Joe Eszterhas’s New Report of Mel Gibson’s Antisemitism Is the Most Disgusting Yet
Most of the time PJ Lifestyle endeavors for positivity in its posts. From time to time — particularly in instances of racism, antisemitism, and other forms of bigotry — we’ll make an exception when the real world intrudes into the cultural world too deeply to ignore.
From my friend Jeff Dunetz at Yid With Lid:
When the Mel Gibson movie about the Jewish hero Judah the Maccabee, green-lighted by Warner Brothers this past September was suddenly put on hold by the studio last month screen reporters didn’t understand Warner’s silence as to the reason behind their action. However yesterday that all changed as the entertainment industry website Wrap.com obtained a scathing letter by the movie’s screenwriter, Joe Eszterhas (who wrote Flashdance and Basic Instinct) to Gibson accusing the star of making Anti-Semitic statements as well as threatening to kill the mother of his baby girl Oksana Grigorieva.
Everything Eszterhas said in the letter has been said before, but this was supposed to be Gibson’s “redemption” project. But according to Eszterhas (who is not Jewish) Gibson sabotaged the project because of his hatred of Jews.
Big Hollywood has a write up here.
See TheWrap.com’s story here and their presentation of Eszterhas’ amazing 9-page letter here. Gibson’s weak response is here at Deadline.com.
The star’s defense? Eszterhas is trying to deflect blame for submitting a sub-par script. Only the “great majority of the facts as well as the statements and actions” attributed to Gibson are “utter fabrications.” He admits to being “passionate” — perhaps not the word the director of The Passion of the Christ should use when answering new charges of continued antisemitism and unacceptable personal behavior.
I find Gibson’s explanation highly suspect given Eszterhas’ ridiculously successful screenwriting career and the usual strength of his prose as demonstrated by the letter.
Read Eszterhas’ letter and everything he presents rings true with Gibson’s previous antisemitic statements and self-destructive behavior.
But be Warned: some of the words Eszterhas attributes to Gibson are sexually graphic and deeply disturbing — particularly given the claim that they were said in private to Eszterhas’ 15-year-old son Nick. But they provide an important insight into the dehumanizing mentality of the radical antisemite, a subject I’ve explored the past few weeks in my analysis of Derrick Bell’s Afrolantica Legacies at the PJ Tatler.
One of the revealing quotes from Gibson reported by Eszterhas:
I have all this rage and I don’t know why. I’ve tried therapy, but no one can tell me why I’m so angry. Therapy doesn’t work.
I don’t think I can ever watch Braveheart again. That climactic scene of Gibson as William Wallace tortured to death just seems different now that we know what the actor-director has flashing through his mind all the time: a blinding self-hatred he projects out on not just Jews but everyone.
We’ve seen this before with other geniuses, as the recent HBO documentary Bobby Fischer Against the World reminds:
Jeff gets it right as he usually does when it comes to antisemitism:
If the Eszterhas letter is accurate, the Maccabee movie may very well be the final nail in the coffin of Gibson’s movie career. Not because he hates Jews, but because he is a very sick man who hates all ethnic groups.
Update: I expand on this post this morning over at the PJ Tatler in the conclusion to my Afrolantica Legacies series.
“I find Gibson’s explanation highly suspect given Eszterhas’ ridiculously successful screenwriting career and the usual strength of his prose as demonstrated by the letter.”
Joe Eszterhas’ success as a screenwriter or his writing ability has nothing to do with whether his assertions vis-a-vis Gibson are truthful.
Perhaps you’re just engaging in confirmation bias, because you want to believe that Gibson really is a terrible as you perceive him to be.
Given Jodie Foster’s “ridiculously successful” acting career maybe you should get her take on Gibson. Oh wait, that wouldn’t comport with your worldview.
“Joe Eszterhas’ success as a screenwriter or his writing ability has nothing to do with whether his assertions vis-a-vis Gibson are truthful.”
Actually they do considering that Gibson’s excuse for Eszterhas’s behavior is that his screenplay was terrible. That could be a believable excuse if it was a no-name screenwriter with a history of doing nothing but crap. But Eszterhas invested years of his life in writing this screenplay and he’s got quotes from others who say how great it is. And what he’s reporting is just further confirming what we already know. There aren’t any new bombshells here. Just a greater intensity of what we already know: Gibson’s an antisemitic conspiracy nut with psychological problems. And those two temperaments tend to go together. Hence my embedding of the Bobby Fischer doc trailer.
Joe Ezterhas also wrote Showgirls, so it’s not totally unbelievable that he wrote a script that stunk.
If Showgirls’ script stunk then it wouldn’t be the cult film that it is today. Ezsterhas knew what he was doing with that ugly picture.
I suppose he meant to win the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Screenplay, too?
By that logic, the screenwriter of “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” deserves a lifetime-achievement Oscar. Fact is, Eszterhas wrote several popular, buzzworthy scripts at his height, but few that were even good enough to call mediocre. His prose is roughly as strong as a homeopath’s coffee.
In addition, Eszterhas is amiable and plays well with others by Mel Gibson standards, but not by many others. If it were anyone else than Gibson, I’d say the director deserved every possible benefit of the doubt here, and Eszterhas none. As it is, I just don’t know. Still, it’s not as if one needed further confirmation about Gibson’s demons.
“His prose is roughly as strong as a homeopath’s coffee.”
I beg to differ with the linked letter being exhibit A. (And you have higher book sales and higher revenue from selling your writing than him?)
At least he’s not pretentious strutting around with French pseudonyms trying to gain respect by anonymously trolling internet comment sections.
Finger off’n that trigger, Tex–I didn’t realize you were personal friends. And I freely grant that MOST professional writers, let alone groundlings like me, can’t hold a candle to Eszterhas’s authorial revenue … readers are free to decide whether that says something about his godlike prose stylings, or something about Hollywood’s herd mentality.
And trust me: by my personal standards, this is FAR from “pretentious strutting” (unfortunately, you ain’t seen nothing). But so far from trolling, I’m trying to suggest that Gibson would’ve deserved considerable benefit of the doubt here, were it not for his already well-documented history.
Hogwash. It had flesh. That’s all that’s required.
Then how come other films with equal or even more flesh aren’t cult films? Takes more than just gratuitous sex and violence to create a cult film.
It’s been about two decades since he wrote a hit. That’s a lifetime in Hollywood. If he couldn’t produce a decent script it would look very bad for him.
I tend to believe he is telling the truth here, but the fact that he wrote a couple of hits 20 years back (most of which relied on smut to sell) does not speak to his veracity to me.
Such a shame. Gibson, for all his other flaws, seems to be the only director out there who can make good, historical epics. The Maccabee Story would be an excellent one for Gibson’s style, as would Joan of Arc, but unfortunately Gibson’s become too crazy to make them. Maybe Peter Jackson could break into historical war epics?
Something in his brain is irretrievably broken. If he weren’t so famous and rich, he would either have been in prison or a psych ward long ago. He’ll probably hurt someone very badly indeed before anything is done about him.
Sounds like Mel’s self-will has run riot. AA will tell you the solution is to admit you’re powerless and turn your life over to God.
I just think about the scene in Passion of the Christ where Mel Gibson is holding the nail for Jesus’ hand. I think the man’s deep flaws give him a deep appreciation of Grace.
O.K. I seriously never write on any of these things, I really just enjoy P.J. Media and all the information I get here, but after clicking on the letter that you added to this post I felt I really had to respond. I am not a Mel Gibson apologist by any means and here comes the gigantic BUT. You mean to tell me that after all Mr. Gibson supposedly said and did in Mr. Eszterhaus’ presence that he never just packed his bags and left? Really?
All these despicable comments and actions were met only with what, silence and shock but no effort to leave. But that is not the topper, he is only writing this letter now that the movie is NOT getting made.
You are absolutely right in pointing out that this would fit a pattern of Mr. Gibson’s prior behavior,but don’t you think Mr. Eszterhaus, talented writer that he is, could exploit that? If you read his letter, I mean really read it, it sounds like he is writing a screenplay. Me, I wait for facts before I believe anyone especially anyone from Hollywood.
Sounds like you are making a judgement in the absence of “facts”. The only facts are the two letters and that the movie is being put on hold without explaination from WB. The letter was sent only to Gibson and his assitant, how it was leaked I do not know.
It is perfectly reasonable that Eszerhaus, being under contract and with a job to do, would hold his tongue despite Gibson’s repulsive comments. Now that he is released from that he can speak his mind. Thing is we will never know any more fact than what we have now.
Matters not to me why the movie is not being made and I am glad of it. I choose to believe that Gibson said those things because he has in the past and it fits everything we know about him. Mel Gibson is a very sick disturbed man, that should be obvious to anyone. This is just one more strong piece of evidence.
I never said I made a judgment one way or another. What I said is I choose to find out the facts of the matter rather than believe anyone from Hollywood or the media. I really don’t know how that can be construed as making a judgment, but what do I know. The one thing I take issue with you saying is that he was under contract and might be why he waited to say something. Really? I don’t know about you ,but if I were witness to what he alleges and my son was subject to what he says he was subject too, well lets just say it wouldn’t have ended well.
This article suggests that Warner pulled the plug because the script was lacking:
http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/warner-brothers-pulls-plug-mel-gibson-maccabee-movie-exclusive-36952
Mel needs an Exorcist.
Yes, I’m serious.
His level of hatred toward Jews is not derived from a Human Spirit.
Neither was Hitler’s or Mohammed’s.
His ability to create a film such as “The Passion of Christ” does not mean he is infused with Christ’s Spirit; his behavior has done the cause of Christ much harm.
As the scriptures say, even the Demons recognize Christ, calling him “Lord”.
I read the letter.
Two things stood out.
1. Gibson is seriously ill. He is diagnosable. He is not just ‘an a**hole’ or ‘not a nice person’.
2. Esterhaz witnessed and tolerated a lot of hatred and violent crap from Gibson, and kept going back for more, over an extended period of time. Weird.
Why so wierd? People will put up with all kinds of crap for money.
Anyway it was a terrible choice to put Gibson in this role. I dont think anyone could have written an acceptable script.
I’m sure his contract did not state he had to visit Gibson in Costa Rica, AND bring his son along – this AFTER already witnessing off the scale violently bizarre behavior, psychotic actually, from Gibson.
Arguing over the literary merits of Joe Eszterhas’ screenwriting is a non-starter re: his so-called “talent” as evidence of Gibson being in the wrong.
Eszterhas wrote ONE genuinely good screenplay. That was called “Music Box.” The rest of his work is trash-glitz. Demi, Sharon, intimate parts, kinko slasher ritual murders, blah blah blah. The more lurid, the better.
What bears looking at in this story is whether screeds, personal attacks and high drama are consistent with past behavior by Joe Esterhas.
Check.
And whether screaming psycho tantrums and bigotry are consistent with past behavior by Mel Gibson.
Check.
Both men are horse’s asses, IMO.
But only one of them has produced a quality body of work in movies.
Joe claims to have become a Christian about a decade ago. And indeed, he got himself and his family the hell out of Hollywood and moved back to his hometown of Cleveland. (Well, a very wealthy exurb thereof, Chagrin Falls.)
Joe may well be and, again IMO, probably is a genuine Christian. But some people’s demons die hard. (Die Hard! Quick! Someone write that down as a movie title!) Joe’s demons appear to be his penchant for public disputes and attacks. He *could* have handled this whole matter quite differently, but he chose not to. Instead, he reverted to his old pattern (see, Mike Ovitz letter, 1989, as the premiere instance of “Classic Joe”). That he does not apparently see how his inability to conquer his character-flaw demons mirrors Mel’s similar failures is superb, sick irony.
They really ought to be locked in a room together because they do appear to deserve each other. Not quite on the level of Hitler and Stalin. More like testosteronic versions of Leona Helmsley and Nancy Pelosi. But you get my drift.
“Arguing over the literary merits of Joe Eszterhas’ screenwriting is a non-starter re: his so-called “talent” as evidence of Gibson being in the wrong.
Eszterhas wrote ONE genuinely good screenplay. That was called “Music Box.” The rest of his work is trash-glitz. Demi, Sharon, intimate parts, kinko slasher ritual murders, blah blah blah. The more lurid, the better.”
It is evidence of Gibson being wrong. His claim that what Eszterhas submitted was terrible isn’t believable given the quality of Eszterhas’ writing and that Eszterhas cites others at his company who disagreed.
How many Eszterhas screenplays have you read that you’re so eager to say only one of them is genuinely good? Did you read the 9 page letter? I think it shows pretty clearly that the man can write.
Yeah, well, Woody Allen can write too, but that hardly makes him a good judge of human behavior, or a role model for that matter. I did read excerpts of the letter on a screenwriter’s blog and Mel does have history. Past behavior is usually a pretty good predictor of future performance. I just find it puzzling that Joe would put up with the devil for two years writing a screenplay if it was such a hell on earth. It’s all so true, in my experience, that two people watching the same traffic accident happen will have entirely two different versions of the “same” accident.
“I just find it puzzling that Joe would put up with the devil for two years writing a screenplay if it was such a hell on earth.”
Then that means you’ve been blessed never to stumble into a situation where you wake up one morning and realize you’re working for someone like Gibson. Those who have wouldn’t level this criticism. It’s not as easy to get out of a situation like that as just quitting. And it can take a long time before you really accept that the person is evil and dangerous. It’s easy to be in denial — which it appears Eszterhas was for a long time until the evidence was too overwhelming.
The studio also rejected the Eszterhas script. That is “evidence” for Gibson’s argument that the script was substandard.
As for my credentials to judge the merits of people’s screenwriting:
– I was director of development for an independent production company in Los Angeles for 3 years.
– I worked in the TV production department at Touchstone Television for 3 years. Every script of every show that Touchstone produced at that time (Alias, Scrubs, According to Jim, My Wife and Kids, Felicity, etc etc) crossed my desk and got read by me. Every script of every pilot that Touchstone produced during those 3 years crossed my desk and got read by me. No, I was not a production executive. But I saw close-up how the sausage gets made. And I read everything.
– When I was at ABC/Touchstone, I was asked to provide coverage of scripts written by Disney Fellows (i.e. scripts they were writing as part of their fellowship year, not scripts being submitted as part of applications for the fellowship).
– I have taught film and screenwriting at a private university for the last 5 years.
Re: Joe Eszterhas’ screenplays, I’ve read the screenplays for “Basic Instinct,” “Showgirls” and “Jade.” I also bought and have read his book “Crossbearer: A Memoir of Faith.” That book is why I said I tend to believe that Joe is a genuine Christian.
You also do realize, I hope, that ability to write well in one genre in no way guarantees that someone will be able to write well in another genre. F. Scott Fitzgerald and William Faulkner both bombed at writing screenplays. Two finer novelists you could not find. Prose and screenplays are vastly different. Melodrama and good drama are also vastly different. “Purple prose” is not Pulitzer Prize material is not necessarily NYT Bestseller list is neither necessarily Oprah’s Book Club selection. Popularity is not necessarily quality.
I’m a little concerned that these distinctions need to be explained to you, and that you keep pounding away at the “Eszterhas wrote hit movies!” button in an attempt to prove your point.
Your argument that the quality of writing in Joe’s letter “proves” his screenwriting ability and that that, by extension, “proves” that Gibson is wrong/lying about the quality of the Maccabees screenplay, is (A) not logical, and (B) does not hold up to experience, as stated in the examples of Fitzgerald and Faulkner.
Logically speaking, there are only four explanations for the brouhaha between Gibson and Eszterhas:
1) Mel is 100% wrong and Joe is 100% right in his account of what happened.
2) Joe is 100% wrong and Mel is 100% right in his account of what happened.
3) Each man is 100% right in his account, and this is just a classic case of verbal miscues and innocent misunderstanding.
4) Each man is a deeply flawed individual. Neither account is 100% accurate because each account bears the imperfections of the man who authored it: one, a writer with a long history of disputatious, aggressive behavior, publicly aired battles and alienated professional relationships; the other, an actor-director-producer with a history of bigoted, threatening outbursts, self-destructive, out-of-control behavior and a strong likelihood of mental illness.
Which of these 4 explanations — and remember, logically speaking, there can only be these 4 — do you find most likely to be accurate?
I’m hoping you said #4, because if you did not, then you really shouldn’t be authoring pieces on PJM or any other credible or semi-credible opinion site.
#4 is merely a more concise version of what I said in Post #8.
You need to understand that, logically speaking, it is not necessary for Joe Eszterhas to be heroically right and an incontestably brilliant writer in order for Mel Gibson to be in the wrong on this. I don’t know why you are flogging that nag; it will not carry you ten feet out of the starting gate.
If you are hugely upset by Eszterhas’ account of what Mel Gibson said, and this appears, from my reading, to be what is exercising you (though your rhetorical flailing in multiple directions of argument doesn’t help someone who is trying to understand what your beef is, exactly), then the way to express that sort of thing effectively is: ” *** IF *** Eszterhas’ account is completely, mostly or even halfway accurate, Gibson’s words and behavior are so scurrilous as to be permanently condemning and, one would think, career-ending.”
You don’t put all your chips on the “Joe Eszterhas wrote hit movies!!! His letter is SUPERAMAZINGFANTASTICALLY convincing!!! Therefore he is so 100% telling it EXACTLY like it happened!!!!” square.
Do you see the difference between the two?
Now do you understand why I said basing your argument on Eszterhas’ writing quality was a “non-starter” in any attempt to criticize Gibson?
Eyes on the prize, Dave.
If you are upset with Mel Gibson, then go ahead & say why … BUT … remain professionally detached enough to acknowledge that what you are reacting to is someone else’s hearsay account of what Gibson said, someone who himself has a troubled personal and professional history in the entertainment industry, and that therefore you reserve the right to amend your criticism of Gibson should the account by Eszterhas turn out to be inaccurate or skewed.
Now.
Let’s see if you are professional enough to publish my critique.
Kudos to you if you are.
“Now do you understand why I said basing your argument on Eszterhas’ writing quality was a “non-starter” in any attempt to criticize Gibson?”
I understood from the beginning why you chose to reject my argument. But you’re not closer to convincing me that you’re a better writer than Eszterhas. And in fact your response flaunting your alleged credentials and condescending down to me from behind your anonymous handle only provokes me to doubt your analysis further. Wouldn’t someone who teaches screenwriting know the secret to communicating? Brevity.
I understood from the beginning why you chose to reject my argument. But you’re not closer to convincing me that you’re a better writer than Eszterhas.
1. Dave. Quit moving the goalposts. I was not attempting to convince you that I’m a better writer than Eszterhas. What you asked was, “What screenplays have you read of Joe Eszterhas’?” I replied.
Implied in your question was also what qualified me to critique Eszterhas’ writing. I listed my relevant work experience. That’s not called “flaunting credentials” when someone asks what your qualifications are. It’s called responding.
And since when does someone need to be a better artist than X in the same field in order to be qualified to evaluate X’s work? That’s utter baloney. Great reviews and critiques come from non-artists and “junior”-level artists all the time. What the heck are you doing posting here on PJM’s Lifestyle site if you really believe that one needs to be David Mamet in order to say something negative about Joe Eszterhas’ screenwriting? Why do you bother with cultural commentary if that is your belief?
The answer is it’s not your belief. It’s just a way of saying, “shut up, oslo.” Not cool.
2. I did not reject your argument, because you had none. Flawed logic, unsound methodology.
3. I’m glad you put up a separate post about Eszterhas’ “Crossbearer” book. It is worth reading.
4. Thanks for publishing the previous comment. The length of that post was appropriate to what needed to be said. And both that post and this are still less space than you have taken up in comments.
5. Conservatives in Hollywood are usu. very circumspect about publishing their names on conservative sites. People who know me would recognize me from the brief bio I posted, if they read it. And because they know me personally, I am not bothered by their knowing my politics. But I see no need to go advertising my name to people who don’t know me who are also possibly quite hostile to my political views.
6. If you feel condescended to by my replies, that is your problem. I have said nothing in the way of ad hominem remarks towards you. I have merely pointed out where you were not being logical, where your approach to making an argument and backing it up was flawed & ineffective, and I encouraged you to maintain a professional level of detachment toward your subject in order to improve your analysis.
If you feel that that kind of critique is too harsh, or inappropriate, then again, I have to ask you, why are you publishing on PJM? You obviously like to write. You obviously have opinions. Someone is trying to help you express yourself more effectively by offering a different opinion and challenging you to improve your rhetoric. This is not called condescension. It’s called friendly advice. That it takes place in a public forum is the nature of the beast and, yeah, it’s kinda tough on the ego so I commend you for letting the debate get aired. Good for you. And that is not condescending either.
BTW, my screenwriting is pretty damn good. If you ever want to read one of my scripts & compare it with one of Joe Eszterhas’ (Basic Instinct is online), you are welcome to do so. Just ask.
“You obviously have opinions. Someone is trying to help you express yourself more effectively by offering a different opinion and challenging you to improve your rhetoric. This is not called condescension. It’s called friendly advice. That it takes place in a public forum is the nature of the beast and, yeah, it’s kinda tough on the ego so I commend you for letting the debate get aired. Good for you. And that is not condescending either.”
You didn’t wound my ego. Yes, giving unwanted advice on how I should do my job better is condescending. The comments exist so people can discuss and debate ideas as equals, not so you can hand out writing advice. (Surely you have some undergrads worthy of your assistance instead?) And no, you’re not providing friendly advice — and you know it — because you’re not my friend. You’re an anonymous person who has made no effort to befriend me. Thus you treating me as though you’re my boss giving me writing advice isn’t seen as a favor but as a “pretty damn good” example of condescension. As someone with a bad habit of being condescending sometimes I can recognize it when it’s directed at me. (Your need to make a 6 point list in the comment is another give-away.) And yes, if you wanted to give me private writing advice, my contact information is all over the place.
And I note you didn’t comment on my last point: “Wouldn’t someone who teaches screenwriting know the secret to communicating? Brevity.”
Dave? Are you a woman? A Democrat? You are sure arguing like one.
He never said he was a better writer, and whether he is or not is completely irrelevant. The fact that you would say that says volumes about your inability to be rational.
The issue is whether Joe Ezterhas writes so well that there is NO possibility that he produced a lousy script on this one occasion. Regardless of what his track record is, that proposition is absurd on the face of it. Even the best sometimes miss the mark, and there is scant evidence that Joe Ezterhas deserves to be rated among “the best”, let alone be elevated to such a stature that to suggest he wrote a bad screenplay is prima facia evidence of lying.
I don’t have a dog in this hunt. There is no question in my mind that Gibson is… let’s be kind and just say, “troubled”, and it would not surprise me in the least if everything Joe Ezterhas said is 100% true.
But your line of argumentation is silly at best, and dishonest at worst.
“There is no question in my mind that Gibson is… let’s be kind and just say, “troubled”, and it would not surprise me in the least if everything Joe Ezterhas said is 100% true.”
Your reluctance to call Gibson what he is — an antisemite — seems to indicate you do have a dog in this hunt. And your need to insult me as a Democrat and a woman also shows that I’ve hit an emotional nerve in some way. Please note point 3 in the commenting guidelines above.
man, they never ever learn.. wait for the FACTS to come out.. geez louise.. people are absolute dolts..
I gotta tell you, when I saw the headline this morning that noted that Eszterhas’ script had been rejected, my first thought was “well, look who wrote it.” He wrote a bunch of splashy, controversial scripts back in the day, but nothing that was outstanding for its *writing*. People who look at something that’s successful and decide that everyone who was involved in the project must have had something to do with its success just aren’t paying attention. At the beginning of this TV season there was an extremely lame sitcom introduced, about two guys cross-dressing so that they could live in a building or something. Everyone agreed on sight that the whole thing was utterly worthless, so why did it get done? The two guys behind it worked creatively on “Friends” for a year, so they must be geniuses. They’ve had a series of trainwrecks since, but no one noticed until now.
Back in the day, I wasn’t big on paying attention to scripts and who the screenwriter was, but I’ve always been very interested in writing, novels (especially mystery fiction), and how mystery plots work. I can remember complaining to my one screenwriter friend, one night, about how stupid the two movies “Jagged Edge” and “Basic Instinct” were. They are essentially the same movie, with the genders reversed. “Edge” is more romanitically-driven (the Glenn Close character falls in love with the Jeff Bridges character she’s defending) and “Instinct” is aimed more at guys (you get to see Stone naked, and it’s more about being in “lust” with someone than romance), but if you look at the way the two things are structured, the plot havers back and forth, with the protagonist thinking to him/herself: “S/he did it, s/he didn’t do it, s/he did it, s/he didn’t do it.” If you guess that this is going on while the movie’s still going, first time you see it, you can actually predict what sort of clue is going to appear next. Seriously, I saw “Basic Instinct” in the theater, then watched “Jagged Edge” on cable. Halfway through the latter, I realized the plot was doing this, and began to say to myself “OK, the next thing she’s going to come across will make it look as if Bridges did it, and the thing after will make it obvious he’s innocent.”
So he managed to sell the same plot to Hollywood twice. This does speak of a certain skill, but honesty isn’t the one that comes to mind. And if you think “Showgirls” has a cult following for any reason other than the amount of skin on screen, you weren’t paying attention. Go back and watch the movie again, if you dare. The plot is long and convoluted, there’s essentially no one to root for (the main character is essentially an amoral sociopath), and it doesn’t make much sense either. At the end of the movie, with no warning or hint that she’s had any training, Elizabeth Berkley suddenly turns into a ninja assassin and kicks some enormous guy in the head repeatedly, winning a fight with him.
Eszterhas has also, at various times, shown himself to be the typical Hollywood flake that we all expect them to be. When it comes down to his word against Gibson’s the question is, which whack job do you believe?
The first time I ever heard of Joe Eszterhas was in a newspaper article in Britain about him being the worst screenwriter to have ever made it in Hollywood! I see no reason to not believe Mel in this particular case given Eszterhas’ track record. I mean just think of Jagged Edge! LOL!
The issue here is Gibson’s declared anti-semitism. Well, so he is. And given Braveheart and the Patriot, he holds very nasty views towards the English (something Americans seem to accept without comment.) He has made a couple of amazingly good and successful movies (Passion… and Apocalypto). And, he is unhealthily interested in portraying torture. Also, he has helped Robert Downey Jr (among others) when no one else came through.
In judging him, we cannot ignore the fact that Mel Gibson is a very
talented fellow, both as an actor and as a producer.
My view is, watching Gibson’s tailspin is a tragedy. Esterhaz’s attack is, I think, in the realm of kicking the man when he is down.
It’s nice to know the writers here have such wonderful taste. Who could forget that immortal line from Showgirls as the star’s former boss looks at her new place of work. “It must be weird, not having anybody cum on you.”
If artistic merit is the arbiter of which man is telling the truth the four films Gibson has directed hands down beat Eszterhaus’s short list of hits (Flashdance, Jagged Edge, Basic Instinct, and Sliver) much less his complete body of work. When not focusing on nubile flesh an Eszterhaus script piles implausibility upon implausibility. In contrast to the above films Braveheart can be watched numerous times without having the viewer dissolve into helpless giggles. Even more impressive is how while Gibson’s last two outings behind the camera involved scripts in languages people don’t even speak today they grossed $732+ million worldwide. Gibson may be a vile person but he does know how to harness images to tell classic tales.
After trying to read the execrable American Rhapsody I made a pledge never to read anything by Eszterhas again. Eszterhas may have had a sincere religious conversion. He may no longer be a self serving, sex obsessed, weasel whose flops were always the fault of the director, the casting director, etc. etc. I doubt, however, that his conversion has done anything to improve his ability to spin a coherent tale.
I’m not a fan of Showgirls.
Folks.
We don’t know.
We DON’T KNOW.
With respect to the Ezsterhas/Gibson story, we are each of us, right now, in exactly the same place that we were the very first time we heard the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin story.
Maybe you’re one of the folks who figured that one out from the get-go, too, but odds are you’re one of the vastly larger group whose confirmation biases were revealed in your initial interpretation and then were bewildered and skeptical as each new tidbit of information came out revising the original picture.
That’s where we are.
Who knows where we’ll be on this story, a month from now…if anyone thinks it’s important enough to follow it that long?
I’m commenting on your comment posts, rather than your article. Why are you so invested in this? In feuds like this aren’t both usually wrong in the real world?
P.S. Say what you want about Gibson, but Braveheart was Randall Wallace’s brainchild and is better than its director.
“Why are you so invested in this? In feuds like this aren’t both usually wrong in the real world?”
The feud aspect isn’t what concerns me about this story.
Antisemitism is one of the subjects I write about the most: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/04/13/afrolanticas-haunting-conclusion-lets-get-back-to-the-struggle/
Swindle we’ll know whether you’re right or not unfortunately for you. Talk about desperation on your part. You have no idea and neither do we. You can’t bully us into believing (using pop psychology no less) all of Esterhas’ slander against Gibson is true.
But let’s use your pop psychology. Gibson’s historical epics are good enough that most of us can conceive of a man who is obsessed with quality and detail. It could have been a great script and not met Gibson’s standards. My guess with Mel is he is a bomb thrower who was drunk the night he got picked up, who may not be all that racist or bigoted. Talking with a 15 year old kid for hours about race nonsense/theory? Yeah most adult people have all the time in the world to do that, we especially seek out people 30+ years younger than us. And Mel not being a famous Hollywood director or actor has more time to do such things than most of us.
With the lack of good ideas and scripts in Hollywood (Beverly Hillbillies II soon? or My Mother the Car the Movie?) and a subject that has popular appeal to studio heads, a good story with dramatic potential, Esterhas’ screen play will get picked up quickly if it’s even an eighth as good as you assume it to be. If it’s not you can gauge for yourself whether you’re right.
Let’s be realistic on both counts:
1. Ezsterhas has been out of the seamy side of Hollywood life for ten years, living as straight as he possibly can. Haven’t read the book, but I’m betting his Christianity, or at least his conservatism, is as nerdy and tryhard as his scripts. And the Jews he’s been exposed to during that period have been among the best exemplars of human morality and accomplishment in both history and this present life.
Gibson has been in and around Hollywood for near his entire life at this point. A large number of the Jews he’s been working with to would qualify as the scum of the earth by nearly any culture’s objective standards, and are exactly the type to exacerbate any previously held prejudices, especially when so many of them cut off all professional ties after The Passion of the Christ beat all box office records.
Is it too far a stretch to imagine that the Maccabee story was an attempt to get both the philosemite and the antisemite to meet in the middle of the great Jewish division, and that the flaws of both men drove them apart? Can you not imagine Joe’s vision of the Jews being almost too ideal for film, while Mel Gibson was thinking less Jesus than, say, Martin Weiss?
The conversation needed on race applies as much to the hedonistic intellectuals at the top of the IQ spectrum as much as the layabout welfare leeches at the bottom that are currently attracting all the attention. Chilling all speech on the issue means that there’s no meaningful middle ground between Gibson and Ezsterhas in the public consciousness of Jews, and that a worthy, wide-appeal vision of the Maccabees simply will not get made as a result.
What a trainwreck. I’m afraid that NOBODY is going to come out of this looking good.