So terrible when the darker side of individuals comes forward, but its news when that individual is a movie star or director. And the recent public exposure of Mel Gibson’s dark side is affecting not only The Beaver (a film directed by Jodie Foster and staring Mel Gibson) but rumour has it, affecting Gibson’s shot at an Oscar for the role.
Deadline shares:
My Deadline awards columnist Pete Hammond has picked up on Oscar buzz for Mel’s performance in The Beaver, the Jodie Foster-directed feature which Summit Entertainment is still contemplating whether to release this year, next year, or ever. It’s a difficult dilemma for the studio given Gibson’s domestic disputes and the alleged racial slurs and sexist epithets and alleged physical and verbal abuse of his girlfriend that’s come out from behind closed doors. Plus, Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences members are known to hold grudges for a myriad reasons even under normal circumstances. The voters are supposed to judge the merits of the performance and not the man behind it. But the Hollywood concensus now is that Mel’s a louse. But isn’t showbiz filled with louses who are also great moviemakers?
This is a topic that perplexes me to the bone.
Media is all the rage saying that Mel Gibson will never recover from the social faux pas that he has delivered in the past few years, and Crazy Mel is paying the price for it. Jodie Foster is defending him, and this may have double purpose. Crazy Mel stared in her currently “in the can” film The Beaver, and Summit is sitting on it wondering if they should release it at all. They are waiting for the wind to blow over on Mel’s public image and maybe never will even if there is talk that his performance may be Oscar worthy.
So why not forgive Mel? After all, people run to the defense of confessed Child Molester and Fugitive Roman Polanski because he makes good movies. Olvier Stone is a legendary director who often shoots anti-Semetic from the hip with less than popular statements. Woody Allen had sex with his own step-daughter. Creepy.
But Hollywood is full of dirty laundry lists and we attach public opinion to their projects affecting their success.
To a lesser degree, most of the popular Hollywood elite have their dirty moments. Tom Cruise continues to get bashed for his unique and crazy religious views despite recovering from his insane overzealous jumping on Oprah’s couch. But he is still loved as an actor.
Where do we draw the line?
I don’t get bent over Mel Gibson making some inappropriate statements while drunk (the drunk driving on the other hand I could slap him for). Still, it doesn’t change his ability as an actor, and if someone is willing to give him a job, then I think that movie should come out. Everyone’s financial investment in producing that film is affected by this decision. Sure most people got paid just to make it, but what about the people who risked their money for it?
Do you want to see Gibson/Foster’s The Beaver? I do.
Does the personal lives and public appearance of a celebrity make you not want to see a movie? Should a film not be judged on its performance not the performers?
