« if they're so smart why does the movie suck? | Main | michiko yao 002 »
March 24, 2007
asymetrical nikki
I'm not really surprised that Mel Gibson told Cal State Northridge assistant prof Alicia Estrada to fuck-off, this after teach called his Mayan blood-orgy Apocalypto racist. What does surprise me is that usually tough-minded folks, like, LA Weekly's usually spot-on Nikki Finke (or some HuffPo commenters), think Gibson was "provoked." Showing the proverbial white slip Finke writes:
Yes, it's true that Mel Gibson cursed an assistant professor and Mayan community leader -- but only after the duo disrupted a question-and-answer session at a Southern California University which was screening his Apocalypto Thursday night. [full finke]
The awful, awful disruption that so provoked Gibson? The worst I've been able to gather from published accounts is that the two protesters refused to give up the mic and read "a lengthy statement in Spanish." I guess Gibson's defenders must be part of the "English-only" crowd, as when I was in college no disruption worthy of the name "protest" didn't at least involve shouting and blocking entrances, maybe a chant and a pie. Not to defend youthful indiscretion, but in contrast poor, poor Mel only had to listen to a translation.
Tellingly, Gibson's didn't seem to boil over until after the so-called disruptors were being led away by campus rent-a-cops. Finke again:
Gibson was asked if their mike should be turned off. "Let them continue," he said. But some students yelled out "shut up" and "sit down" at the protesters. Finally, a campus police officer ended the disruption by leading Estrada and her friend from the room. About half the class applauded. Gibson, his face now red, fired back with his expletive. "He told her to 'Fuck off, lady, get a history book, and read," student Guagan recounted. His parting shot was "Make your own movie!"
What a complete, punk, coward move! Gibson maintains his cool throughout but for some reason just can't keep it in his pants at the sight of two brown folks being led away by the police. This is classic, yahoo-racist behavior: act all friendly and professional, and then, once you're absolutely sure the crowd and the fuzz are on your side, go all red in face and the give the offending coloreds a proper what-for.
The real provocation here as I see it isn't two people holding onto a mic for too long and forcing 130 people to listen to Spanish, it's the persistent, unbearable whiteness of Hollywood. (To her credit, Finke has written well about these issues previously, but not today.) We're supposed to take as neutral and non-provocative the fact that hundreds (if not thousands) of (mostly) white folks in Hollywood diligently devoted years and tens of millions of dollars to making, distributing, marketing and defending a racially-charged, pretentious and ultimately middling adventure flick, but god forbid someone hold onto a microphone for 20 minutes, at which point folks come down with cases of outraged, wilting vapors. The underlying assumption is that Gibson is somehow being mau-mau'd by media coverage of his outburst, i.e. he's a victim, which is as much of a crock as his movie.
But, of course, this is a Hollywood kerfuffle, so the rights, freedoms and fragile temperaments of rich, moronic movie people are - no pun intended - paramount. Those who claim Gibson was provoked make the same defense of white privilege that John Ridley made in the HuffPo when he asked re: Kramergate:
[W]hat exactly do you call a couple of black guys who go to a public place where people paid money to enjoy themselves and who then begin to yell and scream at the person on stage who is trying to do his job? [full talking androidery]
Right. I guess there's no reaction that's out of bounds or unprofessional when you're white and in show business and there's money changing hands.
The F-Bomb aside, Gibson's parting shot - "make your own movie!" - may be like shouting "win your own lottery," but it also gets us closer to his (as well as the rest of Hollywood's) underlying anxiety about our increasingly multicultural market-place: if Mayans are making movies, who the heck needs Mel Gibson to make Apocalypto? Be careful what you wish for Mel; you wouldn't want to end up as the D.W. Griffith of the Mayan cinema.
Posted by ebogjonson in city of angels, race and other identities, screened, on March 24, 2007 1:28 PM
Comments
Your analysis of Mel Gibson's childish rant bothers me because it assumes that his rude reaction to an annoying stimuli must be based on some underlying racial animus. Do we live in a society where basic rudeness has to mask some lurking bigoted motive. Isn't it possible that, beside otherwise being an anti-semite, Mel Gibson could just be acting like your typical spoiled Hollywood pric in this case??
I fully understand the obvious racial nature of the conflict because of the film's subject-matter and the protest statment of the stymied audience member. But isn't Gibson merely being an asswhole who doesn't like his Hollywood director "know it all-ness" being challenged in this case?
When oppressed peoples respond to the basic rudeness of humans by trigger happily crying racism it tends to diminish the more insidious yet matrix-like way white supremacy shapes the overall global paradigm we swim through daily.
Posted by: Abdul- Jabbar at March 24, 2007 6:58 PM
I would agree if his outburst hadn't come in the context of an accusation of racism. If someone accuses me of something that I'm not, I say I'm not, I don't curse them out.
This is a small issue, overall. My main beef is with the folks who defended him.
Posted by: ebog/gary at March 25, 2007 10:14 AM
I think Gibson's history as an actor and moviemaker and his drunken antisemitic rants make it pretty clear that you can't separate the man from his racism. In addition, his racism shows up clearly when he shouts at both a Mayan community leader and a professor that they should "get a history book."
This is classic White Supremacist behavior -- the presumption that one knows more than experts who have made the study of the oppressed people under discussion their life's work. Gibson may have read a history book or two himself -- in fact, his collection of history books may stretch clear across his television set -- but I seriously doubt he has done either primary research or dedicated, in-depth reading about Mayan history, religion, and culture. Certainly, his film demonstrates no such knowledge.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that he read a history or two by white historians whose work has already been shredded (long before the film was shot) by more knowledgeable historians, archeologists, and anthropologist. It's a shame a maker of historical films doesn't publish a bibliography. I'd love to see it.
Posted by: Kali Tal at March 26, 2007 10:23 AM
subscribe to my feed