MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Everything I Ever Needed To Know I Learned On The View

Of course… a gross exaggeration

16 Responses to “Everything I Ever Needed To Know I Learned On The View”

  1. Campbell says:

    A large donation to the AFL might be in order for Mr. Gibson, both for PR’s sake and to show repentance for his truly despicable (as he admitted) comments.

    That considered, I’m sickened by the response more than I am the incident itself. First of all, the biggest sin he committed was not his drunken rantings, but the fact that he drove drunk. Since when do we punish people for their words more than their actions?

    And as for all this ‘in vino, veritas’ crap, well it may very well reveal what’s at the core of our hearts. But anybody who thinks that they’re so devoid of malice or prejudice at their core is a hypocrite. And we’d all better be thankful that either a) we’re not famous enough for anyone to care about the worst things we’ve said, or, b) should we be famous, our comments haven’t been reported, leaked, and editorialized. If we’re holding people responsible for the things they say when they’re drunk (and printing them in the paper), we might want to think about reinstating prohibition.

    A celebrity with a drinking problem drove drunk. That’s the only news here.

  2. Nicol D says:

    The hypocrisy of Hollywood is astounding.
    What Gibson said was horrible, but as one person said on another blog, this is a town that worshipped Don Simpson and created a hero of Roman Polanski.
    Marlon Brando in 1979 in Playboy said:
    “You’ve seen every single race besmirched, but you never saw an unfavorable image of the Kike because the Jews were ever so watchful for that. They never allowed it to be shown on screen.”
    On Larry King in 1996 Marlon Brando said:
    “Hollywood is run by Jews; it is owned by Jews, and they should have a greater sensitivity about the issue of — of people who are suffering. Because they’ve exploited

  3. CouchJumper says:

    No, I have never uttered racist or such hateful comments while under the influence of alcohol. I ‘ve said stupid things but not the type of things Gibson said, not even close. Stop making excuses for Gibson for his deplorable acts. He’s sorry he got caught and that now everyone knows his true feelings and thoughts. I wonder what these same people excusing Gibson and saying people are making amountain out of a molehill would be saying if say it was Tom Cruise who said these things.

  4. palmtree says:

    “Context is everything.”
    Indeed. I think what makes Mel’s words more shocking then they would otherwise be is that two years ago he made the case to everyone that there was not a single anti-semitic bone in his conservative Christian body. Now, all those promises seem to be broken within that context. It would be different if he didn’t deny those sentiments to begin with.

  5. David Poland says:

    You have some reasonable points, Nicol… then you go over the edge of the cliff.
    Do you really think that they have to cheat a reaction to get people to laugh at or show anger towards Mr. Gibson?
    And in the decade before his death, Brando only made 3 movies. He hardly had a thriving career. Besides which, he had a point in those interviews. He offered a one-sided view, as The Hollywood of the Jews didn’t make movies about nice jews either. But yes, Hollywood slurred a lot. And Walt Disney slurred everyone, including the jews, endlessly.
    But you, Nicol, need to get some perspective on who Mel Gibson is. A major movie star. A major director in the early part of his directing career, perhaps. A renegade. Very wealthy. And he lives in Hollywood… a Hollywood in which neither jews nor homosexuals nor sugar-titted women are in small numbers or shy about asserting themselves.
    I don’t feel that boycotts against The Passion were appropriate… nor against The Last Temptation of Christ. But if you have a choice of working with someone you know hates you or not, what choice would you make? The movie business is no one

  6. Eric says:

    Nicol, for somebody who professes to be appalled by hypocrisy, you are certainly working overtime to defend an anti-semite who disingenuously denied his own obvious prejudices on the way to $350 million at the box office.

  7. Me says:

    Am I the only one who would really like to see Mel use this rage in another Mad Max movie?

  8. Lota says:

    Nicol you do NOT speak for Hollywood, so knock it off. Most people know what Polanski did was wrong, period.
    I think Mayans are a compelling enough subject that I would want to the see the movie, but Mel would directly profit if I paid because of how the movie is financed etc. so I can’t pay to see it.
    Mel can have whatever beliefs he wishes, but he seems to have alot of influence to encourage people to hate and malign–Proof of that to me were the incredible comments I heard coming out of a midnight free screening of POTChrist, which I won’t repeat here. I am not a practicing catholic and part Jewish too, but a friend took me on her parish’s trek. (heck it was free). The remarks made after the movie were not about any aspect of the production except “the Jews”, and were hurtful crazy things. Mel induced hate from his movie as far as I saw (saw it twice free) and this current situation now is further turn-off–I don;t want to donate to his “causes” which is what you do if he receives profits.
    If what TMZ has are legit transcriptions…makes me glad Baba said what she did.
    If you have hundred of millions of dollars to spend you are a very influential person, that IS the sad material issue really, he’s not just another bigot who can’t shut his trap. He’s a 50 yr old demagogue who has influenced many people with his inventions on history.
    Like they were saying in England when Mel was insisting with his crocodile tears that he wasn’t anti-Semetic “Jesus…get off the cross–Mel needs the wood”.

  9. Lota says:

    By the way, Campbell–yeah drunk driving is the issue, especially since he may have been “let loose” in the past. I don;t think nayone is denying that.
    The biggest issue of concern is how the Police departments in the TMZone are treating well-to-do/celebrity patrons, and Why is there this inconsistency–and an “edited” police report if that is true, will not bolster anyone’s faith in police to keep the community safe.
    Mel can say what he likes but I don;t have to help his profits.

  10. David Poland says:

    Let’s not forget that someone at the police department linked official documents to a gossip website. Happy we know… but would you like to have that done to you if you were in trouble with the police?

  11. Arrow77 says:

    “Michael Moore said Israel was one of the true axis of evil…but he gets a free pass from Hollywood.”
    I just thought I’d point that out: criticizing Israel isn’t any more anti-semitic than criticizing Georges W. is anti-american. Israel represents Israel, not all the Jewish community.

  12. jeffmcm says:

    What Holllywood celebrity is Nicol accusing of ‘raping young women with coat hangers’? Fatty Arbuckle? And is he actually referring to rape or to another controversial activity?

  13. Lota says:

    Well I don;t know Dave. To be honest if I needed help and wasn;t getting it (rehab) I think a leak would be the best thing for me in I were in Mel’s boots. Maybe he will dry out and get therapy in remorse. If he were dinged for a DUI without the media circus would he get as much help and be as contrite as he claims to be now? Dunno bout that. Acoholism requires rock bottom embarassment before recovery usually and it is pretty hard for someone so wealthy to hit rock bottom. This has to be rock bottom for MG.
    Secondly there is a reported possibility of cover up, alteration or concealment of facts–so yes, a leak is necessary or we get no progress in Law Enforcement.
    Mel didn;t commit murder. BUT he could have with his car if he has been allowed to drive recklessly or drunk in the past–that’s disturbing.
    I suspect whoever the leaker was may have been seriously bent out of shape by possibly being asked bend rules for MG and maybe that person has been asked to do this too many times for Celebs and was fed up, rather than wanting to embarass MG specifically.
    “Leaks” are good when they draw attention to deficiencies in public safety and how the Law is enforced or Not enforced by John/Jane Law.
    “Leaks” are bad when it is assholes trying to get photos of Suri Cruise–that’s a heinous invasion of privacy matter.

  14. Dr Wally says:

    “A large donation to the AFL might be in order for Mr. Gibson, both for PR’s sake and to show repentance for his truly despicable (as he admitted) comments.”
    That’s not at all out of the question. Didn’t Mel make a big show out of meeting with GLAAD representatives a few years back, enraged by Braveheart’s nelly prince getting turfed out the window, and by the homophobe jokes in the Lethal Weapon sequels? He has at least shown himself to be publicly penitent in the past is all.

  15. Cain says:

    “I just thought I’d point that out: criticizing Israel isn’t any more anti-semitic than criticizing Georges W. is anti-american. Israel represents Israel, not all the Jewish community.”
    Indeed. I would even contend that claiming Israel’s murderous policies are instrinsically Jewish — whatever THAT means — is grossly anti-Semitic. Not all Jews support that regime, its violations of international law etc. /politics
    A couple people mention Tom Cruise, who has been getting shit on for the last two years because he — OH MY GOD — jumped on Oprah’s couch. He has nutty views about drugs, but people seem to forget that his “attack” (criticism) of Brook Shields was not initiated out of the blue (like Gibson’s anti-Semitic remarks). Shields had written a book discussing her travails.
    These incidents are usually used as a pretext to justify a pre-existing hatred for X celebrity. However, in Gibson’s case there was always a cloud of suspicion that has now been confirmed.
    Yes, the media has blown it out of proportion. I can’t say I give a shit. But the media ALWAYS blows this stuff out of proportion. If Michael Moore had made these gross comments you can expect the right-wing blogosphere, talk radio, and the conservative press would be all over him. That’s not the case here. Instead right-wing apologists are resigned to relative silence, or observing the disproportionate coverage.

  16. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    “Even better, they are in a relatively loose forum, so they expose themselves in a different way than, say, network morning news show hosts, normally do.”
    I’m surprised nobody picked up on that!
    I still don’t think this is gonna be that much of a story after a few months or so. And if Apocalypto makes money then all the headlines will read “Have We Forgiven Mel?” or whatever.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

This is probably going to sound petty, but Martin Scorsese insisting that critics see his film in theaters even though it’s going straight to Netflix and then not screening it in most American cities was a watershed moment for me in this theatrical versus streaming debate.

I completely respect when a filmmaker insists that their movie is meant to be seen in the theater, but the thing is, you got to actually make it possible to see it in the theater. Some movies may be too small for that, and that’s totally OK.

When your movie is largely financed by a streaming service and is going to appear on that streaming service instantly, I don’t really see the point of pretending that it’s a theatrical film. It just seems like we are needlessly indulging some kind of personal fantasy.

I don’t think that making a feature film length production that is going to go straight to a video platform is some sort of “step down.“ I really don’t. Theatrical exhibition as we know it is dying off anyway, for a variety of reasons.

I should clarify myself because this thread is already being misconstrued — I’m talking about how the movie is screened in advance. If it’s going straight to Netflix, why the ritual of demanding people see it in the theater?

There used to be a category that everyone recognized called “TV movie” or “made for television movie” and even though a lot of filmmakers considered that déclassé, it seems to me that probably 90% of feature films fit that description now.

Atlantis has mostly sunk into the ocean, only a few tower spires remain above the waterline, and I’m increasingly at peace with that, because it seems to be what the industry and much of the audience wants. We live in an age of convenience and information control.

Only a very elite group of filmmakers is still allowed to make movies “for theaters“ and actually have them seen and judged that way on a wide scale. Even platform releasing seems to be somewhat endangered. It can’t be fought. It has to be accepted.

9. Addendum: I’ve been informed that it wasn’t Scorsese who requested that the Bob Dylan documentary only be screened for critics in theaters, but a Netflix representative indicated the opposite to me, so I just don’t know what to believe.

It’s actually OK if your film is not eligible for an Oscar — we have a thing called the Emmys. A lot of this anxiety is just a holdover from the days when television was considered culturally inferior to theatrical feature films. Everybody needs to just get over it.

In another 10 to 20 years they’re probably going to merge the Emmys in the Oscars into one program anyway, maybe they’ll call it the Contentys.

“One of the fun things about seeing the new Quentin Tarantino film three months early in Cannes (did I mention this?) is that I know exactly why it’s going to make some people furious, and thus I have time to steel myself for the takes.

Back in July 2017, when it was revealed that Tarantino’s next project was connected to the Manson Family murders, it was condemned in some quarters as an insulting and exploitative stunt. We usually require at least a fig-leaf of compassion for the victims in true-crime adaptations, and even Tarantino partisans like myself – I don’t think he’s made a bad film yet – found ourselves wondering how he might square his more outré stylistic impulses with the depiction of a real mass murder in which five people and one unborn child lost their lives.

After all, it’s one thing to slice off with gusto a fictional policeman’s ear; it’s quite another to linger over the gory details of a massacre that took place within living memory, and which still carries a dread historical significance.

In her essay The White Album, Joan Didion wrote: “Many people I know in Los Angeles believe that the Sixties ended abruptly on August 9, 1969, ended at the exact moment when word of the murders on Cielo Drive traveled like brushfire through the community, and in a sense this is true.”

Early in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, as Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt’s characters drive up the hill towards Leo’s bachelor pad, the camera cranes up gently to reveal a street sign: Cielo Drive. Tarantino understands how charged that name is; he can hear the Molotov cocktails clinking as he shoulders the crate.

As you may have read in the reviews from Cannes, much of the film is taken up with following DiCaprio and Pitt’s characters – a fading TV actor and his long-serving stunt double – as they amusingly go about their lives in Los Angeles, while Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate is a relatively minor presence. But the spectre of the murders is just over the horizon, and when the night of the 9th finally arrives, you feel the mood in the cinema shift.

No spoilers whatsoever about what transpires on screen. But in the audience, as it became clear how Tarantino was going to handle this extraordinarily loaded moment, the room soured and split, like a pan of cream left too long on the hob. I craned in, amazed, but felt the person beside me recoil in either dismay or disgust.

Two weeks on, I’m convinced that the scene is the boldest and most graphically violent of Tarantino’s career – I had to shield my eyes at one point, found myself involuntarily groaning “oh no” at another – and a dead cert for the most controversial. People will be outraged by it, and with good reason. But in a strange and brilliant way, it takes Didion’s death-of-the-Sixties observation and pushes it through a hellfire-hot catharsis.

Hollywood summoned up this horror, the film seems to be saying, and now it’s Hollywood’s turn to exorcise it. I can’t wait until the release in August, when we can finally talk about why.

~ Robbie Collin