Violence in theatre is different
Violence in the World Trade Center is a tragedy. When we watch a movie or a play (a play -- Shakespeare is one of the most violent playwrights ever!) violence is used to measure the hero or heroine in the face of adversity.
A man learns that his father was murdered by a scheming brother, and tries to avenge his father's restless spirit. In the end, just about everyone dies.
A man learns that he is fated to be king, and is convinced to attain that position by killing everyone in his way. he then learns that he is fated to die, and when the time comes, he rushes into it fearlessly.
A man becomes king, despite a deformity that makes people inclined to distrust him, by killing just about everyone. It a full-scale entire war to undo the damage he did in the process.
Two nations fight over a woman. A lot of people die on both sides.
A great emperor goes power-mad and is murdered by people who used to be his friends.
Violence, violence, violence. When Scarface came out, people called it "too violent." They had a problem with the language, too, so I understand. People didn't like the Godfather because it "glorified the mob." Lots of movies push the envelope and make peopel uncomfortable... that's not the point.
Gibson isn't being targetted because of some supposed violence fetish. He's being targeted as "too violent" because the anti-semitism thing won't stick, and he pissed people off because he bankrolled a film he believed in, risking financial ruin and ridicule, and it turned out to be an amazing success.
Nobody likes an idealist unless they lose. Gibson didn't lose, and now people want him to pay for it.
