The Edge Of Sanity

I was talking to someone the other day, mostly about bullshit, then it switched to politics (aka more bullshit) at which point I became immediately depressed and we carried onto movies. He brought up the fact that this years Oscar race was as interesting as any and that despite the gigantic blue wave of Avatar, some of the films have been small pictures that focus on difficult issues (Precious, The White Ribbon) to coming of age at a late age movies (Up In The Air, Crazy At Heart) to such cinematic gems as "When In Rome" (Joke). Interestingly enough, despite the January dumping ground of horrendous films, the Oscar list seems to be stretching on. So what do I go and see? Of all the amazing films to pick from? I go and see Mel Gibson's return in "The Edge Of Darkness".

Now to be fair, Mel is an asshole. I find it funny when people get annoyed about me going to see a movie starring "the anti-semite lunatic" and contributing financially to the "demise of morals" in America. I mean a bit far fetched, but seriously people, this is what people pick on. In an age where people make a living out of this type of behavior, I find it amusing that people generalize an incident like Gibson's "Jewish/Sugartits" tirade to define his character. Now, again, don't get me wrong. The man is an asshole. I find it more infuriating that he left his wife and eight children for a women half his age moreso than the DUI. That's me. Either way, the last eight years of Mel Gibson's life have been defined by his alcoholism, religious high horsing (2004's The Passion Of The Christ and all connected themes), his infamous DUI and finally culminating with a nasty separation from his wife.

There is no arena where a shorter memory exists. Sports is close. Politics isn't far behind. They both involve the public spotlight with heroes loved and revered. Film for some reason, tends to really piss people off. Watching their on screen heroes transform from role to role for some reason should mean interesting off screen. There is this illusion that they are perfect all the time and when that mold of perfection is broken, people take it personally. They get ANGRY. I have fallen into that mold on certain occasions. For example I despise Tom Cruise. The Scientology thing drives me nuts, his behavior is irrational and I think he is a total creep/asshole. That doesn't mean he can't act. That also doesn't mean I won't go see one of his movies. I guess I'm interested in films too much to really, truly, deeply, care about the actors personal lives.

Mel hasn't acted in eight years. The last film he was in was "Signs" 2002 (which just so happens to be one of the most overrated films of the 1990s, seriously, watch it again). The film concentrates on alien life in a small town shot through a Hitchcock lens perfectly ripped off my M. Night, however, the base of the story is about a man losing and then finding faith again (If only he could have made it now, it would have been his on screen salvation). Since then he has dedicated most of his time to acting, drinking and fucking models that are twenty years younger than him. Now, to be fair, I never fully watched "The Passion Of The Christ" but I believe it would almost be impossible to enjoy it. Especially after the connections the film has drawn to George Bush's bible belt campaign (same year, 2004) and to his outrageous claims against Jewish people. That's not to say those are the only reasons. The basic reason is I'm just not interested in watching Christ endure all that pain and then get nailed to the cross (Might have something to do with reliving the stations for years as an Irish Catholic child). His second film in this eight year span, Apocalypto, maybe the most grossly misunderstood film he has made to date. The film is decent, shot with a pulse breaking speed of adrenaline, violence and thrills. There isn't much politicking throughout the first half, it's basically hard-edged tribal violence and the heat of chase through the jungle. I recently read an article in GQ (Tom Carson on Mel Gibson) and he argued that the film was yet another cementing of Mr. Gibson's anti-semitic and church loving beliefs. I could not disagree more. The film catapults the viewer into a world of bloody chaos, sick disgusting executions, mass murder, human sacrifice etc. The end of the movie does not solve much, the main character survives and wonders what possible atrocities humankind could endure next. There is an eerie shot through the trees of the English/White man arriving from a far away land. The man is dressed in robes carrying a gigantic cross as the boat nears the shore. It is here I believe Mel made a serious attempt at labeling the problems inherent in the history of the religion he so "deeply" cares for. Many read into this as the white man arriving to set straight the violent disarray of the natives. I believe whole-heartedly that this was not the point. The title "Apocalypto" is directly tied into this scene. Through all the bloodshed, coldness, human sacrifices, and chaos...what was coming for these people next was even worse. The film's title signifies the end of their existence as they knew it, this does not suggest justifying the takeover of the cross carrying white man, it suggests the end of their world. Then again, it could be Mel going for the salvation piece and this is just what I want to believe. Seriously though, if there is a glimmer of hope held out for this man it is in those final moments of Apocalypto, where there is a silver lining.


This year, Mel Gibson returns to the sort of role that traditionally solidifies him as one of the better actors around. Whether it's caving in British Soldiers heads with an ax in "The Patriot" or slitting throats in "Braveheart", he is going back to what he has done best. Many critics likened the character role to these two films, however, I believe it is most closely linked to "Payback" which came back in 1998. Again, a seriously underrated film. This was no on screen gem by any stretch, but it certainly has an interesting flavor to it. There is no bullshit. It's a basic crime/revenge story with some hilarious one liners and a great performance by Mel Gibson. It is funny to go back and watch it now as it was then trying to paint Mel Gibson as "the bad guy" for filmgoers (back when he was the strapping sexy Australian who knew what women wanted). The anti-hero you root for. Hell, even the tagline was "Get ready to root for the bad guy". The film had a nightmarish production, starting with the director (Mass's own Brian Hegeland who co-wrote LA Confidential) who reportedly had his directing rights stripped away mid way through the shoot. The Script was also reworked during shooting. These types of disasters are usually identified early, even before viewing and it is my belief that this in part contributed to dismal reviews. The basic premise, however, is revenge. The coldest dish served and a trademark in the history of American film. Now, this year, Mel Gibson picks up a script called The Edge Of Darkness and decides to make his return to acting.

The Edge Of Darkness is solid. I mean it really is. I am a bit biased due to my upbringing in Boston but I'm not ashamed to put it out there. William Monahan, who co-wrote the screenplay, and also penned The Departed (and won the Oscar, thank you very much) knows this city through and through. Monahan infuses the script with a locals attitude, while still providing Gibson's character (Tom Craven) the chance to explore his own darkness. The conversations between Gibson and Ray Winstone (Mr. French from The Departed) are especially riveting. A scene in the kitchen over a glass of Crown Royal nails it.

The story is explanatory and the commercials for this film are horrendous (No one really gets the Boston accent right, but in Gibson's worst line of the film, "Did you shoot my daughter?" is the first thing heard in the main add on television. The story is far fetched, coupling together conspiracy theories with over-arching companies that knock off their own employees for meddling in matters of "National Security." Everything from CEO cutouts, obnoxious cliche versions of hippi groups that sabotage evil government labs (The "take your glasses off please" scene is absolute comedy, the embodiment of a republican conversation over beers), all the way down to a cowardly Police captain that is supposedly friends with Gibson (Note, I'm not sure who casted this film but I don't know what the fuck they were thinking having this guy in there). Those character types fail, but it is hard to imagine this was not done on purpose. The evil, the darkness, that surrounds Gibson's character is supposed to be vulnerable, predictable, obnoxious--it mirrors Gibson's real life image-- and his on screen image smashes that image to pieces.

The years have been kind to Mel...that is until around the last eight. He looks older in this film. The lines in his face defined, a quiet, reserved, tired looking face. Much of Mel Gibson/Tom Craven's history is left out of the script. They imply he used to be an alcoholic. He hasn't been great to his daughter. The wife isn't in the picture, but the catholic cross still dangles around his neck (a nice touch). The viewer is ready made to assume this is more or less an on screen, Hollywoodized version of Mel and his search for redemption. His daughter is murdered minutes into the movie. A bloody, hyper-violent sequence in which he is on the way to the hospital with her before her life is erased via shotgun. The movie doesn't waste time building his anger over her death. The man's lost everything, boo-hoo, and now his daughters blood is all over his hands. The plot begins with people assuming the bullets were meant for him...and then the story unfolds.

The movie centers around his bloodlust for his daughters killers, however, it also leads the character Tom Craven into searching through himself for what is "the right thing to do". Obviously, another far fetched reaction, but getting his vigilante on and murdering people left and right doesn't make for the most moral of decisions. There is a line in the film when the ridiculous police friend of Tom's utters "It's never what it is, It's what it looks like". He refers to the outrageous lengths that have manifested the story--the violence, the greed, the cover ups, the works. If you are willing to buy certain points of bullshit, certain themes are more realistic than they initially appear. This makes the movie worth seeing. *

I Included the asterisk above because I believe this film was billed for Gibson's comeback. The perfect engine at revitalizing his career and exposing that face we have all come to know so well. One of defeat, sadness, tragedy endured, anger, the swelling of Mel's eyebrows as he struggles to hold back tears (He practically invented that face). The problem is, at least at the local level (but arguably at the national one too) the film rubs up against political current events in a peculiar way. This helps shift the film from strictly Mel's comeback to an interesting story during an interesting time during politics.

The film's villain is a CEO. The power structure is centered around the protection of secrets, the far reaching "limits" the government possesses to silence whistleblowers, and the private contracts that comprise the never ending relationship between business and politics.

I saw this film a week after Judge Alito and the rest of the Supreme Court decided to lift the ban on corporate campaign financing, further stretching the limits to an area not known in this country for as long as we can remember. This is also two weeks after Massachusetts replaced the Liberal Lion with Scott Brown. Political times in Massachusetts, well, I guess a nice way of putting it would be, "confused". Monahan taps into this with the film's second villain: a pathetic John Kerry knock-off. A typical rendition of a Senator and his personal connections with the evil commanding CEO. Now this again could be a personal bias, but beyond the cozy Louisburg Sq. confines, the character is ridiculous. It's so far over the top that it doesn't even feel like a good shitting on. It's just stupid. Some may enjoy it, but either way, it is not a flattering glance at Boston politics as of late. The point is clear.

This was unexpected. This movie kind of came out like "The International" did last year. A stupid, ridiculous, over the top premise about evil banks stealing the public's money--and lives (sound familiar?). A potentially awful movie graced with good timing and a likable star (Clive Owen ladies and gentleman, how you can hate the man?). The Edge Of Darkness barrel rolls to the finish line by pole vaulting over any hint of realistic traces: bullets fly, people are poisoned, shot in the face, destroyed, hit by cars, stabbed, shot in the throat, and beaten mercilessly. In effect, all the things we wish we could impart at certain times when we the people feel helpless, or controlled by something we cannot change. I don't think everyone envisions handling it with a bullet and some tough words, but that feeling of anger is there.

The character arc plays out towards the end of the movie as a father who picks up where his daughter left off. The revenge for him is bloodlust, however, at the same time, his sole mission becomes to pick up the dead trail and finish off the government hotshots, CEO assholes and finally the crooked Senator. Exposing the evil illegals they have carried out. The violence and redemption in the film is laughable and survives only as a popcorn action movie gimmick. The grander scale, in most cases, would also be considered laughable. However, I found myself questioning that thought towards the end of the movie. There is a bloody scene towards the end that single-handedly sends the movie over the top, and the evil deeds of the guilty are presumably exposed thanks to four well aimed shots.

The nasty taste left in your mouth leaving "The Edge Of Darkness" was the close lines it runs politically-- the thought that this country has taken a serious turn for the ethical worse on millions of occasions. The latest butt fuck by the Supreme Court last week is probably somewhere in the back end of a long line by contrast, however, it still stands as remarkable that people have not taken a greater notice. One of the biggest problems I have with politics in this area is that people tend to latch onto on major issue and make it the forefront of argument against other candidates. Scott Brown won with the Healthcare/Middle class values edge. Beyond that? Many people probably couldn't get into serious depth about his political views. They just aren't really defined yet. This Supreme Court decision rolled in and out, and it didn't see half the press, anger, or questioning as the Coakley/Brown race did. This is a disgrace to Americans everywhere.

For me "The Edge Of Darkness" is complicated by interesting timing and a perfect lead. It takes it to another level for me as I continue to fuse film philosophy with real life timing. For others, it could be a horrendous movie fueled by an anti-semitic lead or a B movie that people went to see for revenge. The films title really got to me. In an age where goodness is supposedly prevailing and we are witnessing "change", the far reaching limits of the Supreme Court and their "judgment" has set us back almost a century. So much for the middle class values of anti-big government and the conservative regime. Everything about the healthcare debate and Scott Brown has centered around a return to the "normal guy" politics: a guy who pushes a pickup truck and doesn't need the government's help for many issues. Smaller government. Smaller money for regular people. I can respect that point of view even when I don't agree with it. The Supreme Court just made it possible for companies to bankroll their own candidates (their own or puppets they aim to financially "support")without any form of checks, balances or limits. It is an appalling decision and regardless of where I sit with Scott Brown, John Kerry, Mel Gibson or Jesus fucking Christ, I refuse to believe the argument for it as protecting my 1st Amendment rights. I dare half the people that live by this to actually recite their 1st Amendment rights...because half of them wouldn't get past the first sentence. The foundation of our government is checks and balances. To remove that aspect from the election process is beyond egregious--whether or not your fall on the left or right.

In any event, "The Edge Of Darkness" is worth seeing. Whether or not you hate Gibson, give a fuck about politics (locally or nationally) or just want to see people get shot up, I would recommend it. I hope Scott Brown sees it. I hope John Kerry sees it. I hope Jesus Christ sees it. I don't really care what they think about it. In an era where our politics stands on "The Edge Of Darkness", I worry we have already plunged headfirst into the abyss (If course I feel we have). Now, running around offing politicians and CEO's alike isn't the correct method of action--but that same feeling of desperation and rage remains. That feeling of hoping something outrageous happens to change the way things are being done. That is what the film captures--a deep sense of hopelessness and a call for desperate measures. I for one stand on the edge of sanity when I think about the whirlwind of events the past two weeks. Call me crazy, but hopefully someone does something. Murder need not apply, but it is interesting to think what people in power might do when they know they can get away with it. Last week, The Supreme Court legalized a form of getting away with it. I guess I identify with Tom Craven (take note this is not Mel Gibson here). The character embodies certain feelings people harbor when they are left completely unprotected. The movie exists on many levels, but it leaves me with hope that some form of Tom Craven is waiting in the darkness, plotting what to do next and hopefully exposing a great deal of evil carried out by those in power. I won't hold my breath. For now, I'll just try to hold onto my sanity.