Mel Gibson, revenge and redemption

Mar. 12, 2010
Mel Gibson as Thomas Craven and Shawn Roberts as Burnham in “The Edge of Darkness” (Warner Bros.)

Director Martin Campbell’s new film, “The Edge of Darkness,” is a blessing of sorts for Academy Award-winning director/writer/actor Mel Gibson. In this tense conspiracy thriller, Gibson plays Thomas Craven, a Boston police detective. On a rainy night, he welcomes his daughter home from her secretive job. Once home, Emma (Bojana Novakovic) wants to tell her father something but as they step out into the night she is blasted away by a powerful rifle before she can do so.

The Boston cops think that Thomas was the target but he turns small signs into clues and is soon carrying out his own investigation. With nothing to lose now that his daughter is dead, he vows to get the killer or killers who took away his only child.

Enter Darius Jedburgh (Ray Winstone), an agent acting for a political and corporate nuclear arms alliance, indeed the very company where Craven’s daughter had worked as an intern. Jedburgh warns Craven that he is meddling in deadly matters and recognizes Craven’s ruthless intent to catch and kill his daughter’s assassins. Jedbugh acknowledges that he is a mercenary, and because he is the same kind of man, is drawn to Craven’s motive as a father; he comes to understand that having a family is what gives value and meaning to life.

The plot turns on the idea of what it means to be a father.

“The Edge of Darkness” is a compelling two-hour film based on a 1985 BBC television series of the same name and the same basic storyline.

Aside from its entertainment value, the film provides a study of the lead actor, Gibson, several years after the religious epic he directed, “The Passion of the Christ.” One could say that Gibson as actor and director and producer has been walking on the edge of darkness for sometime. Films such as “Braveheart,” “Payback,” “The Patriot” and “Paparazzi” feature extreme, bloody violence and often a revenge theme.

Last year, during the promotion of “The Stoning of Soraya M.,” I asked Catholic film producer Steve McEveety how he and Gibson could release “Paparazzi,” a film that glorifies and legitimizes revenge, in the same year as “The Passion of the Christ.” McEveety replied, “There are some things that with hindsight, one would not do.” The argument that the theme of someone dying for others, or redemption, in Gibson’s films is as frequent a theme as revenge, only increases confusion about the person behind his cinematic identity.

Preview NCR's Family Life Issue

Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.

You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.

I often have difficulty with Gibson as an actor. When he gets a “Mad Max” or “Lethal Weapon” kooky glint in his eye or his actions mimic that of previous roles, I find it difficult to take him seriously. However, in “The Edge of Darkness” Gibson emerges as a true actor who fills his role so completely that he makes us forget he is Mel Gibson and instead, he is a Boston cop who has lost the love of his life, his daughter. His lined, leathery face and weary eyes may have their sources in his real life drama, but we don’t care as the film unfolds.

His name, Craven, means cowardly but he is never that. At one point, Emma tells him: “I wish you had someone in your life.” He says, in an authentic Boston Southy accent, “Who knows? Maybe I have a honey on the side.” In actual fact it was revealed that Gibson did have a girlfriend during the making of the film. She later gave birth to their daughter and Robyn, Gibson’s wife of more than 25 years, subsequently filed for divorce.

“The Edge of Darkness” was cowritten (with Andrew Bovell) by Oscar-winner William Monahan, who scripted Martin Scorsese’s Academy Award-winning film “The Departed” (2006). The avid cinephile will find similarities, especially in the film’s denouement. Here, the incestuous political-corporate intrigue works almost too easily to create the context for the film, something a longer movie or a television series could complicate even more or use as more subtle political commentary.

I appreciated the restraint shown in Campbell’s directing, Rather than go for the jugular, so to speak, he has Gibson stop before he pounds someone into oblivion. Campbell shows a man struggling with his humanity as a father, who tells a corrupt cop friend who betrays Craven to protect his own family that he has to decide whether he is going to bang the nails or hang on the cross. A crucifix hangs on the wall of Craven’s kitchen, as we would expect of an Irish Catholic Boston cop. But Campbell does not hit us over the head with the image or the analogy and he doesn’t let Gibson do it either.

All this does not diminish the reality, however, that “The Edge of Darkness” is a violent film about violence to ethical and moral integrity. The film demonstrates that violence, once rationalized or legitimized, extends to affect the trust needed between persons, families, in workplaces, nations and the world.

Stepping onto the edge of darkness and into the light may be the best thing Gibson has done artistically in a long time. This is one film where he doesn’t lose his humanity to prove that he has it.

[Sr. Rose Pacatte, a Daughter of St. Paul, is the director of the Pauline Center for Media Studies, an award-winning writer on film and scripture, and a media literacy education specialist.]

Gibson partly revealed

Gibson partly revealed himself in the Passion of Christ as having a belief in a distorted idea of the Atonement. He had Jesus suffering impossibly to balance the evil in the world. If God the Father sent Christ to do that, then the Father is himself evil, in that he abuses his own child. Gibson is said to be a Catholic, but the Church does not teach what Gibson seems to believe.
Jesus portrays God as a loving Father, Father of the whole of humanity. The Father does not dominate. He does not abuse people. Read Sandra Schneiders articles on ncr to get a genuine protrait of both Jesus and his heavenly Father.

Jesus DID suffer! And he

Jesus DID suffer! And he suffered A LOT! One cannot downplay what Christ did. What he did, though, was not "balance the evil in the world". G-d has rebels, not rivals. But to say that Christ did NOT suffer "impossibly" is to just be ignorant of the Crucifixtion.

I for one will not spend a

I for one will not spend a penny on a Mel Gibson film. He's proven himself to be a homophobic, anti-Semitic bigot adulterer.

People should stop

People should stop misrepresenting their personal opinion that MG is a hot-headed bigot as a rational fact. These are wrongful assumptions. First, one has to believe that people are never unfair, or that drunk people are never unfair, to consider the type of event that took place in 2006 proof that a person is a bigot - and such a naive view would make one an unfit judge in any case. Secondly, this incident was in reality a once in a lifetime event in over 50 years of life that shouldn't be misrepresented as the opposite, a characteristic trait. When people have to twist a point to make a point not only do they not have a point, they have cast doubt on their own motives and/or ability to reason in a sound way. Is it unlikely that a person would have taken cheap shots under the circumstances MG was in at the time? No. Who wouldn't feel bullied if ever arrested, it's an instinctive reaction to having our freedom taken away. And when are we most likely to take a cheap shot? When we feel bullied ourselves. Additionally, when is it most likely that we would give in to that type of emotion instead of stay on higher ground despite feeling bullied ourselves; when our defenses are down, which is the case when we drink alcohol. The arresting officer was Jewish and looks Jewish, Israel had just attacked its neighboring country, it was all over the news and many were worried it would escalate into a large international conflict. The remark MG made was in other words a very likely one to be at hand for a drunk looking for a cheap shot, not an unlikely one. Certainly for someone who by then had been accused over and over again by some of having hateful, hurtful sentiments towards Jewish people, of believing they are cursed by God for killing Jesus, of believing they are responsible for all sorts of wrongdoings today (even though he states in interviews that he does not support the theological theory that the Jews are cursed for the killing of Jesus).
For many it was completely clear the above is exactly what MG meant when he stated that what he had said was the stupid ramblings of a drunkard. He felt bullied and took a cheap shot, he wasn't expressing an inner felt truth, on the contrary, he was being unfair, something he feels ashamed and appalled about. For anyone who cares about being fair, who sets that as a normal standard in day-to-day life, crossing the line anyway is a legitimate reason to apologize, to take the unfair statement back and replace it for a fair one. What he did extensively.
More and more people, fans and non-fans alike, have become increasingly alarmed by the amount of hatred coming MG's way. Contrary to MG, who misbehaved once and apologized for it, many of these people go on and on and show no remorse at all. The time that we are willing to take these continual attacks seriously is over - it is beginning to look a lot like bigotry itself. Whether MG is a bigot remains to be seen, many of those attacking him however are at least themselves infected with the disease they accuse him of having; a hateful, prejudiced attitude with no ability and/or willingness to deal with facts and emotions in a balanced and unbiased way.
As for other misrepresentations, MG stated that he did NOT say sugar ''....'': A officer called his female colleague that name. It is not likely the officer would let MG lie about it. When people keep attributing this remark to MG despite that, it says everything about them and nothing about MG.
About showing violence in an authentic way. If that makes us unbalanced people with a personal problem, we might as well question Steven Spielberg's character for making Shindler's List - instead of interpreting it as an attempt to reveal what hatred can do to us. Does MG justify revenge? In a recent interview about the Edge of darkness MG indicates that the main character seeks revenge after his daughter is killed, but adds: "Not that that is right".

Don’t halt blogs! It’s

Don’t halt blogs! It’s pleasant you just read a rational discourse at least

Post new comment

NCR Comment code:

  1. Be respectful. Do not attack the writer. Take on the idea, not the messenger.
  2. Use appropriate language. Avoid vulgarities and slurs.
  3. Keep to the point. Deliberate digressions don't aid the discussion.

For more detailed guidelines, visit our User Guidelines page.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
(if you have one; if not, leave this blank)
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <font> <swf> <swf list>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may use <swf file="song.mp3"> to display Flash files inline

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This is to prove you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.