You know you are.
I'm sure the anger and the nastiness are due to his huge ego. Which we all know he has. I'm guessing the success of Braveheart had something to do with how far he has taken things now. That without it, he would never have attempted The Passion of the Christ.
The hidden tone in the message I linked to really is, "what has happened to this country? It's changed and I don't like it!" He basically tells her you ruin my time out of the house (he says it's an embarrassment to be seen in public with her) and if she goes out without him, she'll be raped. So in his mind, he's telling her you have to do things my way or else.
And what is his way? That's what I wanted to hear people's opinions on. The situation in the tape. And if people think he's only treating her this way because she's really out of control (is there any truth in what he's saying? That's
why I started this thread), I'd like to hear about that. What it really sounds like is that she could try, but he'd never let her get a word in edgewise. She's acting mousy and he's ranting (which implies; A- like a lunatic, or B- to incite violence / so, I'm glad you removed yesterday's reply which accused me of those things- I appreciate it) and some people hopelessly end up in bad relationships.
And of course we know how hip it is to dress like a hooker. So is he justified in his demand that she show him some more respect by not dressing in whorey clothing to get attention? Is he calling out Vegas "Whores" because he thinks no women should dress like that, or that it's fine as long as she doesn't do it too? He sure seemed angry enough at these people whom he didn't even know.
That's another reason I started this thread. Who's to say the reason he has taken out his anger on the people he has (in this private message as well as his very public movies) is not because of these personal problems he has? He obviously doesn't know very much about history or culture if he not only makes these statements but portrays groups of people in movies like Passion of the Christ so insultingly as such one-dimensional baddies that one has to imagine he did it to incite anger and outrage himself. Toward people who he thinks would take it personally.
One last thing about his ego (on a lighter note)... I did some critic-al reading today on his films. And he did in-fact play the main character in Braveheart as though he were Jesus Christ. That is certainly relevant to his attitude. From one review I found very helpful:
"Almost 12 years since its surprise Oscar victory, Mel Gibson's first epic exercise in bloodletting remains the most hilariously sexed-up piece of pap to ever take home the golden statue. Totally oblivious to itself, Braveheart is the ultimate ode to unspoken man-on-man love, its action sequences shot like a perpetual cock tease of penetrations and thwackings before the climactic war-cry cum shot. Which isn't to say that Gibson's own William Wallace doesn't melt in the presence of the woman he loves—rightfully so, given her heavenly splendor, a virtue the film has no idea what to do with—but there's something implicitly queer in the film's overexerted masculine camaraderie, in which buddies toss boulders at each other for sport and even the thrusting of a white hot steel prong into one's chest (so as to remove the head of an equally phallic arrow) is just another post-battle annoyance."
Gee... now I really wonder what was rolling around in Mel's subconscious when he said this in an interview almost 2 decades ago:
"With this look, who's going to think I'm gay? I don't lend myself to that type of confusion. Do I look like a homosexual? Do I talk like them? Do I move like them?"
Just to remind people of the beliefs he chose to make public. Now, he's a celebrity. And celebrities and politicans are a bit alike (to hopefully show you how those seeds you said I sowed are, in fact, related). We have the power to give them fame. And we have the power to take it away. Which we have done (for example; Michael Richards and Rosie O'Donnell). Some of them choose to make statements about what they consider to be the truth and the world around us. And some people have been utterly irresponsible with that job. Thus, I end with a quote from a very good review of Passion of the Christ:
"The Passion is the definitive George W. Bush feature, and can be noted as a product of its time. If not explicitly anti-Semitic, Gibson's images imply that everyone who disagrees with Jesus (or participated in his death) has got another thing coming, and anyone who questions why they should believe in his sense of justice ought to seriously contemplate changing their mind—even though the film posits absolutely no justification for loving or following Jesus. Or maybe you should follow this Christ because the Jews are so cowed and cruel, the Romans are vicious or inept or drunk, the homosexuals are mindless pigs, the women are so deferential with their perpetually lowered eyes, and if Christ is the only viable image of manhood and heroism in sight, then you'd better get down on your knees."
Actually, I'm not done quite yet... I would have said this yesterday had you left up that first reply
I sure didn't start this thread as a plea for us to help this guy. If anything I did it to kick him (and by that I mean, his image) now that he's quite low down. But I'm not saying I won't accept opposing points of view, should they for example argue that Gibson was a victim of the system that taught us the values he was preaching. I don't believe in pure evil. That's only for fairy tales, fantasy, and Disney (where it can be fun, the forces of played up for coping mechanisms). I believe every person who preaches bad values has their vulnerable spot (not good side- vulnerable spot). And that our real-life, modern day villains (of which there are certainly some Democrats in the pile) are at worst, pathetic. Like Mel Gibson.
4 Disney Atmosphere Images