I have treated myself to three Mel Gibson films already and have a fourth one comping up next week. The films are the first two Mad Max films and 'Apocalypto'.
I opened up to Mel Gibson well and truly with 'Braveheart'. I was only thirteen then. If I think of it I have never associated him with the Lethal Weapon films. I don't remember much of 'Braveheart' and I must watch it again. What did I like about the film back then? The violence. For the first time action was not beautiful orange-red balloons from explosions. There is a frame that flashes in my head whenever I think of 'Braveheart', it is that of blood hitting the television screen. I think I had not seen that before. I didn't have any emotional connect with the film at that age so need to view it again. In the same year I was rooting for 'Babe', a movie which I loved every second of, and was disappointed when 'Braveheart' won the Oscar for best picture. That's okay. I have made my peace.
I started the new millenium with 'The Passion of the Christ'. Very violent. Lots of blood. For the very first time there was violence on screen and I was emotional. Revathi was wiping tears from my face as I watched this film in Plaza, Bangalore. Till then I was used to cheering violence, action and killing in movies. Never before did I want the violence to stop in a film. It is for this feeling that I had then that I will remember this movie.
'Apocalypto' released when I was in Bombay and keeping all my research aside (ha ha ha ha) I dragged Praveen Patil to Metro Cinema near VT. I remember liking the film then, as did Praveen and thank Christ (intended internal reference here) for that. One complaint (I digress) I had with the film was that the set-up of the film takes a really long time. The hero's tribe (if that is the right word) is walked to the more advanced civilization and then the hero escapes to set up the last piece of action. I think this is a brilliant film. In true Mel Gibson style it is very very brutal for sure. But what I like about his films is the extra effort to bring a sense of authencity to the screen. Take a look at the make-up, costumes, language spoken to name a few. Names like Jaguar Paw, Turtles Run; nice! Two things stand out for me in this film. One is the way animals look and sound in the film. Take the wild boar hunted down in the opening scene and the jaguar that chases Jaguar Paw in the film. The animals don't look, move or sound like animals in 'Dr. Do Little' or 'Jumanji'. These are very real looking wild beasts. Next (back to theme of this piece) consider the threat from Zero Wolf (I think that's the guy I want to talk of) to Jaguar Paw. He tells his soldiers that goes something like, "I will peel his (Jaguar Paw's) skin with my dagger and then wear it, and he will see me wearing it." Blood flows like water in this film making this threat very very believable. I actually pictured it in my head as the dialogue came out, thanked Christ it was a film and that Jaguar Paw would make a great escape and continued watching. Consider the following Bollywood threat which goes something like, "Main uske shareer ke boti boti karke kutton ko khila doonga." Sorry bad guy, not seein' this one.
The Mad Max films (the first two at least) again have plenty of action & violence. In the first film there is Hitchcockian scene just before Max's wife gets killed, liked this one, and gets killed almost (blood is not in the frame here) Mel Gibson style. I liked the first film, made on a very low budget it works quite well actually. There is little explanation for the world that the story is set in but that's okay, it's primarly about Max's transformation. It is the second film that is almost brilliant. With a little more money the team has put up a nice show. Without going into details I say watch out for the little details; the vehicles, the costumes, Max's leg, his dog and more. However, I do want to interpret a plot device used in this film (another digression). The plot is mostly set up over scenes through a binocular and telescope. Max and The Gyro Captain witness a battle between the good group and the bad group. When showing the audience an action scene the shots, in most other films, are often placed where the action is. In this film the action is shown from very very far. There is a chase, a scene of torture, gun firing, explosions, the works and is all played over the backdrop of silence. Once the battle is over we immediately know who good guys are and who the bad guys are. We interpret this for ourselves. Lovely. Then of course there is a spectacular chase to wind up the film. Roger Ebert says that the hero hardly speaks two hundred words of dialogue in the film. He says sometimes it pays to just do what you want to do without dwelling too much in the set-up, explanations, justification; George Miller gets right down to the action with as little dialogues as possible. A final obervation I'd like to make is how the film seemed to be set in the future but felt like it was something like a western, like a film in the past. The plot is very simple like life is often portrayed in films set in the past too, think 'Apocalypto' here.
Mel Gibson showed me his softer side in 'What Women Want'. His character breaks hearts in that films and finally mends his ways. Personally, I hope continues to (quite literally) break hearts because when he shows gore there is always some emotion attached which you can't say about most violent films today.
