i see no reason to trust the telling of any story by Mel Gibson in any capacity outside of acting in the form of a movie whose express purpose is to entertain as opposed to inform.
The operant word I see is "story". With all due respect, how can one trust or distrust a story? I know enough of social science to know that purposeful action is an intrapersonally profitable action designed to satisfy one's own desires - and that those desires only pluralistically translate to understanding by others.
If one doesn't view the film's raison d'être as to tell objective truth - a standard to which I would defy any discussion of history (because any discussion is a narrative) to maintain - I'm sure it will be a story, and that his decisions to include and omit the events he perceives as historically relevant and irrelevant will be as based on a world-view as subjective as yours or mine.
I do not trust Mel Gibson to make a film about Mayan civilization that wont insult my intelligence or be worth my money. i do not trust him as a film maker. I do trust him as an actor to usually be worth my 13 dollars. I would also not trust a white supremist to make a film about West African history that wouldn't offend or that would be worth my money.
Comments 6
Reply
Reply
If one doesn't view the film's raison d'être as to tell objective truth - a standard to which I would defy any discussion of history (because any discussion is a narrative) to maintain - I'm sure it will be a story, and that his decisions to include and omit the events he perceives as historically relevant and irrelevant will be as based on a world-view as subjective as yours or mine.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment