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!