RSS Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 This month sees Hey, an Actor! profile one of Hollywood's topmost A-listers from the end of the 20th century: Mel Gibson. The Brothers Wilson combine to chart the rise, fall, and partial resurgence of one of their most controversial subjects to date, with a particularly lengthy discussion about career resurrection and redemption. And as this is also a movie podcast in part, the episode covers Gibson's American breakthrough hit Lethal Weapon, the baffling pinnacle of his career in Braveheart, and the almost perversely insightful career doldrums movie The Beaver. (No sniggering at the back!) There's also some drunken insight into Lethal Weapon from The Orgs, whilst Ian dusts off his history hat to rip Braveheart a new one in terms of historical accuracy and why it is emblematic of today's post-truth society. [ 3:07:04 || 90.2 MB ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 Hey! It's hell being Mel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveJRogers Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 I’d imagine this is a 24 minute version of Ian’s Braveheart rant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveJRogers Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 One thing that does bear mentioning in terms of Mel Gibson's attempts at rehabilitation, is that it kind of shines a bit of a light on what Hollywood allows you to come back from. Trying to be delicate here, and BTW, Donovan's podcast Questions We Don't Have Answers delves into celebrity rehab (not to be confused with the reality TV program where celebs check themselves into substance abuse rehab centers) in an interesting episode, but Mel Gibson was up for a silly cameo role in the Hangover sequel. I forget who ended up getting the role, but when it was announced the cast all put their foot down and said that they wouldn't work with Gibson. Which is fine, and within their rights to pull such a power play, BUT, they seemed more than willing to interact with a convicted rapist and possibly psychotic human being in Mike Tyson in the previous Hangover movie. Though I guess to be fair, that was their first movie together, so I'd guess they didn't have a lot of veto power when it came to who to bring in for a cameo shot. But just so we are clear, guy goes on alcohol fueled and anti-Semitic meltdowns, and they are the scourge of the Earth and absolute pariah. Guy is convicted of rape, God knows what else he's done to women he's encountered, literally bit an opponent's ear in a shoot boxing match, but because he's did his time and all that was years in the past, as well as having a silly voice and is quite possible insane, he can find work in a screwball comedy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teenalphabro Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 I don't really have a good answer to that beyond the statement of, 'they're both shitty people who should absolutely never get work after the things that they've said and done.' Cause frankly, they're both shitheads, just in different ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothian Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 Having just finished that YouTube video (I've not previously come across this channel) he does touch on a number of points that I do (and some I missed) whereas I've added a few more. 1 hour ago, SteveJRogers said: One thing that does bear mentioning in terms of Mel Gibson's attempts at rehabilitation, is that it kind of shines a bit of a light on what Hollywood allows you to come back from. Trying to be delicate here, and BTW, Donovan's podcast Questions We Don't Have Answers delves into celebrity rehab (not to be confused with the reality TV program where celebs check themselves into substance abuse rehab centers) in an interesting episode, but Mel Gibson was up for a silly cameo role in the Hangover sequel. I forget who ended up getting the role, but when it was announced the cast all put their foot down and said that they wouldn't work with Gibson. Which is fine, and within their rights to pull such a power play, BUT, they seemed more than willing to interact with a convicted rapist and possibly psychotic human being in Mike Tyson in the previous Hangover movie. Though I guess to be fair, that was their first movie together, so I'd guess they didn't have a lot of veto power when it came to who to bring in for a cameo shot. But just so we are clear, guy goes on alcohol fueled and anti-Semitic meltdowns, and they are the scourge of the Earth and absolute pariah. Guy is convicted of rape, God knows what else he's done to women he's encountered, literally bit an opponent's ear in a shoot boxing match, but because he's did his time and all that was years in the past, as well as having a silly voice and is quite possible insane, he can find work in a screwball comedy. This is very much what we touched upon in the recap, without citing this specific example - we actually bring up a past email of yours re: Christian Bale/Samuel L. Jackson. For the record, I do think that actually assaulting people, be it physical or sexual, is worse than verbally abusing a person/people/race, however abhorrent the slur. So I absolutely think that Tyson is a worse human being than Gibson is, although it's very much a "lesser of two evils" discussion - decrying Tyson more does not mean I like Gibson. Then again, I do think The Hangover cast putting their foot down on a moral level re: Gibson is hypocritical; cynically, the more convincing rationale is that they recognized that he was box office poison at the time and used his reputation as the reason to pull rank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveJRogers Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 3 hours ago, slothian said: Having just finished that YouTube video (I've not previously come across this channel) he does touch on a number of points that I do (and some I missed) whereas I've added a few more. LOL! Just heard you guys put the call out for "any more inaccuracies to add!" Glad to have obliged, even if I hadn't heard it before I did! That's a great channel, History Buffs, discussing various historical movies. Including one of the very first films of a certain HA subject who I know neither one of you would dare do your imitation of =;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donomark Posted October 4, 2017 Report Share Posted October 4, 2017 Like Steve said, there's an episode of my podcast Questions: We Don't Have Answers that's very much about Celebrities effing up and how we, the audience, appreciate their work after the fact. https://qnoanswers.com/2016/08/26/do-celebrities-who-torpedo-their-personas-deserve-second-chances/ An episode we did just the other week is somewhat similar, talking specifically about Louie CK's bizarre sex abuse allegations and the recent thing with Joss Whedon and Kim Cole. https://qnoanswers.com/2017/09/22/celebrities-their-opinions-and-callout-culture/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mockery Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 I'd like to nominate Ian's 15 point historically accurate, verbal punishment beating of Braveheart as a moment of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teenalphabro Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 As would I. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc20willsave Posted October 5, 2017 Report Share Posted October 5, 2017 Same! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
You Know Who Posted October 6, 2017 Report Share Posted October 6, 2017 Fourthed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donomark Posted October 6, 2017 Report Share Posted October 6, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
You Know Who Posted October 6, 2017 Report Share Posted October 6, 2017 Well, that’s that Tomlinson Award decided. A suggestion for Liam Neeson month: Review Rob Roy for the purpose of comparison with Braveheart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted October 8, 2017 Report Share Posted October 8, 2017 Brilliant stuff Ian, you made me laugh aloud in a Morrison's. On Mel, he is clearly an actor and director of talent. I wouldn't be in favour of his censure on grounds of ideological contrasts or anything like that. He's done plenty over his career that is impressive of both fronts. However I'm also not of the opinion that a person is owed a position of power through past fame. What does "letting him back in" mean? The public don't owe his adulation and stardom. If he lost that of his own accord is it lost and frankly losing it for good isnt unreasonable. He can make a living as he is, he's not destitute, if he is that's his own fault. He doesn't need to be allowed to stand up at awards shows or make speeches or any of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.