this also makes it #39 on the all-time domestic chart and #4 on the all-time R-rated chart ... so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't have a Braveheart thread, so this seems the best place to post this.

Service to mark Wallace's death

A memorial service is being held in London while a number of events will be held in Scotland, including a screening of the 1995 Mel Gibson film Braveheart.

MLeary, I suggest you watch out today for hairy Scotsmen shouting "freeeeeeeedoooooom", and people telling you why it's the greatest film ever.

Matt

Edited by MattPage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MLeary,

Cheryl and I walked the Royal Mile last Summer. Since my ancestors are from the northern area of Scotland it felt like home!

Denny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Canadian you would have been alright. I went to a bible camp in the highlands in 1996, and one evening a couple of us were the only English in quite a large group watching a video of Rob Roy...

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...