Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LeCircleRouge
Why do critics hail these silent films as masterpieces but attack Gibson’s movie as meaningless, pornographic, sadomasochistic, homo-erotic, and devoid of spiritual revelation?
|
I think the answers simple... the passage of time. Mel's flick is still pretty damn new. SO new in fact, that it made a few thousand as I just typed that sentence. Not only is it new, it "controversial" so everyone and their movie-reviewing brother has to put in their own 212 cents. As we all know, controversy mixed with popularity brings contrary positions. It's human nature. Even
The Passion of Joan of Arc was heavily, and I mean heavily, attacked in it's day. The years pressed on, and as this happened it became easier to view this films as "art." It's an age thing. I fall prey to it myself. Would I ever dare proclaim anything with the name "Mel Gibson" to be a work of anything but a calculated box office draw? No. But take "me" and place "me" 50 years from now and see what I would say then. Even though I am fairly certain of my opinions in the here and now, I am well aware they are still created due to my environment. Whoever says otherwise is blind. Time changes perception.
That, and the fact we have waaaay more media outlets than in the days of silent film. TV, 24 hour new channels, internet, DVD themed message boards etc etc. With all of those outlets for opinions, the hard boiled contrary position thrives.