Following THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, and revelations about his feelings towards the chosen people and the sugar-titted, many such as myself have spent the last decade fairly uncomfortable with Mel Gibson. As much as it may have electrified a base of believers who hadn't had an item of pop significance since the Counter-Reformation, for those brought up in the Church of the Sacred Multiplex THE PASSION raised some uncomfortable questions about one of the world's biggest movie stars.
A majority of Mel Gibson films are connected by a persistent theme of justified violence. From LETHAL WEAPON to BRAVEHEART, his characters are typically tortured (in one way or another, and not infrequently in the Christ pose,) and in turn take vengeance on their assailants. And his films as a director - an Oscar-winner at that - are largely of a piece with his most memorable parts: they're about men who kill in righteous anger, and win. No self-reflection necessary. By contrast, another actor-turned-director, Clint Eastwood, spent the first half of his career as the silver screen's most iconic vigilante, but has spent the second half directing films about the nature of and need for forgiveness.
It's hard not to mention all this as preamble to Mel's first on-screen role in nearly a decade, in a movie tailor-made to his protagonist specifications: Martin Campbell's EDGE OF DARKNESS finds Mel playing Tom Craven, a Boston cop whose daughter Emma is murdered before his eyes. From there, Mel kicks many an ass to gain access to the most powerful ass of all - and then kicks that ass as well. He's aided by shadowy government operative Jedburgh (Ray Winstone) whose bosses are bent on covering up the conspiracy that led to Emma Craven's offing.
After eight years on his private island, tens of thousands of Camel Lights, and several New Testaments' worth of bad P.R., Mel Gibson is no longer svelte and sexy, he's creased and bulky. In a way, he's never looked better for this kind of role, and with a solid Boston accent and a few fine Mad Mel moments, he anchors this film with an undeniably spot-hitting performance. Growling a perfunctory line like "welcome to hell," Mel makes it sound just like it should - and for some viewers, that will be enough. But the film that's built around that growl is a detective story without any real twist - mainly because its villains are never less than completely obvious. The mystery, apparently, isn't the point; ass-kickery is. But does that really let writer William Monahan off the hook for so many unwieldy chunks of exposition? There's a lot of "that's all I can say... except for (insert clue)" and "you have to leave, but first, I want to give you this (clue.)" Yet for all the jawing, Winstone's subplot is so barely penned that his own righteous/violent turn in the film's climax plays as shocking in the wrong way - not a 'wow,' but 'wow, really?'
Now, as one whose favorite film of 2009 was INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, I can get down with cinematic violence when directed at deserving villains. But to the detriment of EDGE OF DARKNESS, its antagonists are simply stuffed suits with bad 'tudes. The plot that claims the life of Emma Craven is barely relevant to the action of the film; it's only ever referenced in the abstract to justify her father's vengeance. Characters enter and exit based solely on his desire to kick their asses: like "Robinson," a crooked environmentalist who's introduced at the end of Mel's fist, then pummeled without one line of dialogue. The scene goes like this, and I paraphrase: "hi," bam pow, end scene. Not that this isn't kind of amusing... It's just not so satisfying.
The strength of EDGE, as with most Martin Campbell films, is the action - and there are some expertly timed jolts throughout his newest. The death of Emma Craven is so well executed (ba-dum-bum,) it's shown twice. That's genre entertainment, perhaps, the nature of the beast, but it also speaks to the larger issue with Mel Gibson and his films of choice. The man is unapologetic - in life, on film. (See the PAYBACK: STRAIGHT UP DVD extras, in which he matter-of-factly explains his decision to seize control of the film from its director Brian Helgeland, and overhaul it to make it a more standard Mel Gibson vehicle - including the addition of, yes, a torture scene.) After eight years away, returning to acting with another revenge drama to add to his already sizeable pile, he shows no signs of maturation apart from the physical, and he doesn't seem to care. That lack of pretension makes it hard to dislike Mel, at least on-screen. But the question post-PASSION remains: does he take on films like this because he simply believes this is what audiences want to see of him? Or are his choices indicative not of movie star populism, but a personal obsession with absolution through brutality?
It's tempting to give him the benefit of the doubt after the forgettable but fun EDGE OF DARKNESS, if only because there's no Catholic imagery to speak of here - nor, apart from the guy's daughter being blowed up in front of him, is there any real torture. Yes, Craven is hauled off to the villains' lair in the film's last act, but the whole sequence is so inexplicably brief, and his escape so swift, that his kidnappers don't even have the chance to torture him. This surely upset no one more than Mel himself... Following some well-staged dispatching of heavies, the film's denouement, with father and daughter walking arm-in-arm into a white light, is pure schmaltz that smacks of PAYBACK tampering. Another hero has killed his way to vindication and is martyred, only to be united with his beloved... Sorry, I guess that's a spoiler - but only if you've never seen another Mel Gibson movie.
Review cross-posted at Steven Spielblog:
http://stevenspielblog.wordpress.com/