More on the Mel Gibson post

I tried my upmost to not inject any personal invectives at the original author to whom I posted a retort. I find that presenting your case with a modicum of maturity gets the message across better, especially to someone you're unfamiliar with. But I have to say it is people like him who have precipitated this blog of mine. They have what I call "cinematic myopia". Their attention span is nil, they have no comprehensive view of cinema, its history, recurring themes, movements, genres, or knowledge of a certain director's/actor's idiosynchrasies. This gives him no frame of reference in which to compare the subtleties of Gibson's past performances with the one in Ransom. Neither can he discern the merely competent from the truly transcendent. I believe that if you are going to pontificate upon a certain thing or merely offer your opinion, make sure that you are INFORMED. The highest good that the movie Ransom, or my blog for that matter, can achieve is that is precipitates interest in diversifying your cinematic tastes as well as sharpening your critical acumen. Being able to critically analyze a film is akin to any other art form: you separate the individual elements, critique them, find major and minor themes and then expound on its overall coherence and cogency. Once you have this capacity, watching film can become a spiritual experience. Then, when you watch a masterful film, such as Schindler's List or Sideways, you feel it in the very marrow of your bones. It stimulates your mind and engages your heart. And, most importantly, it will stimulate conversation and debate because of the passion you feel for it. And what great conversations can occur!

My "Cinematical" post from 01/30

Ransom?! I have to say that I am more than a little shocked at this choice. Although I agree with the reviewer that Gibson is effective in it, I don't agree with his opinion that it is Mel Gibson's finest performance. In my opinion, it is only a minor entry in his vast body of work. If you want to see high caliber acting, and not just overwrought and manipulative emotional scenes, witness his daring performance in Franco Zeffirelli's 1990 film, Hamlet. The pedigree of actors who have essayed the role is astounding, ranging from Olivier's introspective turn to Branagh's more audacious, modern interpretation. Gibson brought pathos, energy and incredulity to the role that presages Branagh. Gibson's performance displays all the behavioral vagaries of youth- a wide-eyed incredulity, an unabashed sensitivity, as well as sporadic fits of rage. In fact, the scene when he lashes out in rage at his mother Gertrude for her carnal proclivities has the cathartic effect of the best Greek drama (Oedipus Rex comes to mind).

Gibson, I believe, did his best work in the eighties. He gave powerful performances in two films directed by the great Australian director Peter Weir. These films are Gallipoli and The Year of the Living Dangerously. The latter is the better known of the two because it costars Sigourney Weaver and another costar, the diminutive actress Linda Hunt, won the supporting actress Oscar for her role as male (yes that's right) wartime photographer Billy Kwan. In it, Gibson plays an Australian journalist in Indonesia who is reporting on the tumultuous events which occurred during Sukarno's presidency. The film contains powerful acting all around, cogent writing and direction, and some of the best uses of location ever in the history of cinema. Another not-so-well-known gem in Gibson's cannon is The Bounty from 1984. This is a a wonderful remake of "The Mutiny on the Bounty", beautiful as well as visceral. Both Gibson, as Fletcher Christian, and Anthony Hopkins, as Captain Bligh, are brilliant. The scene when he finally faces Hopkins and takes over the boat is a master class in acting and will send chills down your spine!

I now discuss Lethal Weapon with ambivalence. Yes, it is a powerful piece of acting, a beguiling blend of pathos and humor, but unfortunately, the complexity of his performance wasn't given its due respect. Admittedly, it made him a star and a household name, but excepting Hamlet, he really hasn't been given a role since that has flexed his acting chops. He seems now to be pigeonholed into playing the taciturn but sympathetic action hero. One sees abundant evidence of this in both Braveheart and the Patriot. Personally, I know that Mel Gibson is a gifted enough actor to give us something new, with delicate shadings, that we have hitherto not been privy. For evidence of this, watch the films he has directed such as The Passion of the Christ and Apocalypto. In his directing, he gives us depth, originality, and verisimilitude. It's about time we see it in his acting!

To return to Ransom, I believe that this is not a high point in Ron Howard's career either. From a man who has brought us Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind, and Frost/ Nixon, this is an exercise in skillful mediocrity. So, look at these films with Mr. Gibson and you will gain an appreciation for what he can do in front of the camera. I wish some filmmaker would disregard Gibson's personal rhetoric and other offscreen antics and give him a role that will utilize his considerable talents as an actor. It can be done. It is possible. Do you want proof? Okay...how about... THE WRESTLER with Mickey Rourke! 'Nuff said.

The reason for the whole damn thing

Matthew Arnold, the esteemed Victorian essayist and poet, writes in his Essays in Criticism: "It is undeniable that the exercise of a creative power, that a free creative activity, is the highest function of man...but it is undeniable, also, that me may have the sense of exercising this free creative activity in other ways than in producing great works of literature or art; if it were not so, all but a very few men would be shut out from the true happiness of all men." This is how the Mr. Arnold humbly justifies the role of a critic. I agree with it 100%. Critics, let's say of movies for the purposes of this blog, know that they do not possess the creative genius to make a film, but they still feel compelled to lend what creativity they do have to the artistic process by sharing with the world their very informed comments about it. A good critic's review should be a healthy admixture of enthusiasm and erudition, even if it is negative in nature. He/she should not tolerate or accept anything less in the prose he/she is offering to the public.

This is what I intend to achieve in my reviews. They will nitpick, they will dissect, but most of all they will INFORM. I also agree with the estimable Mr. Arnold that the ultimate goal of criticism should be "creating a current of true and fresh ideas"- the "true" being well-established,universal truths(criteria) and the "new" being of our own invention, the offspring of our own creative power. Shouldn't keeping this continuum, this current, continually flowing be the highest and desired end for blogging as well? We have the power to influence and disseminate our ideas anytime, anywhere and to a multitiude of people. If this is the case, then let's say something that's worth saying and that will excite and precipitate argument or what I like to call "productive palaver".

I will give you a visual that elaborates on what I'm trying to say. The website you will be taken to is entitled "At the Movies". It was formerly hosted by the two greats of film criticism, Roger Ebert and the late Gene Siskel. There are two new hosts now that can't hold a candle to their predecessors. That's why I suggest searching the archive for movies made up to 1999 (for both) or after for Ebert alone. When you see these two banter back and forth, you will see what I mean about the art of criticism. Both inject their rhetoric with enthusiasm, invective and erudition. And, above all, it is damn enjoyable to watch. This is what I will try to achieve in the written word on my blog.