The Passion of the Patriot

Mel Gibson - Pictured here at home playing with his kids.

3/16/2005

Mel Gibson has become an easy target as of late. Everyone from Comedy Central's "South Park" to Danny Glover's massage therapist has taken a shot at him. His critics say that the guy has got some issues with Jews, pointing to the fact that he is a pre-Vatican 2 Catholic and his father is a well known "Holocaust denier" who moved his family from upstate NY to Australia because, "...there is no way I am going to get drafted and fight to protect no Jew money."

What brought on this avalanche of criticism was last year's The Passion of the Christ (2004) which he directed. The film, which graphically depicts the last days of Jesus Christ (Portrayed by Jim Caviezel), has been considered by many to be an "anti-Semitic blood soaked snuff-porn film" while many others have considered viewing the film as the most "satisfying spiritual experience they ever had." The scary part is that some of the people who responded that way have actually been to Jerusalem.

I never saw the movie myself so I will not comment on its quality or its alleged transgressions. But, I have read many descriptions of the film’s scenes and actions and, I could honestly say, I have seen movies similar to it. These movies were mostly one-reeler’s produced in Asia and unspooled on the internet. Most of them featured actors I never heard of before.

I also remember one time in 1995, seeing a film on a television monitor at a club in the meat packing district named “The Vault.” The movie had a remarkably similar plot. In fact, if I remember correctly, it also had a “Biblical times” motif. It starred a guy in a Roman Centurion costume and a midget. I don’t remember their names or the tittle of the picture.

But, for all I know, The Passion of the Christ (2004) is the best directed movie ever produced, even better than Cotton Goes to Harlem (1970). And, for all I know, Jim Caviezel's performance as The Lord is the greatest piece of acting committed to celluloid since Leon Isaac Kennedy played "Too Sweet" in Pennitentary II (1982). To be completely honest, I really do not know.

But, I do know, it made a whole lot of money last year and will probably make a whole lot more this year because Gibson has very cleverly fostered the idea that it is one's Christian duty to see it every Easter. For this year, he is releasing it "re-cut" which I think means Mel has re-inserted some "deleted scenes." These include:

1) A "Giulliani Time" anal rape scene that takes place in Pontious Pilate’s bathroom.

2) A ten minute sequence in which Jesus escapes from the Roman guards by doing a quick Three Stooges imitation. He then scales the prison wall with a rope and a grappling hook. When he reaches the top he lights a huge pot of boiling oil which creates a fireball that propels him through the sky "towards My Father." Afterwards, he awakens to find that it was "all a dream" and he is still in the middle of being scourged.

3) An alternate ending that takes place after Jesus is dead and buried. The sky turns from dark clouds to magnificent sunshine with a bright yellow beam focusing on the burial cave. God, in a voice over (Mel Gibson), shouts out, “GIVE ME BACK MY SON!” and Jesus ascends to the Heavens with a spectacular Grucci Brothers fire works show as a backdrop. The last shot is in a Roman palace where Pilate and his servant witness The Resurrection off in the distance and nod knowingly at each other.

I say "he" is making money because Mel is the one who is raking in a lot of the profits from all this marketing himself. I believe he put up the initial money because no studio believed in the project. I say good for him!!

He had a vision and followed through with it. You know there must have been a lot of Doubting Thomas' trying to talk him out of a Biblical production that is spoken all in Aramaic and Latin with English subtitles. Like the subject of his film, Mel must have taken many slings and arrows from a crowd of non-believers who ridiculed and condemned him but after the shekel count came in from the three day weekend it initially opened on, must have fell to their knees in front of him, begging for forgiveness and redemption, wanting to know what they could do to spread "the word."

Mel Gibson on the set

No wonder why Gibson himself supplied his own hands when they filmed the close-up shots of the crucifixion. He must have related. Come to think of it, that seems to be a running thread through many of Mel’s movies.

Remember the scene in Lethal Weapon (1987) where a recently rehabbed, wild eyed, Gary Busey, has Gibson strung up by his wrists, half naked, on a meat hook directly under running water. Busey than has a wild-eyed Asian guy torture him with, what seems to be a heart defiblirater. This scene goes on for awhile. I am starting to suspect that it was not in the script at all and Mel decided to improvise yelling “MORE! MORE!” after each shock with Busey nodding maniacally in the background, just happy for the work and the Asian guy wondering what the hell is wrong with these people.

There are also the physical abuses and torments his character takes in The Mad Max movies with the Gary Busey part played by everyone from a no-name Australian “leather bar boy” to Tina Turner. Particularly interesting in that series (I believe there were three of them) is the larger Gibson’s star and celebrity grew the more torture and degradation his character was put through. Normally, it is the other way around.

And then, of course, there is his directorial debut Braveheart (1995), whose final scene is a graphic 15 minute draw and quartering of the hero which is somewhat uncomfortable to watch. Based on a true story, the 13th century Scotch revolutionary William Wallace (Mel Gibson) gets strung up, de-bowled and beheaded all to the cheers of a blood thirsty English mob. It is most unpleasant. In fact, the only thing that makes the gruesomeness of this sequence tolerable is the strong sense that Mel is actually having fun.

Since I am not qualified to comment on his directorial job in "Christ," and I try not to get too involved in cheap shots anyway, let me mention a few things about Braveheart (1995).

I thought, overall, it was pretty good or at least entertaining and, in any event, kept my interest. It had a lot of elements I found interesting. First of all, it is about a time and chapter of history (The British conquest and subsequent rebellion of Scotland in the 1200s) that gets very little air time in the U.S. and, being a history buff, I immediately found that attractive. The costumes seemed authentic and well researched. The scenery was beautiful with wide sweeping pan shots of the Scottish countryside. The cast was filled with solid British character actors who all played their parts quite well. And how can you not love the idea of Patrick McGoohan (The Prisoner, 1963) as the scheming creepy English monarch Long Shanks? Hell, it won Best Picture for Caviezel’s sake!

I know I can be a real asshole sometimes when it comes to inaccuracies in historical dramas and, although I seem to be much more sensitive to mistakes than others, I try my hardest to “suspend belief” for the little anachronisms that pop up all the time in these kind of movies. I feel that looking for those kinds of foibles takes away from the overall meaning or point of the picture in question and is a counterproductive use of your time. You know what I am talking about. Things as varied as:

-Hey they didn’t have apples in that part of the world at that time; or

-That kind of rifle wasn’t invented yet; or

-That song wasn’t out at that time; or

-The F Train doesn’t stop at Union Street; etc.

You get the point. It is the equivalent of one of these “Family Values” movie reviewers whose idea of quality criticism is counting how many times a character says the word “fuck.”

With that being said, there is one HUGE thing Braveheart is completely wrong about. I found this on a legitimate Scottish history site:

The Actual Stirling Bridge

"On Sept. 11, 1297, the English army under John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, confronted Wallace near Stirling. Wallace's forces were greatly outnumbered, but Surrey had to cross a narrow bridge over the River Forth before he could reach the Scottish positions. Wallace's men lured the English into making an impulsive advance, and slaughtered them as they crossed the river. English fatalities are reported to have approached 5,000, gaining Wallace an overwhelming victory. He had shown not only that he was a charismatic leader and warrior, but also that his tactical military ability was strong. Never before had a Scottish army so triumphed over an English aggressor. Wallace captured Stirling Castle and for the moment Scotland was almost free of occupying forces."

Do you remember this scene from the movie? Was it shot, or sound, anything remotely like this accurate, and may I add, much more plausible version of events?

This is most distressing because I remember, when I first saw the movie years ago, beyond all the “Harlequin Romance” scenarios and dialogue that probably never happened (Who the heck knows what really happened, we’re talking 800 years ago!) I thought that the film’s strong suit, and what I most enjoyed about it, was the realistic depiction of a medieval battle. It seemed very well researched, shot on location and was unflinchingly violent enough for me to think I was getting some incite into long ago war tactics. I found it fascinating the way Gibson illustrated the distinct roles of the medieval archer, horse and pikemen. I trusted this scene was accurate.

Well, it wasn’t even close.

At the beginning of the movie, the narrator implies that all that you know is not necessarily true because, “History is written by the hang man.” An interesting observation to ponder, especially when you consider our own views on any number of historical figures. Who was a hero and who was a villain? What is progress and what is exploitation? Who was a terrorist and who was a freedom fighter?

But this axiom does not give Gibson carte blanche to completely rewrite history. In this particular case, the victor and the vanquished both agree on the location, tactics and result of this battle, a documented event that obviously was very important in Scottish/English history. In my opinion, artists should have a lot of wiggle room when it comes to historical point of view and sympathy but, when it comes to basic key facts, they should really stick to the script.

Sticks...check.
Kilts...check.
Celtic war paint...check.
Overwrought facials...check.
Wait a God Damn minute!

Where the fuck is the bridge?

Why was Mel Gibson exact and extremely meticulous when he researched, verified and filmed the methods employed during Wallace’s torture and execution but yet totally off the mark when presenting the defining moment in that man’s life?

If you can answer that question, you are well on your way to unraveling the “Riddle of the Briggs” as well as securing your own mental health and clarity.

Do Not Worship False Gods
Sixth Army