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.