SNIP
But the nature of the violence changed in the three films Gibson directed himself. Each of the movies - Braveheart, The Passion of the Christ, and Apocalypto - was gut-wrenchingly violent. The films all have a special vision of innocent men, noble or political or religious icons - Gibson himself in Braveheart, or his stand-ins in the Christ and Apocalypto films - who are set upon by tyrants or factotums or sadists who torture and martyr the Gibson figure.
Let's play psychoanalyst for a bit. Here is a man who feels his anger is justified by the forces that beset him, such as wayward cops (especially Jewish ones) and Jezebel-like mistresses (Gibson is recorded telling Oksana, "You ****ing deserved it!" when she accuses him of hitting her) - just like William Wallace and Jesus were. Gibson then portrays his heroes' suffering in loving, lingering, graphic detail.
What else is a man to do when he is assailed by evil forces like these - other than strike out at them? And that's a wrap. But why did audiences - including often film critics and religious leaders - jump on the self-pitying violence bandwagon Gibson was driving?
As an actor, Gibson has always displayed an appealing innocence and sensitivity while brutalizing deserving villains. But his ability to lure audiences into his depictions of violence - to revel in them - escalated in the films he directed. His success was most notable in The Passion of the Christ - which reaped praise from religious figures, even liberal ones. This film was the basis for Gibson's selection as Time Magazine's Man of the Year (along with Michael Moore!) in 2004.
In retrospect, however, Gibson's Christ now looks like a cinematic expression of psychopathology.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/addiction-in-society/201007/was-mel-gibson-always-violent-psychopath
