Mel Gibson Books

Not very funny. They mostly trash people they and most of us don't like. A lot of the stuff is a rehash of already published material.

Sadly, this book takes a great concept and goes nowhere with it. Sure, there are a few chuckles, but Jackie Mason is capable of a lot better than this snoozer. It consists mainly of lame potshots at easy targets. The Hilton sisters are spoiled; ha ha. Radical Muslim fundamentalists are "humorless." You don't say! Duke Cunningham is a greedy hypocrite. This is supposed to be clever? Some of the sections, such as the one that attacks "Reform Jews" for trying to be like rich, superficial WASPs (is that really what Reform Judaism is about, Mr. Former Rabbi?), are just plain stupid.

The book is also full of smaller factual errors, for example a reference to Mets "pitcher" (actually third baseman) David Wright. That's a pretty embarassing mistake for a couple of New Yorkers to make. And there are plenty of other lazy inaccuracies throughout. The fact-checker (assuming there even was one) should find another line of work.

I get the general feeling that very little effort was put into this book. The authors often forgot about the "humor" part of "observational humor." You can't just point out something ironic or foolish and call that comedy. To be fair, some of the jokes are good, but too many of them are just cheap name-calling. I had high expectations for this book and was sorely disappointed. All the more so because the world could use more *good* right-leaning humor -- too much of it is more concerned with being right-leaning than with being funny.

I guess I thought it would give me a laugh or two based on some of highlighted phases, "Jews for Jesus" etc. However, it was yet another comedian trying to join the Lewis Black, Daily Show or Bill Maher bandwagon of political humor. Too bad this comedian is not as funny nor has diverse content.
After the first few pages the book simply turns into a complaining/vent session of everything which the authors deeply disagrees with - let me summarize:
Any Jew who is against Israel
Any political organization against Israel politics
Any person who remotely supports the Holocaust
Any non-Conservative
and silly jokes to those in media which require teasing (ie. Al Sharpton, Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson, Britney, etc.)

There are many other comedian with similar content and jokes but they are really funny whereas this book just takes a small segment of its victim and highlights it as their basis for existence.

Save yourself money and time. If you want something funny watch a truly funny comedian. Allow Jackie to perform on Broadway and advise him to keep the stand-up act going but stay away from the typewriter.

It is an okay read, but I won't recommand buying it. Borrow it from the library or something.

Perhaps I'm just getting too old... I can vaguely remember back in the early days of television when some of what Jackie Mason said was actually funny.

But the only way this book could been any worse would have been if Alan Derschowitz had done the editing and Ann Coulter's face had been on the cover. (Although, to be fair, Neither Mr. Mason nor Mr. Felder is very much less unappealing to behold than Ms. Coulter)

Still, this book did add something to my store of knowledge. Based upon the definitions given in the introduction, I can now state with some authority that:

1. Anyone who either buys a book written by a faded borscht belt comedian and a celebrity divorce lawyer for more than 39 cents on a remainders table OR takes seriously anything contained in said book - is a schmuck.

2. Anyone who actually writes such a book as this one AND puts his own name on it - is a putz.

OK, it wasn't written well. And there are times where the girl power emphasis, the "way cool"s and such do get a bit tedious, but hey - that is how ms. Cartwright talks. And in that one gets a key piece of info - she is Bart! Literally. We have here the do-what-you-feel boy. Its a fairly open account of her early career on up to Bart, containing therein something which I have found lacking in all other Simpsons books or commentaries. This is the only place I have found anyone involved in the Simpsons discuss the death of the great Phil Hartman. It just annoys me honestly in the DVD commentaries or in books when he is solely referred to as "the late Phil Hartman" in a 4 word quickie statement that then passes to the next Citizen Kane parody. Not that I mean going into any morbid, tabloid details, but acknowledging that one day he was at work and one he wasn't, saying how tragic it was and what a loss to television and those that knew him personally. A cute book for those that like the show, and far better than others (avoid Planet Simpson like the razor Os in frosted Krusty flakes) in terms of anecdotes of the show's early years.

Having read Nancy Cartwright's book, My Life As A Ten Year Old Boy (5 cds, 6 hours, unabridged) which was not a great book or a great tell all. On the printed page, the book was slow and boring. So, I was very leary of an audio version. Well, I was wrong...The audio version sparkles.

Cartwright seems to do a one woman show in narrating her book. Okay, she doesn't fully get her co-stars voice patterns (like Julie Kavner's Marge or the late great Phil Hartman) perfect, but you will know who she is talking about. She is a masterful talent behind a mic, which makes this insiders version of the Simpson family rock.

So, DONT HAVE A COW, MAN over some of her crazy vocal detours Nancy tries. Cartwright's tell all is NOT an audio copy of Nimoy's I am NOT Spock. She is happy in the skin of Bart and it shows. What impresses me more is her humble beginning and her excitement in this reading. It overwhelms the listener. For most Overwhelming is bad, for this it is VERY good. Cartwright is a fan along with all of us ! She still had the awe with the rest of us!

So If you a Simpson fan, Animation fan, Love Saturday Morning Cartoons (or Cartton Network) or a fan of a life in Hollywood stories... this no nonsense, humorous recanting on the history of a cartoon series is great fun...and if you don't like this audio...well to quote Bart Simpson, in his immortal words, "EAT MY SHORTS!"--Bennet Pomerantz, AUDIOWORLD

I had to read this book. I consider The Simpsons to be one of, if not the, greatest TV sitcom ever, and the chance at a behind the scenes look into the show was not something I could refuse. Indeed the cover proclaims it as a look "Behind the Scenes at The Simpsons." Sadly, however, there is very little of this. What this book really is, instead, is a memoir by a would-be celebrity who seems to be shouting the words "recognize me" over and over for 270 pages.

Not that Ms. Cartwright has trouble recognizing herself. This book is, essentially, nothing more than the relating of her life, a bland and boring story that plods along without really anything to pique the reader's interest. She writes poorly, makes use of irritating phrases like "so way cool," shifts tenses several times in a paragraph, and uses quotation marks with reckless abandon. She also presents her life as flat and with a sort of one-sided idealism. Everything goes right-there is never any doubt, no failures or second guesses to cloud this fairy tale. Nancy seems to want everyone to see her life as perfect in every way.

The "behind the scenes" aspect of the work is actually a slew of anecdotes which ranges from stories of people applauding and extolling her greatness to star struck accounts of her own run-ins with celebrity, which almost invariably end with some star validating her inflated opinion of herself by acknowledging her existence. There is a random spattering of the "process" as she, someone who isn't actually involved in the animation process, sees it. If, like me, you're looking for real meat, for actual looks behind the scenes and into the inner workings of Springfield you'll be, again like me, sorely disappointed.

At times it's annoying that Nancy sees herself as a celebrity. At other times its humorous or just plain sad. I actually burst out laughing when she compares Kelsey Grammer's appearances as Sideshow Bob to her own minor role as a forgettable extra in an episode of Cheers. That she has the audacity to refer to herself in that sitcom (years before the Simpsons) as a "guest star" overcame my efforts of keeping a straight face. She seems to be craving respect and recognition, throwing around names of people and stars she's worked with (or who she spent 5 minutes at the mic with during their guest appearances) as if by rubbing shoulders (or, better yet, having shook hands) with celebrities she is, by definition, one herself. As she narrates tales of Kirk Douglas, Mel Gibson, and others she patronizes them by condescendingly taking it upon herself to fantasize what they might be thinking and imagining that they're actually nervous. She has some twisted sense that they have to prove themselves to the Simpsons cast, as if the stars of Spartacus and Braveheart are concerned with what she thinks. Indeed it seems a twisted form of hero worship when she ponders if this or that Hollywood great can, as she puts it, "measure up."

In all fairness Nancy is a very talented voice over artist and certainly deserves respect. It's no stretch of the imagination, however, to remember that she's only one part of Bart Simpson. Taking into account that Homer more or less stole the spotlight from Bart in the first few seasons anyway it's surprising that she has to wonder why she's not constantly mobbed by fans. She ponders why they refused to announce her arrival at a Screen Actors Guild awards ceremony. That she doesn't recognize the limit of her celebrity is, indeed, sad. That her name has to be qualified with the phrase "Voice of Bart Simpson" on the cover should, one would think, provide a hint.

I picked this book up hoping for an in-depth look at both The Simpsons and the development and evolution of Bart Simpson's voice. Sadly, I feel I was let down from start to finish. My respect for Nancy Cartwright as the voice of Bart will continue, but I just can't buy into the celebrity status she's afforded herself. And I'll always remember that several talents on that show eclipse her own, and that there are people on the show who do upwards of 12 or more voices but don't feel the need to write a book about it. You don't see James Earl Jones trying to validate his whole career as the voice of Darth Vader (a voice infinitely more memorable that Bart's), and there's a reason for that. Shameless self-promotion or not, I think Nancy Cartwright said it best herself when she realized she was a "celebrity that nobody knew."

[...]
Although not as detailed as I would have liked, Nancy still offers a unique insider's perspective on the creation of each Simpsons episode. From the writers and storyboard artists' conceptions to the final product, the book takes the reader through the entire process of what it's like to produce an animated television show.

Nancy also gives a brief account of her journey through the business of voice-over artist. She starts with her humble beginnings in school plays and speech competitions through working with her mentor, Daws Butler (Huckleberry Hound, Fred Flintstone, Yogi Bear, etc.).

In short, this was a very interesting and informative book even if it was, at times, a little "self-serving." But then again, what else do you expect from an autobiography?

]...]

Ugh, I haven't "struggled" through a book like this since high school. I'm a huge Simpsons fan and although I don't care much about Nancy Cartwright, I saw the "Behind the scenes at the Simpsons" sticker on the front cover...so I had to have it.

I know this sounds kinda silly but while reading the book I kept thinking to myself, "Who the heck cares about Nancy Cartwright"?!? She's just a voice, she's in no way interesting. She's also not funny, not even accidently funny. The only laughs I got from the book was about how bad it was.

In addition, she's a poor writer. She should have hired one of these ghost-writers to write her memoirs. I also got the impression from the book that she's an egotistical maniac. Without even reading the book you could probably figure this out, she makes something like $300,000 per episode, so she made off of one episode than off her entire book.

Please please please, stay away from this!!

This is a good book for anyone interested in how Mel Gibson's film relates to the Jesus of history, and the editors generally take the right approach: "We should not impose what we want Gibson to do with his movie but rather seek to understand, appreciate, and critique what he has done." Aside from one contributor (Crossan), the twelve authors do a fairly good job of this.

The first part presents two overviews of the film written by John Dominic Crossan and Mark Goodacre. Differences in tone, reason, and sanity cannot be overstated. Crossan's is a sanctimonious indictment and hard to take seriously, with preposterous overstatements found on every page: "If this film is not anti-Semitic, no such film can ever be made." In fact the film is no more anti-Semitic than the gospels, and considerably less so than Matthew and John. "Any Christian who accepts the Emmerich-Gibson theology of vicarious atonement is trapped in support of pornographic sadism." While the violence is extreme and the gore a blood-bath, neither is gratuitous. The subject matter demands them. Pornography encourages the viewer to want more, and the film does precisely the opposite. In effect Crossan serves as the foil against which Goodacre radiates sound judgment. The latter's essay is easily the book's finest: well-organized, well-written, explaining why the film can offer a powerful vision to Christians and non-Christians alike.

The second part is half the book and deals with particular subjects: the flashbacks (Robert Webb), the character of Judas (Scot McKnight), the figure of Satan (Mark Allan Powell), Mary and the women (Kathleen Corley), the Jewish leaders (Alan Segal), the Romans (Helen Bond), the trials of Jesus (Glenna Jackson), and the procession/crucifixion (Craig Evans).

Webb thinks the flashbacks are key to comprehending Gibson's vision: "without them the film would be a pointless gore-fest". I disagree. The flashbacks are unnecessary and distractive given the film's focus. And Jesus' passion isn't pointless; the context is supplied by familiarity with the gospel stories. I agree, however, with Webb's conclusion that Gibson's use of the flashbacks is "problematic and inadequate", not only because they insufficiently communicate the significance of Jesus, but because the viewer's own image of Jesus can provide all the framework one needs. Gibson's snapshots are too brief and superficial. In any case, Webb's individual commentaries on the flashbacks are helpful.

McKnight explains why Judas' betrayal and suicide is likely historical, while his demonization in the film is mythological though dramatically effective. Powell argues that the androgynous and alluring figure of Satan, while not exactly true to the gospels (let alone history), is a well-used and convincing representation of evil. Corley corrects Gibson's association of Mary Magdalene with the adulteress of Jn 8, and opines that both Marys should have been in the flashbacks with the disciples -- since historically they were disciples too.

Segal's objections are fair and considered (unlike those of Crossan) but misplaced. He believes the film is anti-Semitic for portraying the Jewish leaders under Satan's sway. Historically the priesthood had very good reasons for having Jesus arrested: he was stirring up crowds during passover, and he acted against the temple. Messianic movements (of which there were a variety) and threats against the temple could easily get one killed in Jesus' day, and these would certainly account for an historical passion more than any mythological reason owing to Satanic influence. Segal is obviously right. But Gibson's film is Catholic myth according to Emmerich, not history according to E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredriksen. Controversial as it is, Satan's power over the Jewish leaders must be understood as foreordained in the context of this myth: "They act as the chosen people prepared by their whole history to carry out the ironic rejection of God, even as they defend his name. They persecute Jesus out of a righteousness given over to Satan for the time being, so that the battle Christ fights alone can be most intense: it is against his own." (Glenn Arbery, film critic)

Bond explains why the film's portrayal of Pilate is a blend of history, gospel apology, and artistic imagination: the real Pilate would have been callously indifferent to Jesus and killed him without second thought. Jackson observes many historical problems with the film's (and gospels') trial scenes. Evans gives a superb analysis of the relationship between the historical procession, the gospel route, and the medieval stations of the cross before turning to the crucifixion and what this terror entailed in the time of Jesus. He notes in conclusion that the early Christians would have been puzzled by Gibson's focus on passion instead of resurrection -- since Jesus' suffering and death was important as a prelude to the more climactic vindication by God.

The third part wraps up with contributions from W. Barnes Tatum, David Goa, and Robert Webb, who discuss the artistry of the film. Finally, editors Webb and Corley conclude that while Gibson's use of a harmonizing trajectory with the four gospels can be fairly expected (as in most Jesus films), his use of Emmerich is problematic on levels of both history and theology. That Emmerich is unreliable history is a given. That her theology is problematic amounts to a subjective claim which cannot be resolved by editorial appeals to modern sensibilities such as: "In a world where violence is seen as the answer to social and political problems, and where violence is glorified in various media, to suggest that God requires equally extreme violence for the salvation of humankind, is, to say the least, problematic." This is an inadequate response to the question of suffering in general and atonement theology in particular. Still, the editors have done an invaluable job of providing a useful handbook for those wanting to know where history ends and myth begins in Gibson's film.

For the price of this book, you could rent the movie many times.

Turning to a book full of scholars can be problematic. They don't agree and it can be virtually impossible to separate facts from opinions.

You can read the gospels for yourself (and very likely have) to get a good sense of how close Gibson stayed to the Gospels. You can read for yourself in the Gospels that they only say about Jesus' flogging that he was flogged and about Jesus' crucifixion that he was crucified. So you undoubtedly don't need scholars to realize that Gibson went beyond the Gospels to convey what the flogging and crucifixion may have been like.

Reading these scholars may inform you. It may also confuse you. What remains open to serious question is the film's focus on the death of Jesus as a sacrifice. You may do well to consider whether that was helpful to you. You may also wonder how that focus on sacrifice, as well as any critique of it, might be being manipulated nowadays.

This book literally has a picture on every page! It is also a good biography of his life as well as a film chronicle. If you want to follow up on his past and present works; this is the book for you!

It had too many pictures if you want information this book is not for you all it is is pictures. I did not like it at all.

I think that you can't just ridicule a book because it has ideas you don't like, if those ideas are expressed well. Sure, this book may be a little academic, but if that means that it is not boiled down to the lowest level of lame reductionism, so be it. There are profound ideas behind the movie, and trying to fish them out can be a great exercise. Sorry for the sparse review, I just wanted to balance out another POV. I also recommend "Religion and Its Monsters" by Beal

Just take Prof. Heschel, the daughter of a distinguished rabbi and scholar. She finds Gibson's movie anti-feminist. That's a hoot, considering that traditional Judaism was anti-feminist.

Some good ideas here, a lot of nonsense by axe-grinding academics. What is clear is that Gibson is 150% a Catholic medieval type. No one here has a good explanation why this appealed to Protestant fundies and bigots who don't give a hoot about the Stations of the Cross or the Virgin Mary.

Full of hatred as the first one, just the sources of this last one tell us everything about how the writer of that biography has written it : using tabloids and people magazines....
That's all, so no doubt about the poor accuracy of the content.
Better buy other books on Mr Gibson.

Wensley Clarkson has done a very thorough job in researching the life of Mel Gibson. Through this book the reader comes to know him intimately, warts and all. Mr Clarkson has literally followed Mel Gibson's tracks around the world, interviewing friends, co-workers, and old girlfriends. From the utterly fascinating history of his Irish Catholic family to his spectacular rise to Hollywood prominence and the tales from behind the scenes of his most famous movies and box office failures. Mel's father, Hutton Gibson, a former Catholic seminarian, World War II veteran, and all around cut up, proves almost more interesting than his famous son. The book also unintentionally details the struggle he has faced as a religious conservative working in the most Godless industry on the planet. Mr Clarkson's writing, however, is often skewed by his clearly Liberal politics. THis is all fine and dandy for him but for those who do not share those politics and who genuinely admire Mel Gibson for taking on the Hollywood Establishment, they come across as very patronizing anbd sometimes even worse. Mr. Clarkson's characterization of Traditional Catholics as "callow reactionaries" who are opposed to "progress in most forms," was as painful to me as a brutal slap in the face. The problem I faced with this book was that if one desires to know about Mel Gibson, there is very little else that one can look for in the way of reading material. Therefore as far as Mr. Clarkson is concerned, one cannot live with him, and one cannot live with out him.

If you are looking for every detail known to modern man regarding all of the OTHER movies Mel Gibson ever starred in or directed, this is the book for you. If you are looking for true insight into The Passion, just skip to the last few pages and you will still be disappointed. I, too, am ashamed to say I spent a good deal of time wading through all of the details in the bulk of this book, hoping to get to the point. Very disappointing.

I am ashamed to say I read this entire book. I kept hoping it would get better but it didn't. It is filled with typos and poor organization of thoughts and topics. Clarkson actually spells Mel Gibson's name wrong several times throughout the book, and refers to Lethal Weapon director Richard Donner as "Dormer" for several pages! He jumps back and forth from one movie production to another making it difficult to follow. Lastly, he relies on the accounts of people who had met Mel Gibson at one time but who had either a personal or professional conflict with him. In the retelling of these conflicts and what went down, we hear one point of view only - and generally that is the view of someone who is harboring bitterness and resentment towards Gibson, so their accounts are slanted and untrustworthy. The best part of the book is the end for two reasons: Clarkson finally gets to Gibson's most recent project, The Passion of the Christ. The subtitle and the picture on the back of the book gives the impression this project will be a major focus of the book, but after 300 pages of reading, I was still waiting for the subject to come up. I have to say I felt that this was the only well written part of the whole book - thoughtful and interesting. The second reason the end is the best part of the book is that it was finally over. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I can't help it. I highly recommend reading the book about the making of the Passion of the Christ - you can learn a lot about Gibson there - but I cannot recommend this biography.

Mr. Clarkson wrote a book in 1994 titled "Mel the Inside Story" (hardcover). This book was held up and not released in the United States because Mr. Gibson's lawyers were trying to stop it from being published. I have that book and can understand why he didn't want it published. Although it does give and excellent film history, throughout the book the author seems to have a jealousy of Mel and his success and repeatedly slanders and denigrates his father and religious beliefs. This book in paperback is the same book, a little updated. I am a big Mel fan and don't like the author's tone at times, but if you are a fan you will find it extremely interesting and informative. You will just have to take some parts of it with a grain of salt- "he said, she said" stuff and rumors. In any case, if you have the hardcover "Mel the Inside Story", dont bother to purchase this update. I could only rate either of these 3 stars because of the sense of personal bias throughout. A good book on Mel is Lethal Hero which is out of print (I have it, too) but you may be able to get a copy. It has better personal views of Mel, but, surprisingly, some really juicy stuff that Mr. Clarkson missed out on. In any case, MEL RULES!!!

I do not deny that anti-semitism exists in this world. And sadly many perpetrators have done this in the name of their brand of "christianity". History has certainly been stained with the persecuted blood of God's chosen people.
I do not believe, however, that the message of The Passion portrays Jews as anything but Human. They were men in authority who felt that authority threatened by new ideas. They reacted in a natural, albeit unfortunate way by trying to suppress it. You surely cannot think that every Jew in history was an absolute saint, pardon the expression?
The accounts detailed in the gospels about the role of Jewish leadership in the trial and execution of Jesus is accurate, from a literary perspective. I state this simply because there were no other historic writings save for those of Flavius Josephus that even talk about it. Certainly lack of evidence does not denote evidence of lack, but its the only thing we have to go on. So what if it casts certain people who happen to be Jewish in a bad light. You don't see any southerners crying foul everytime Hollywood depicts Robert E Lee as a racist and a man who nearly tore this country in half. That's who he was! And remember there were good guys in this story too, and they were all Jewish, not the least of which is Jesus himself. I do not understand this fear that the message of Christ can be interpreted as anti Jewish. Christ isn't anti anything (except for sin)! He loves us all, even Caiaphas and the others who sentenced him to death. And all who claim to follow him should do the same.
Jews did not kill Christ, EVERYBODY who ever lived is eaqually responsible for what occurred in this story. And every person I know of who has seen this movie understands this. So I really don't know where this fear comes from.
We love you all.

I found this book to be a disppointing book. It started when I saw how thin the book was. It seemed to be no thicker than a children's nursery rhyme book.

The content was okay. It had pretty much the same factual information about Mr. Gibson as other books I've read.

I'm working on an authorized biography of Mr. Gibson and I hope that it will contain more of the personal information that people would like to know about one of the most versatile and interesting actors of our time!

This book is an extremely thin volume and thin summary of Mr. Gibson and his films. A much better book is The Films of Mel Gibson and also Lethal Hero. The latter gives a good history of Mel's life and lots of interesting info on his movies and the making of them. I would not recommend this book by John Lewis/Sandy Noble. I don't know why it took two of them to compile it!

This is by far the most poorly written, poorly edited book I have ever read. I beg for someone to take it off my shelf and destroy it! The "facts" are largely inaccurate, it is nothing more than a series of synopses of Mel's films, interspersed with already widely published quotes from Mel himself. There are no insights into Mr. Gibson's craft, his approach to acting, in fact, nothing that can't be found on a 3 minute Entertainment Tonight fluff piece. Truly a waste of money. This is not an author with talent to spare.