March 07, 2007

Gibson to do it again

Mel Gibson may shoot two new moviesHollywood filmmaker Mel Gibson reportedly has his eyes set on two new movies, and he may soon visit locations in Panama for his next directorial effort.

According to the International Herald Tribune, Gibson and his son Edward met and dined with tourism spokesman and singer Ruben Blades recently.

At the same time, the paper reports that Panamanian filmmaker Jose Severino was in negotiations with Gibson to produce a movie about Spanish explorer Vasco Nunez de Balboa, the first European to see the Pacific Ocean from its eastern shore.


Rob said...

Produce another film featuring Mesoamerican Indians, obviously.

I didn't claim the proposed movie would be an artistic or financial success or failure. I merely noted that he's talking about doing it again.

Rob said...

And other people, like me, would judge the film on its merits. As I've done with Apocalypto.

Rob said...

Wrong again, Russ. When the film came out, I spent a lot of time and effort reading up on the Maya so I could judge it fairly. I spent much more time and effort than you did, I'll bet.

I judged the film on its merits as described by numerous critics and historical experts. If I had seen the film myself, I would've relied on the same critics and historical experts, just as I do with the films I do see. Why? For starters, because my opinion is only one opinion. If five or 10 or 20 people agree on something, their opinions are worth considering.

More important, because in matters of historical accuracy, I don't claim to be an expert--unlike you. I don't tout my opinions and "research" and fantasies as evidence that Gibson has produced an accurate movie. Instead, I go with the people who have actually studied the Maya. I think about their claims, weigh them, and judge them--again, unlike you.

There's never been a case where the critics of a Native movie got it wrong and I had to contradict them after seeing the movie. Why? Again, because I rely on a wide range of critics and evaluate their opinions carefully. Of course, it doesn't take a PhD to see a movie is full of stereotypes, though apparently it's a tough task for you. Any halfway decent critic could see Apocalypto's flaws and every halfway decent critic reported them.

In short, this is why I've criticized Apocalypto while you've swallowed its lies uncritically. When you've criticized as many stereotypical Native works as I have, then you can tell us about your critical acumen. Until then, I suggest you don't bother. You only look silly trying to pass off your fawning support of Gibson as "independent thinking."

Rob said...

No, I still haven't seen Apocalypto. I don't go to any films that are ultra-violent because 1) I don't like blood and gore, and 2) the blood and gore are almost always gratuitous. As in Apocalypto's case.

In other cases, I don't have time to see a Native film when it first comes out. Should I avoid reporting on a film like this and leave my readers wanting? No, I don't think so.

Rob said...

You forgot Saving Private Ryan. ;-)

You're almost correct. My pal Victor forced me to watch Tarantino's Kill Bill Vol. 1.

Luckily, there are so many good movies to see that I'll never run out of viewing material. My Netflix queue is growing rather than shrinking.

I doubt the blood and gore was gratuitous in movies such as Goodfellas, The Godfather trilogy, or Clint Eastwood's latest movies. I believe the critics when they say these films are superior.

By the way, the conscientious critic doesn't reveal a film's ending whether he's seen it or not.

Go to websites such as

to read about the racist subtext of 300.

I think it's amusing that everyone's talking about 300's Spartans fighting for freedom. People are thinking of Athens, obviously, not Sparta. Ruled by two hereditary kings, Sparta was more of a totalitarian state than a democracy. The 300 were fighting to serve one master rather than another.