Watching Mel Gibson movies in 2016 is a weird experience

Gimme Back My Son!

I used to like Mel Gibson. I wasn't a die hard fan (I always thought Braveheart was overrated for instance), but I appreciated him, particularly in the Lethal Weapon and Mad Max movies. I remember being puzzled by why he was such a heartthrob, although as I've gotten older I have come around to recognize his good looks. And like most people, I was stunned when he was revealed to be a virulent racist and anti-Semite.

Today, he is more or less a pariah in Hollywood and some of his old hits -- like What Women Want -- look highly ironic now after we've all heard his erratic, scary and occasionally funny voicemail rants and shaky subsequent public appearances.

In modern movie history, I can't think of a bigger fall from grace. Gibson was one of the industry's A-list icons, and recently I watched two films from his peak period -- 1997's Conspiracy Theory and 1996's Ransom -- and it was a surreal experience to say the least.

First of all, both films are very distinct examples of the two most prominent parts of Gibson's star persona. He is unhinged in both -- but in some films, like the first Lethal Weapon movie, he plays someone who actually may be crazy and then in other films, like The Patriot, he is more stoic and earnest. 

Curiously, the concept of righteous vengeance is a thread that runs through many of his films. I remember seeing an interview with him prior to his mid-2000s descent where he claimed to get the approval of his priest before each role he took on. I don't know if that's true, but there does seem to be a latent conservative streak in much of his work.

Mugshot Mel

Conspiracy Theory is a huge mess of a movie. Gibson certainly isn't slacking here but his series of ticks and quirks are far more annoying than convincing. We are to believe Gibson is a socially awkward, obsessive taxi driver who has inadvertently stumbled into a huge secret conspiracy. 

Because Gibson appears so committed to playing the character as legitimately crazy, the forced romance he has with co-star Julia Roberts is totally awkward and problematic. The movie itself is overheated and occasionally incomprehensible. 

Viewed with 20/20 hindsight, what was supposed to be an oddball, character role for him now looks like a riff on his real life meltdowns. In 1997, the idea of Gibson being nuts was quaint, now it's a commonly held belief.

Ransom is tamer and more watchable by comparison. Although there are elements of it that are hopelessly dated. For instance, why does Gibson's character get to make nothing but unilateral decisions about his kidnapped sons future without consulting his wife (played by '90s staple Rene Russo) at all.

Also, the movie's big hook -- that Gibson's character, a wealthy airline magnate, decides to call his son's kidnapper's bluff by not paying their ransom -- while watchable and intriguing never stops feeling convoluted and venal. Just who does this guy think he is? The character routinely puts his wife and his son in danger but we're supposed to root for him simply because he's Mel. That kind of worked twenty years ago, but it doesn't click now, especially when you remember that this is the guy who once made a Holocaust joke the first time he ever met Winona Ryder.

Still, I am a big believer in separating art from artist -- hence my ability to appreciate the creative work of Bill Cosby, Roman Polanski and others, while having contempt for them as human beings --and I will continue to try to apply the same logic to Gibson. That said, I wish that with Ransom they hadn't played it so safe, and allowed for the possibility that his character really was just greedy and perhaps he was truly torn abut parting with money to save his son.

Instead, we're to believe he is just adept at outsmarting the crooks, which is possible but not totally credible. The guy does have a presence though, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't get a kick out of a lot of his roles over the years.

I don't know that any one performance will redeem at this point, but he is fascinating to look back on as something akin to a cinematic artifact.