DVDizzy Forum

Yes, this weekend I finally did it. I've been thinking of doing it for a while, but this weekend I finally did do it. I bought the DVD of "I Know Who Killed Me" starring Disney's own not-quite-a-Disney-legend-(-and-now-unlikely-to-be-named-as-one-) Lindsay Lohan as a stripper.

Not that I bought it because LiLo was a stripper. No sir. Not at all. I just like LiLo. Okay?

And while I understand the sexual situations are quite explicit (not that, as we established this contributed to my purchasing decision), I was more surprised to see that the film has been marked as "18" by the BBFC for "contains strong bloody horror" rather than being sexually explicit.

I was even more surprised to see that the film is fully Icon Entertainment branded in the UK. Icon Entertainment is of course Mel Gibson's movie company. The devoted Christian who made The Passion of the Christ out of his own money is using money from that film to fund a film like "I Know Who Killed Me".

But looking on IMDB, I see that's only the tip of the iceberg: His Icon Entertainment are involved in…

Kevin and Perry Go Large (full of explicit jokes about adolescent sex)
30 Days of Night (vampires, violence)
Apocalypto (violence)
It’s a Boy/Girl Thing (sexual situations)
Infestation (horror with giant insects)
Hard Candy (body horror)

How do the contents of these films tie-up with the man who was the vision and the driving force of The Passion of the Christ. It is possible to believe in a film like The Passion of the Christ so much, yet still be involved (to various extents) in films with content like those listed above? Or does it sound hypocritical? Or greedy?

It almost sounds like there are two Mel Gibsons. The great catholic family man who wants to educate the world, and the businessman Mel Gibson who will invest in anything if he thinks it can make money in return, no matter what its content may be.

Well Passion of the Christ was very graphic and violent. Obviously Gibson chose to depict it like that and wnats to show how truly horrible certain acts can be.

To show violence in a movie doesn't necessarily mean you're saying it's good or acceptable. It may be acceptable to be seen, but not performed. You need awful things in films that make the audience feel bad, to shows real life, and have the bad things happen to the character so the audience feels bad for them, etc.

As for the sex, well, maybe that's less sure because in today's world violence and harm is unnacceptable but sex is not. I haven't seen the movies so I don't know if the films seem to say the sex in them is okay or not. I mean, if the teenagers have sex and then get killed, that doesn't put sex in a positive light. There's a horror movie joke that if you don't have sex you're safe because the virgins never die until they do it.

I was curious when in "What Women Want" Mel heard a women's thoughts hoping that he was breaking up with her because he was gay, so he lied and told her he was.

Basically, I never thought Mel was super duper Christian. Maybe his father who people think is crazy is so religious, but I think Mel could very well love Jesus yet still not follow everything the church or Bible says. And in today's world, it is so very, very hard to follow the church and Bible, well, religiously.

I wish I'd seen some of those films so as to have a better idea of what you're talking about Netty, but (correct me if I'm wrong) I assume we can sum them up as containing violence, sexual humour/innuendo and eroticism.

I kind of disagree with you. Why should it be considered (borderline) two-faced or scandalous for a (devoted) Christian's movie company to release films like that? In the end, there is nothing morally wrong with the films, is there? I mean, has the Vatican ever condemned the sexual segments of "The Devil's Advocate"? Has a Catholic priest ever declared it a mortal sin to watch "Vanilla Sky"? Hey, it's not porn man. Therefore I think there is nothing offensive about Mellie's company releasing R-rated/18 rated material. Cinematography is an art.

Mike Mike Mikey Mike wrote:Basically, I never thought Mel was super duper Christian.

Who knows? He certainly gives you the impression of being one. But as you say, he may have ambivalent feelings in his faith.

There's actually a third Mel Gibson out there - The one who hates Jews and make ultra violent films.

Oh wait, the first and second Mel's do that last thing, too. Silly me.

Cheers,
JM