by VorJack
Hemant reports that Christopher Hitchens is exhausted as a result of his chemo. But it’s not stopping him from turning in scathing articles like this one: Mel Gibson Isn’t Just an Angry Narcissist. The gist of it is that Gibson’s meltdown is easiest to explain if you simple accept that he’s an anti-Semite and a racist, but no one is seems to be talking about that conclusion.
(I like John Cole’s summary better: “Hitchens may have cancer, but he can still kick Braveheart’s ass.”)
We live in a culture where the terms fascist and racist are thrown about, if anything, too easily and too frequently. Yet here is a man whose every word and deed is easily explicable once you know the single essential thing about him: He is a member of a fascist splinter group that believes it is the salvation of the Catholic Church.
[...]
Yet I still saw a report the other day about a fan site where the members were just beginning to ask, “What’s with him?” Why is there this reluctance to call something by its right name? It’s not as if Gibson was issuing a cry for help. On the contrary, what he is issuing is the distilled violence, cruelty, and bigotry—and sexual hypocrisy—that stretches from the Crusades through the Inquisition to the “concordats” between the church and Hitler and Mussolini. Yet he’s still reporting for work. When will Hollywood, and the wider society, finally decide to shun and spurn him utterly, both for what he is and for what he represents?
My guess is that Hitchens thinks that this in another case of the deference shown to religion; many people are unwilling to blame the schismatic sect of Gibson’s father for instilling Gibson with his paranoia, anti-semitism and racism.
But part of me is wondering if this isn’t another case of the “Polanski effect.” Is it maybe that people are unwilling to call out the “genius” behind the Passion of Christ for being a racist, the same way they’re unwilling to just admit that Polanski is a rapist on the run from justice? And if so, why?
“But part of me is wondering if this isn’t another case of the “Polanski effect.” Is it maybe that people are unwilling to call out the “genius” behind the Passion of Christ for being a racist”
YOU hit the nail on the head! Thank you VorJack!
I admit to being a bit confused by Mel’s behavior in recent years, myself. Is this the same person who was in The Year of Living Dangerously, which was chock-full of Indonesian Muslims? Or who made Apocalypto, with and entire cast of Mexicans and all the best and worst of human qualities on display? The latter movie could be considered an indictment of all religion. Once the protagonists escape the pagan sacrifice, Cortez’ gang arrives, and the viewer knows that the murder mill is about to start up again, this time with burning at the stake by Catholics.
Anyway, I wonder what Tina Turner and Danny Glover are thinking. Methinks it’s time to scan for a brain tumor or alcohol-related decay.
“Cortez’ gang arrives, and the viewer knows that the murder mill is about to start up again, this time with burning at the stake by Catholics.”
I actually kinda got the impression that apocalypto was as much a catholic propaganda piece as passion. I think mel’s entire intended message with that movie was “look at what these heathens were doing before the nice catholics showed up to baptize them”.
Been saying this since Braveheart – it was pure anti-English hatred in a tin, besides being hideously inaccurate (read: a complete fabrication). It annoys me that in Britain his whole n-word speech received no coverage at all – we’re not a racist nation on the whole (chavs aside) and he’d stop selling films here real quick if it was reported.
I read the Slate comments on Hitchens’ article- one of the funniest was some guy named Ridley saying the English “tribe” had gone rotten about a thousand years ago. (So it’s a good thing the Normans conquered them, huh?) Genealogy is not my strong suite, but I’m pretty sure that everyone in the British Isles was a mix of Celt, Saxon, and Scandinavian by the 15th century. Anyone named Ridley or Gibson has certainly got some “English” in them.
I’m not a major Gibson fan, but I loved Braveheart and The Passion of the Christ. I’m not a Christian, but I think POTC had some good elements. As with Braveheart, a lot of it was exagerrated or fabricated, but not completely from what I heard. Plus a lot of English people enjoyed the film, so I don’t know how far you can say it’s ‘pure anti-English hatred in a tin’.
Because even then Gibson was known for despising the English people.
I have lost all respect for Mel, and like Polanski, refuse to see anything of his because he is an a$$hole.
ps. My loss of respect started with the Passion of the Christ. That movie is ridiculously bad imo.
“But part of me is wondering if this isn’t another case of the “Polanski effect.” Is it maybe that people are unwilling to call out the “genius” behind the Passion of Christ for being a racist”
I don’t see how anyone who saw that or Apocalypto didn’t immediately realize what a racist prig he was. I miss the the Mel Gibson that did funny behind the scenes specials when new Lethal Weapon flicks came out. But that Mel Gibson is clearly long gone and I’m willing to call the spade what it is.
Yep. He’s a racist, misogynistic relic.