Mel Gibson is a Sociopath

Radaronline.com reports that Mel Gibson twice punched Oksana Grigorieva in the face while she was holding their baby. The incident is captured on the same tape in which he spews racial epithets, threatens to burn the house down, and tells her that she deserves to be punched.

This type of behavior should not be tolerated and Mel should be seen as the psychologically unbalanced, out-of-control sociopath he really is. Mel exhibits most of the character traits of a sociopath (http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html), such as glibness, a grandiose sense of self, a lack of remorse, shame or guilt about his actions, an incapacity for love, callousness, and a lack of empathy toward others.
Sociopaths, according to H. Cleckley and R. Hare, "never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible"; they are "covertly hostile and domineering," and they "may dominate and humiliate their victims."

Mel has still not come out and apologized for his racist rant, which was leaked last week. Instead, he and his lawyer have focused on who leaked the tape and whether or not it was Oksana (as if that makes any difference). Mel Gibson has no idea how out-of-control he really is, and if he does, he doesn't care. Everything that goes wrong in his life is someone else's fault, and he uses these adverse events as excuses to spout his hate-filled views to whomever is around. When he was arrested for DUI in 2006, he proceeded to go on an anti-Semitic tirade and sexually harass the female police officer who was on-scene; and in this latest rant, he insults and punches his girlfriend, spewing racial epithets, and telling her she deserves to be hit. This mentality is the same as a rapist who believes that his victim "really wanted it." Mel Gibson is a sociopath, and this is more than a tawdry tabloid story. This is the profile of a very sick mind.

WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Mel Gibson Caught On Tape Admitting He Hit Oksana -- "You F**king Deserved It" RadarOnline.com

The Toy Story Phenomenon

Look at the box office snapshot of June 27, 2010. Seven of the top ten movies blatantly exploit the innocence of youth, and obviously to great effect. Why, then do studios keep trying to tell us we should crave something else? I'm sick of critics pretending they're shocked when period pieces, dramas, or romantic thrillers fail. These are AUTUMN MOVIES, people. Haven't you realized that by now?

It's summer and my mind wants to go on vacation. I want sun and fun, beaches and Fantasyland. No stuffy wood-paneled rooms, cubicles, or desolate ghost towns. I want Katy Perry singing about "California Gurls" and Buzz Lightyear, the enduring staple of youth, comforting me with shouts of, "To infinity... and BEYOND!"

Seven of the top ten movies this week are staples of our youth, and if not our youth, then that of our children: innocent, enduring, and secure. "Toy Story 3," "The Karate Kid," "The A-Team," and "Shrek Forever After" are remakes, variations on a time-tested theme that has proven successful; while, "Get Him to the Greek," "Grown Ups," and "The Prince of Persia" capitalize on the rituals of male adventure, bonding, and virilty.

These are unsure times. We have enough to worry about, with terrorism, nuclear threats, increased surveillance, and impending economic collapse an everyday reality. We need fantasy and escape, comfort and security. We need to feel safe again, like we did in our youth.

Impending doom has always dogged us, the everpresent shadow ready to snatch us up at any given moment, but when we were kids, we didn't care. We were bound and determined to experience life, to imbibe of as much as we could before we ran out. Money, alcohol, drugs, and sex: the fleeting summers bonding with friends; memories you carry with you throughout your life, and that placate you as you grow older.

Security. Cartoon characters that never get old, heroes that never die. Sequels represent summer and are expected by audiences the same way they expect catchy pop songs and risque clothing. These staples are even more in demand today, because times are indeed bleak. So why don't the studios save some money, forego the pretense, and just give us what we want?

The Glass Closet

Cameron Diaz has joined the ranks of Christina Aguilera, as female celebrities eager for some cheap publicity, overpublicize their supposed sexual liberation and bisexuality. Since when has finding the same sex attractive become such a shallow marketing ploy?

Diaz told "Playboy" magazine that she "can be attracted to a woman sexually, but it doesn't mean I want to be in love with a woman." She adds, "If I'm going to be with a woman sexually, it doesn't mean I'm a lesbian."

We haven't seen such masterful parsing of language since Bill Clinton sought to define the word "is" and courted liberal groups while publicly disavowing being a "liberal" himself.

If Diaz is truly attracted to women, why does she have to qualify it? Why go to "Playboy" magazine, the embodiment of passive female degradation, to extoll her enigmatic sexuality?

It's interesting that this marketing ploy only works for women. Although there are a few male celebrities, like Fall Out Boy's Pete Wentz, who have admitted to having bisexual tendencies, for the most part, men are sex symbols precisely because they fit into the popular mold of male virility. They wear their rugged sexuality on their sleeves, and are unequivocally attracted to women. What would it do to Brad Pitt's or Robert Pattinson's career if they publicly admitted to being bisexual?

Women like Katy Perry, Christina Aguilera, Lady Gaga, and now Cameron Diaz are being told that ambiguous sexuality is a strong selling point. They cannot be lesbians, but they can be bisexual; yet these supposed "bisexuals" are never seen out with dates other than men. So, is your sexual proclivity even relevant? If you're married with children (like Christina), engaged to a man (like Katy), or simply engaging in shameless self-promotion (like Gaga and Cameron), then why do we care? It's not like you're a tireless activist for the movement. Your "bisexuality" is simply part of your marketing plan. Shock value, titillation. (yaaaaaawn)

Cameron's disavowal of lesbianism is hardly an endorsement. It's like having a spokesperson who films commercials cavorting with your product, only to turn around and tell everyone that she doesn't even use your product, or she only uses it sometimes.

Note to Cameron's publicist (and Christina's, and Katy's, and Gaga's as well), just stick to the entertainment. Leave the fight for true equal rights and acceptance to those people who don't have to pretend.

Sex and the Twenty-First Century

I don’t like when politics intrudes into my movies.
Because, as Goebbels said, “Whoever can conquer the street will one day conquer the state, for every form of power politics and any dictatorship-run state has its roots in the street.”
Politics + movies = propaganda.
Do they really think we do not know this? But maybe we don’t. What is the modern American paradigm if not opportunistic and manipulative? Is it possible to be consciously manipulated? The producers of “Sex and the City 2” think so. Watching this movie just confused me. I wasn’t sure if I should feel sorrier for Liza Minelli, women in burkas, or all of the American women they convinced to see this film, which they billed as some kind of contemporary look at women’s studies and gender roles.
Usually, propaganda in movies has to be somewhat concealed. This movie felt like a promotional piece put out by the Abu Dhabi tourism board. The characters make references to the “new Middle East” throughout the film, and seem intent on reminding us that they were traveling to “the future.” Then we have Aidan walking through the arches at the hotel reciting the names of the seven countries that make up the United Arab Emirates. Aidan wouldn’t know the seven countries, much less waste precious time with his long, lost love reciting them. And what’s with that plot twist anyway? How desperate were they for material? They make Aidan an international rug dealer, who just happens to be on the same street of the same market as Carrie, at the same time? And then she just happens to be pissed off at her husband and her bad book review, so she kisses Aidan and then runs back to her hotel room to call her husband and tell him. Manufactured drama isn’t drama at all. Drama only works when there’s a grain of truth in it.
Samantha also seemed to be drawn out of character, as if wanting to appeal to the large gay audience the series has developed over the years. She was hornier than ever, and in her menopausal haze, seemed to be too tired to even bother with the intelligent, yet provocative conversation for which she has become a fan favorite. Now, her conversation drifts pointedly to sex from the beginning. She utters lines like, “Are you a big boy?” as she grabs her date’s crotch in the middle of an Arab restaurant. He leaves visibly aroused, however, I fail to see how her cheap, to-the-point talk could have done anything other than make him laugh.
I understand the need for rapprochement with the Middle East, but do the producers of this movie really think they can do it with fashion? Carrie and her girls prance around the desert looking ridiculous. My guess is that the first movie was written shortly after the series ended, therefore keeping the continuity; whereas the sequel has completely lost its way, forgetting who all of these characters really are. Their lives are completely consumed by fashion. (Carrie walking through an Arab bazaar dressed in a tacky Dior getup, carrying a lorgnette? A lorgnette?) And, I’m sorry, but if you put a contemporary writer in the middle of the Middle East, she’s going to have something to write about. Carrie decides to mope about her marriage and a bad book review instead.
The women seem completely oblivious to their surroundings, and that is what makes this film so maddening. They laugh and point out the cute head scarves and the Burka bathingsuits, but they are too consumed with their own frivolity to take into account where they are and what they’re doing there. Even Samantha’s final showdown with the town elders is weak. Look how easily they escaped! Look how American capitalism can charm its way through your city, despite your laws and customs. The premise screams social critique, but the producers of “Sex and the City 2” missed that. They only cared about profits, maximizing profits amidst their newfound patrons. I went to see this movie for the ribald banter; the situations to which every woman can relate. Instead I got gratuitous pandering, which is the worst form of flattery.
So, next time (assuming there will be a next time), let’s see Samantha battling menopause, or facing her fears of getting old; let’s see Carrie questioning her marriage to Big; Miranda grappling with being a working mother; and Charlotte grappling with being a mother, but let’s see it in its natural setting, on the streets of New York, which is where it all began. Let’s tackle real women’s issues, the ones that prey on their self-esteem, and not just their rampant materialism. Better yet, maybe we should consider retiring this series once and for all. There’s nothing worse than an idea whose time has passed.