The American Spectator

p> THE REVIEWS ARE IN br> Re: Hal G.P. Colebatch’s The Real Case Against Mel Gibson : /p>

Putting aside the fact — bizarre in and of itself — that Mr. Colebatch finds the historical inaccuracies in Mel Gibson’s films far more offensive than the actor’s now-infamous outburst (“a relative triviality”?), his charges against Gibson are exceptionally weak even on their own terms.

Mr. Colebatch spends most of his time damning the 1981 film Gallipoli. I have neither seen the film nor am I am expert regarding the battle it was based on, so I’ll take Mr. Colebatch at his word on its historical inaccuracies. What baffles me is why he blames Gibson for this. Gibson was all of about 23 years old when he appeared in the film as an actor. By all accounts he had no other input into the film, which was written, directed and produced by others. If Mr. Colebatch finds the film offensive then he should direct his ire at those people.

Mr. Colebatch is on firmer ground in his criticisms of Braveheart and the Patriot, since Gibson did have creative control over those projects. But even here, his point isn’t very strong. Neither film is presented as a true account of history but rather as Hollywood adventures inspired by true events. Audiences have known since the days of Errol Flynn not to take these films seriously.

In the case of William Wallace, there literally isn’t a whole lot known, so any film about him is obliged to invent details. Gibson makes no effort to hide this either. In the audio commentary track to the DVD edition he points out many of the inaccuracies, anachronisms and inventions in the film himself. He makes no bones about taking dramatic license to make a simpler, more audience-pleasing film. So why does Mr. Colebatch take the film’s history more seriously than Gibson does?

p>The same points can be made regarding Patriot — a film I did not like — but one that nobody in their right mind would watch as historical documentary. br> — Sean Higgins