The fact that he's an anti-semite in this age of "don't-criticize-Israel" makes him a BETTER filmmaker.

It is sheer nonsense to call a person anti-semite for making some critical remarks about Jews.

As a Jew, I thoroughly agree with the notion of separating the art from the artist--though sometimes that is part of what they are about in their art as well, and their bias can reflect the overall historical context they address.

I've seen "The Passion" and though it had compelling moments, I also think it was very fetishized a la "Mad Max" in its obsessiveness with--yes--violence. The blow by blow scenes of torture and brutality seemed a bit excessive and gratuitous to me. But on the other hand, the movie was about the Passion--and that's what the Passion was about. So I'm of two minds.

I don't know if I'd go so far in my praise of Gibson as being one of the great filmmakers--I'd have to see all his films to judge that more accurately.

I also think he spent scant time in Australia--I believe he grew up somewhere in the NY State region.

His father is anti-Semitic and proud of it, and I think some of this attitude has rubbed off on his son. But as you say, that is a separate issue from his skill as a filmmaker.

"Not for me the niceties of lightweights like Coppola and Scorsese."

I vehemently disagree with your notion that these directors are lightweights. I also tend to think that one would have to have a very wide range of exposure to film history to make an informed judgment over who is the "greatest" director of all time. And I don't think it's a contest anyway--there's room for plenty of greats in this medium.

Let's forget about Mel's little drunken tirade for a moment, and concentrate on his movies .. especially his acting

If we're talking crimes against humanity, let's start with all the Lethal Weapon films, followed by that Brit-bashing hokey epic The Patriot, We were Soldiers Once (what a crock), and last but not least, Braveheart - you can just imagine the Scots, to whom Wallace was a real hero, throwing up in their haggis as Mel speaks his immortal line on the gallows: "Freedom", in a half Australian/half American accent that never quite hit the right Glasgow notes.

No, Mel's real crime is the celluloid drivel he's inflicted upon us over the years.

Elvira: "I also think he spent scant time in Australia--I believe he grew up somewhere in the NY State region."

Elvira, I knew him here as he lived nearby. I still have his sleeping bag in my shed. He was born in upstate NY but his family arrived here in Sydney as immigrants when he was a young bloke, and he didn't leave permanently until he was in his 30s. Very much his formative years, if you like, but he always kept his US citizenship as in those days, you couldn't hold dual citizenship.

We all knew he was a bloody Yank, but you'd never have known it to hear him. He sounded pretty much true-blue in those days.

While I'm not a fan of the movies, I can say he's not a bad fella - for all his transgressions. I have accepted as fair dinkum the lamo I-was-on-the-piss excuse.

The one thing I CAN'T forgive him for is his shocking bloody acting and the mangling of American/Australian accents.

Elvira:
Coppola has made only two great movies (Godfather 1 and 2, and a near-great in Apocalypse Now) and Scorcese has made only one truly great movie, Raging Bull.

Their really small output of great puts them way below the likes of the more prolific greats Bergman, Ozu, Billy Wilder, John Ford, Kazan, Cassavetes, Bunuel, Dreyer, Fassbinder, Welles, Pasolini, Bresson, Kurosawa, Tarkovsky, Visconti, Rossellini, Godard or even someone not-so-great like Marco Ferreri.

Unlike these directors, they have also directed piles of journeyman work and heaps of utter crap.

In other words, they're lightweight.

Adam Ash.

Adam, i agree with most everything here. Certainly The Passion Of The Christ is among the very finest, most bizarre and compelling and unique films of the past twenty years. Apocalypto i was slightly less impressed by. The stand-out is certainly that march to the city, as you described up yonder. This, however, i don't really buy;
"The film critics didn't, for example, tell anyone that the movie gives you a detailed picture of a crumbling, religiously hysterical civilization, a metaphor for our own America today. Perhaps the best comment of any movie on our current political sickness."
I don't believe it DOES give a detailed picture of it at all, not that it serves as any worthwhile metaphor. It invites us to think that it does, and the Will Durant quote at the opening certainly helps, but there's actually very little in the film itself that justifies this. It gives no indication why the civilisation fell, it offers no commentary on the factors that went into it, and it never feels epic save for that trip through the forests and towns and villages which is, i agree, sublime.
A good chunk of Apocalypto is sublime, in fact, but not because it makes any notable comment on either that civilisation or our own. It's an amazing action film, and by God that's hard enough to come by these days, but it's not saying very much about anything.

Duke:
You make good points. You're right, Apocalypto does not give an exacting description of why the civilization crumbled.

But I do think the film is a metaphor for the US today.

What you see in the movie are young men needlessly sacrificed to buy the state some grace, and the peasantry's foolhardy belief in that. It also very much looks like the regime/upper classes are cynical about their manipulation of the peasantry with demagoguery.

Maybe the comparison isn't all that obvious, but as I watched the movie, I definitely thought of our young men (and women) being sacrificed in Iraq for some bogus communal purpose.
Adam Ash

Well stated, succinct, and extremely fair; this is indeed a rare find in a "critic" as most simply opine ("We all love the smell of our own brand...") instead of analyze. As a fan of Gibson's work (not the man, his WORK) I appreciate your honesty. I also adore the factual conclusion as to the condition of the "critic cesspool" as it (semi) functions these days. Long gone is the day of actual news analysis. It's all "this is what I think is happening"... My journalism professor is spinning like a freakin' top in his grave! Carry on.

Great article and so very true. The sad part about Gibson is that for over 25 years he has worked successfully with Jews and was known as Hollywood's Mr. Nice Guy. What Changed? He dared to make a movie that upset the media controlled Jewish establishment. Gibson has given to the Jewish Toward Tradition Charity for years, but is there any mention of that or any of the other great things he has down over the years. NO! Everyone is focusing on that one snap-shot in time and he's being judged for his whole life because of it.
The hypocrisy is disgusting.

In some countries, movies don't get screened simply because of the fact they revolve around Jews and are dismissed as Zionist Propaganda.

have you ever caught yourself sitting through a movie and saying "Man, what a dumb ending. How come he/she didnt get the girl. What happens after that. This is it. I would have killed him/her. Oh! how stupid, if it were me, i would have seen it coming! Run! Run!. That movie wasn't even good. There was no point to the movie. ETC."

The reason why i am here is, because some how i was thinking about "who am i?" and out of the blue Mel Gibson came to mind(of how me makes movies). What is he trying to do? I thought about it long and hard and when I thought I figured it out, I decided to come here.(BEFORE I SAW THIS SITE)

What if there was a GREAT filmmaker who was able to give you all of this?

If you ever noticed how you caught yourself saying one of the examples i set at the top, you surely would have probably said "it could have been better." But, what if it was what you wanted to see? What if, Mel Gibson gave you everything you wanted. Surely, I would have to say he has to stop making movies for his artistic ways to be recognized.

The reason why i love watching his movies is, because I've never seen a movie of his that never had all the elements to make a great film. People wanted to see death, he gave them death. People wanted to see love, he gave them love, he took everything and put it into one heart throbing, intensifing, action packed film. From alot of other movies i've watched they have lost this. In my honest opinion Mel Gibson has some of the best movies. He is what i call a REALIST/PURE. He is willing to tell you how he see's the real world. How things should be,but the majority of people is not willing to except truth. Thats what i think sets him apart from alot of filmmakers/actors. everybody is there for the fame/money. I honestly believe money and fame should come naturally, have fun doing what you love doing and fame/money will come, thats what sets leaders from followers.

MelGibson is great at what he does, but why does he show people what they want to see and get critized for it? he is truly in my opinion, a great artist. He set himself apart, not by manipulating human nature, but by showing who he really is. I believe when he makes his films, he gives it his all, whole heartedly, by knowing what people want, what they want to hear and see. Now that takes talent and honesty.

My Respects to everyones opinion, but this is my .02 Cents.

P.S.: oh how i see him make his films, is the way i see life. Forget following the bandwagon and be yourself. even for the good or bad. as long as your being yourself, thats all that matters. why get paid to live a lie when you can get paid to be yourself. "Mel gibson, i Honestly dont understand you, but as long as your movies make me feel something, thats all that matters."