Originally Posted By: Capo de La Cosa Nostra
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.


Sorry, it is not directed wholly at you, you know, this spirit of Passion bashing, Gibson bashing or 300 bashing and so on, most of the time is tribal. grin But I didn't mean it to be directed at you specifically. svsg also didn't like it and he isn't British, I was merely ranting. Nowadays when you mention Gibson, people with their torches jump on the bandwagon if you know what I mean, which is very irritating. I merely pointed out a lot of it is tribal, rather than anything technical in the movie or directing.

Quote:
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.


Passion delivered. The base for this claim is how it was received by the Christians. Any religious matter maybe laughable to either you or me, but we couldn't be the judge of that. Using the local dialect could pass a movie as more authentic. I figure for the passion he needed this more than in Apocalypto, but in Apocalypto the dialogue was so scarce, it couldn't hurt the crowed interested in pure entertainment, also it could help make it more believable than our average thriller about the same subject in English language. And I really don't remember any yawns during Braveheart but it was many years ago, so I refrain from giving an opinion on that count just yet.

Quote:
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).


No of course you don't. Sorry about that, but I just couldn't resist. grin

Quote:
Because, as I've said, I'm not sure if the intentions behind each are the same... 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).

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.


Well, he tries to rise from the ordinary, that's for sure. And that's the reason he tries to seem more authentic by using the local language. But at the end of the day, doesn't he want to entertain as well? Wouldn't it be more dramatic if they throw spears like a pro? No, I don't mean just economic profit; I mean it being better received, though that's a side effect of it being more entertaining and engaging.

Quote:
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.


Very well, you gave some examples of what you consider more effective ways of showing violence. I'd be more interested that you take one of the scenes from Munich and tell me how you'd have arranged it to make it more effective. Take a pick, any of them that was more superficial to you.

"Fire cannot kill a dragon." -Daenerys Targaryen, Game of Thrones