Mel Gibson as a Director

Hi all, just thought I'd start a topic about this.

In my opinion, Braveheart & Passion of the Christ are classics he made and Apocolypto is just as good. I just finished watching it and I gotta say Mel sure knows how to get inside your soul. These are the only 3 movies I have ever shed tears over being the big tough man I am I really liked it and even though he portrayed the Aztecs as savages I think we have to understand it is his creativity on the screen and it's not meant to be 100% accurate.

He is an ok director.
Braveheart was alright but suffered from very bad editing.
Don't know if it was Mel's fault or not but if he was a good director he would have smacked the guy that did it and told him to redo it.
Passion of the christ was a horrible movie.
That Mel hates Jews and get sexual pleasure from pain is well known but he didn't have to make a movie because of it.
Apocalypto is IMO his best movie.
Far from a accurate movie I still found it to be a enjoyable movie.
Also it's the mayans, not the aztecs.

Braveheart is the only one of his movies I have seen, good as an action film, horrible as an historic film. An insult to both history and Scotland. Robert the Bruce as a traitor, kilts and Bannockburn fought at a friggin grass plain???

Originally Posted by Hansa

Braveheart is the only one of his movies I have seen, good as an action film, horrible as an historic film. An insult to both history and Scotland. Robert the Bruce as a traitor, kilts and Bannockburn fought at a friggin grass plain???

Robert the Bruce served his own interest -as did all who aspired to the throne, be it Engilsh, Scottish etc. Rulership and power is the driving force for the social elite, not patriotism. There are many historians who believe the Bruce was directly responsible for Wallace's apprehension, so to that affect Gibson toned him down a little. Also, the Bruce's ancestry is Norman, and his forefathers were granted land in England and southern Scotland during William the Bastard's conquest, as were many blue blood Scottish families. Kilts existed at this time, but not tartans. You are mistaking Banockburn for Stirling, which was indeed erroneously portrayed in the movie, as it was a victory gained while the English were attempting to cross stirling bridge.
Wallace himself actually hails from lowland country, and would not have worn highland garb.
Gibson has done well with all his movies, taking into account the restraints one has within hollywood. Braveheart actually breathed life into the historical movie genre, as there was little interest amongst target margets from the 80's and 90's. For the chap who said Gibson hates jews and derives sexual pleasure from pain, well, the jews have their own share of racists themselves and Gibson owes no apology for portraying the Passion as it is described in the bible. So commence having a tantrum and sending me negative rep - meep meep

In Gibson's movie, any historical accuracy is strictly coincidental. Braveheart is a great action movie, but a horrible history lesson. All the Medieval history professors at my university love to bash every single aspect of that flick. There are many historical facts that Gibson ignores. Here's a short list:

- Wallace was not a simple farmer. He was a nobleman.
- The marriage between Edward II and Eleanor was, by all accounts, a happy one.
- Stirling Bridge was a Scottish victory, but they only defeated the English vanguard. The rest of the English army simply walked away.
- The Battle of Bannockburn was fought in a MARSH.
- Scots never painted themselves blue.

Originally Posted by IronBrig4

The marriage between Edward II and Eleanor was, by all accounts, a happy one.

She had a lover and arranged the death of her husband. This is not what I call a happy couple.

Originally Posted by Pelayo

She had a lover and arranged the death of her husband. This is not what I call a happy couple.

Whoops, I got mixed up. Edward the FIRST (Longshanks) had two remarkably happy marriages. After his first wife Eleanor of Castile died, he didn't remarry for nearly a decade. By all accounts, his second marriage to Marguerite was similarly tranquil despite their difference in years.

Yeah the battle at Stirling bridge was fought on a grassy plain.
What was Mel thinking ??
I bet he was drunk.

Surely Braveheart was awfully inaccurate and Mel took "some" freedoms, but it's still a great movie IMO. I haven't seen the Passion, and don't want to. I'm just not interested, especially when I saw the reviews..
I'm going to see Apocalypto however, and maybe then I can decide if he really is a great director..

I'm sure it was the Aztects?? I looked up in wiki and saw the same sacrifices done by the Aztects with graphic pictures, I could be mistaken though.

And of course they will never be accurate but to be honest he knows how to make a good action movie wether or not it's historicly accurate. Passion was gory I agree and depicted the jews in a bad way but doesn't the bible see them as the 'christ killers' ? Sorry if anyone is offended it's not my belief, I am not very religeous but I do believe in God/Something greater than myself.

Even in Alexander for example, the battle sceenes wasn't too bad, but I disliked that they focused heavily on him being homosexual/bisexual alot of the time. I think sexual prefrences back in those days was the least of our worries, but anyway.

I think with Apocolypto he stepped it up a notch and it's a true big screen movie.

Originally Posted by zinrohk

I'm sure it was the Aztects?? I looked up in wiki and saw the same sacrifices done by the Aztects with graphic pictures, I could be mistaken though.

The Mayans did it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_sacrifice

If you scroll down it will show the picture just like in the movie

Originally Posted by zinrohk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_sacrifice

If you scroll down it will show the picture just like in the movie

Well, while you're on wikipedia, check the movie itself to see which peoples he's portraying:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypto

Yup, the Maya.

I visted the Altun Ha runins in Belize last December, simply amazing stuff. There are Maya ruins everywhere. What an immense civilization it was!

ahh, so did the mayans and the aztecs do human sacrifices??

I was a bit dissapointed they didn't show more temples and a bigger city for eye candy

He makes good, controversial movies, and they sell. What more do you want from a director if you're a movie studio?

If you wanna go historically, they were Aztecs. The sacrifices and savage portrayal is rather accurate towards them. In fact part of the reason the natives sided with the Spanish and fought for them was to get back at the tyrannical Aztecs.

Originally Posted by The Sword of Cao Cao

If you wanna go historically, they were Aztecs. The sacrifices and savage portrayal is rather accurate towards them. In fact part of the reason the natives sided with the Spanish and fought for them was to get back at the tyrannical Aztecs.

That´s correct. The aztecs shocked terribly the spanish conquistadores. There are some interesting accounts on witnessing human sacrifices by spanish soldiers of the time. It must have been like seeing hell on earth, and many conquistadores considered their spititual mission to save those people from themselves by converting them to Christianity. Better than gods that demand hundreds, if not thousands of sacrifices each year as a prize for not destroying the world, right? It´s amusing how some people say conquistadores were bloody fanatics that destroyed an entire, peaceful civilization. Somebody tell me the numbers of native population in south and central america compared to that of north america.

I´ve seen Apocalypto this very evening and I must say it´s a very good film. I recommend it to anyone who reads this. It just gets to your heart.

Mell G. is great ... i love all his movies (as a director and as an actor!)
about mayas and Aztects... they are culturally very similar and they have all done sacrefises!

Originally Posted by Sitarus Originalus PM-30+

about mayas and Aztects... they are culturally very similar and they have all done sacrefises!

Not really.
While they both did human sacrifices, mayans never did it in the scale shown in the movie.
Aztecs did that.
And when the mayans did, they only sacrificed royalty that were prisoners of war. They certainly didn't go to villages to pick random people.
The most common mayan ritual was bloodletting(think that is what it is called) where they simply pierced through a certain part of the body.

Personally I can understand why archeologist and anthropologists are insulted.
While Mel never claimed his movies to be accurate(except the passion) people will think that mayans were nothing but a brutal people.
If Mel had simply done this about the Aztecs it would have been better and fitted alot more then it does now.
It will take the experts years to undo the damage he has done.

Originally Posted by TB666

Not really.
While they both did human sacrifices, mayans never did it in the scale shown in the movie.
Aztecs did that.
And when the mayans did, they only sacrificed royalty that were prisoners of war. They certainly didn't go to villages to pick random people.
The most common mayan ritual was bloodletting(think that is what it is called) where they simply pierced through a certain part of the body.

Personally I can understand why archeologist and anthropologists are insulted.
While Mel never claimed his movies to be accurate(except the passion) people will think that mayans were nothing but a brutal people.
If Mel had simply done this about the Aztecs it would have been better and fitted alot more then it does now.
It will take the experts years to undo the damage he has done.

Yeah but those were Aztecs. There is no way around it.

Just see the movie please. Dont argue with me.

Those WERE Aztecs.