Past Deadline

Another Report From the Scene of the Mel-tdown

The Mel Gibson apologists already have taken to the Internet and blogosphere in earnest to defend the actor and de-facto spiritual figure during a weekend of charges, countercharges, ugliness, explanations and apologies in the wake of his Friday morning DUI arrest. So I thought it prudent to interrupt an otherwise fine Sunday to try to set the record straight, if I may.

1. "There's no real evidence except for a couple of pieces of people snatched by by TMZ.com to prove that Gibson actually uttered anti-Semitic slurs, just the tabloid posturings of an unreliable website."

Reply: This, from Gibson's very own Saturday statement: "I...said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable. I am deeply ashamed of everything I said, and I apologize to anyone who I have offended." Seems pretty clear what/who he's referring to, no?

2. "Gibson had a blood alcohol level of 0.12%, which isn't heavily drunk, just kinda drunk. It may have impaired his driving, but how could it have caused him to start spewing the alleged statements of hate?"

Reply: Very easily, actually. In fact, at that significant but not falling-over level of intoxication, it wouldn't come close to causing a blackout but would be more than sufficient to free Gibson's social inhibitions. And it's been proven that booze doesn't plant thoughts, it simply serves as a lubricant that frees the tongue to utter what's typically bottled up. Drunk or not, if the words ascribed to him are true, this is who the guy is in his heart, I'm afraid.

3.  "Sheriff Lee Baca told the Los Angeles Times that the idea of a cover-up is overblown as it relates to any attempt to alter Gibson's offensive comments in the official L.A. County Sheriff's Dept. report of the incident, and that the only legal issue is over the actor-director's level of impairment at the time he was stopped. Shouldn't that be the case?"

Reply: Actually, yes. Legally, all that's relevant is how much Gibson drank prior to operating a motor vehicle. His words only matter as they relate to his reported resisting of arrest. Baca is correct when he says the department's job isn't to focus on what he said but what he did. And I don't care a whole lot if a report was fudged and a mugshot withheld to help out a famed friend of law enforcement in the area. I'm sure this stuff happens all of the time. However, from a moral standpoint, what Gibson allegedly said during the incident means everything. This goes beyond the sensationalist media grinding an ax.

4. "Hey, Mel gave a full and quick and genuine statement of apology, which is more than a lot of guys would have done. He took immediate responsibility and didn't try to blame anyone else. It's clear he's embarrassed and is begging forgiveness in the finest Christian tradition. Shouldn't that be enough? What do we want, the dude's blood?"

Reply: It's true that Gibson stepped up and did the right thing without a lot of dawdling. But one could also point out that from a career standpoint, it was what he had to do. Anything less would have been suicidal. This is still about damage control. It's about getting this behind him with the least amount of damage to his reputation, which could range from moderate to severe (depending upon how things play out over the next several weeks/months). But an apology doesn't wipe away the words that purportedly exited the man's mouth. He's fortunate to have plenty of time until his new film "Apocalypto" comes out over the holidays to play down this dreadful piece of business with the help of numerous PR professionals. By the time they all get through spinning this, it'll seem in hindsight like Mel was just swearing at himself under his breath while the cops stopped to help him with a flat tire.

5. "Mel will get past this, just you wait. And he'll come back bigger than ever. This isn't a career killer. It may not even be a career wounder. At the end of the day, he didn't hurt anyone but himself. It's just a stumble. Good Christians do it all the time. God grants forgiveness. The rest of us should, too."

Reply: Oh don't worry, we will. There will be the obligatory People magazine cover piece ("I'm Sorry!"), the equally obligatory Diane Sawyer forgiveness-begging interview ("I'm just another recovering alcoholic..."), possibly even a face-to-face primetime browbeat from America's favorite cloying finger-wagger, Dr. Phil McGraw ("What in living hell were you thinking, Mel Gibson?"). The Mea Culpa Express will soon be chugging down the tracks through your very neighborhood!  But trust me that it's probably not even necessary. It's been less than 72 hours since the whole awful scenario played out, and Gibson is already practically forgiven -- in part because he's Mel Gibson. The question isn't whether Hollywood will let this pass. It will. The larger issue -- already practically answered as well -- is if Christianity as a movement will continue to embrace a man prone to drunken anti-Semitic rages as an icon. And again, my guess is yes.

6. "But let's turn this around. What if a renowned Jewish figure -- say, Jerry Seinfeld -- were to similarly disparage Christians in a drunken rage ("I own Encino! And another thing: you bastards can't cook brisket worth a shit!") as Gibson reportedly did Jews. Would he also be quickly forgiven?"

Reply: I'd put the odds at roughly 100-1, against. From what I've seen, anti-Semitism is considered a less serious transgression than Christian-bashing.

(Gibson photo courtesy WireImage.com)

For Mel Gibson, Opining About Jewish Influence While Under the Influence Maybe Isn't the Best Idea

WARNING: Strong language and profanity contained herein.

It's one thing to get pulled over and arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. It's quite another to be dragged off kicking and screaming in an anti-Semitic rage under the presumption that the Jews have somehow done this to you. Understanding that the man is innocent until proven guilty -- at least, under the old-fashioned notion of justice before the tabloid age rendered it moot -- Mel Gibson could well have done significant damage to his career early Friday morning by spewing a string of profane, anti-Semitic, sexist epithets after being detained for suspicion of drunken driving on Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu. But this is probably hardly a secret at this point as you read these words.

If the allegations are in fact true (as they certainly appear to be, particularly after Gibson released a long and apparently deeply sincere statement of apology today), this taint on his reputation probably won't be going away anytime soon. Oh sure, it will eventually. Just about every transgression fades with time unless your name happens to be O.J. But what's most disturbing about this whole mess with Gibson is that it seems to confirm a lot of notions about the man's true feelings of hatred and racist beliefs that had long been whispered. For a dude so sanctimonious and God-fearing, it don't look good.

Based on four pages of an original L.A. County Sheriff's Department report salvaged by TMZ.com from the scrap heap of a reported cover-up, Gibson was uncontrollable and belligerent after getting pulled over, launching into a bout of heavy swearing. There was an apparent episode in which Gibson began to bang himself against the seat and tell the arresting deputy, "You motherfucker, I'm going to fuck you!" There then followed a reported string of anti-Semitic statements, somehow finding a way to blame the Jews. (I doubt arresting officer Deputy James Mee is Jewish, or was put up to it by a Jewish cabal of some sort.)

Gibson reportedly said, "Fucking Jews...The Jews are responsible for all of the wars in the world," echoing a popular anti-Semitic sentiment. (I add here parenthetically that Gibson's father Hutton Gibson has long been a vocal Holocaust denyer renowned for his anti-Jewish rants.) This goes on and on, the arresting law enforcement individuals smartly using audiotape and videotape to corroborate what could prove a dicey legal situation for the department given Gibson's power, money and clout. At one point, he also turned to a female sergeant nearby and reportedly said, "What do you think you're looking at, Sugar Tits?" It's horrifying to hear the episode being described as it continued to escalate even after Gibson was placed in a holding cell.

At the risk of appearing to pile on here, what's most alarming about this meltdown involving Gibson -- an admitted recovering alcoholic -- is the man's profound level of anger, hostility and targeted religious antipathy. And the truth is that under the influence of booze, the tongue is naturally loosened to a great degree but the mind typically merely amplifies, embellishes and exacerbates thoughts and belief systems that are already well established but covered by decorum and correctitude. In other words, alcohol doesn't by itself plant the prejudicial seed. It only helps what's already in the soil to germinate.

Ergo, while Gibson said all of the proper things to dispel charges that "The Passion of the Christ" was anti-Semitic at its core while that film was becoming a blockbuster, this unfortunate episode opens that door wide once again. That Gibson has been able to carve such a spectacularly successful career in a town run largely by Jewish executives given the swirl of anti-Semitic controversy that's long enveloped him is a bit remarkable. And he may well emerge from this bloodied but unbowed and ultimately just fine. But in the short term, the man is going to have a lot of explaining to do.

Nearly everyone screws up at one time or another. Mel Gibson is allowed not to be perfect. However, he would be well advised at this point to go out of his way to become a more accepting, less judgmental, more open-minded and inclusive human being. On the other hand, the anti-Semitic stuff probably isn't going to turn the public against him. Too many of Gibson's fans no doubt even agree with him. And I hate to say it, but as long as his box office stays strong, Jewish execs aren't going to hold Mel's feet to the fire for this inebriated anti-Jew spew, either.

But the minute the man's power begins to go south, look out below.

(Mel Gibson photo courtesy WireImage.com.)

Yes, But They Were Two Really, Really Good Lines

A controversy of sorts is building over the fact that Ellen Burstyn received an Emmy nomination for outstanding supporting actress in a miniseries/movie for her role in the HBO telepic "Mrs. Harris." It's not that anyone has anything against Burstyn, a fine actress in anyone's book -- an Oscar winner no less. The problem is that she was only on-screen in "Mrs. Harris" for, well, barely a clip's worth of time. Her screen presence is literally less than 15 seconds. She has some two lines -- obscured by music playing underneath -- and is identified in the credits as "Ex-Lover #3." In the official Emmy nomination list distributed by the TV Academy, Burstyn's role is listed as "Former Tarnower Steady" (Tarnower meaning Dr. Herman Tarnower, played in the film by Ben Kingsley).

The question is how a performance so absurdly short can qualify for Emmy consideration, crowding out other, more worthy (and surely more substantial) roles. In this case, Burstyn would barely qualify for "outstanding acting moment." It would have had to stretch substantially longer even to be deemed a cameo. What it means, of course, is that Burstyn was nominated by a lot of voters who didn't even see the film. This isn't surprising, of course, given the large number of tapes and DVDs required in judging based on a popular vote. And indeed, the new voting system can't be blamed in this case because Burstyn's category didn't fall under that heading. Another question: why was she submitted for consideration in the first place?

Tom O'Neil, a longtime Emmy expert and columnist on the L.A. Times awards Website TheEnvelope.com, believes the Burstyn situation supplies more evidence for why more targeted Blue Ribbon voting panels are the way to go. "It shows why the idea of a more mass popular vote doesn't work," he believes. "You get too many voters who see the name of an actress they like and respect like Burstyn and they just blindly support her without even seeing her project."

It's also not fair to Burstyn, who has been put in the uncomfortable position of having to root against herself lest a victory embarrass the academy further.

Long Arm of the FCC Strangles the Spineless Broadcasting Service

The programming and policy braintrust of the Public Broadcasting Service met critics on Wednesday as the Television Critics Assn. press tour in Pasadena wound into the homestretch. And whereas PBS once was the standard-bearer for free expression on the airwaves, it now instead resembles a frightened, flailing child, cowed into compliance (and then some) by the threat of Federal Communications Commission fines for alleged broadcast indecency and justifying its own stringent self-policing as vital to its very survival.

You may have heard that a new PBS policy issued on May 31 and immediately put into effect requires producers whose shows are broadcast before 10 p.m. to adhere to greatly tightened editing requirements in terms of perceived profane language, context be damned. Why? Because Big Brother FCC is staring down from its 1950s-era high horse with a disapproving gaze. It's designed to guard against things like the $15,000 fine levied by the commission against PBS outlet KCSM of San Mateo, CA over blue material broadcast in the ironically titled "The Blues."

Mind you, "The Blues" was a documentary series -- from Martin Scorsese. But no matter. PBS stations can't take any more chances on fines, what with legislation signed into law that increases the penalty for each violation 10-fold (to $325,000 per transgression). And as PBS president and CEO Paula Kerger reasoned this morning, "The fines now would put stations out of business, and we cannot allow that to happen."

So in order to keep doing business, PBS is having to sell its soul. The May 31 edict now goes beyond mere language bleeping to require that whomever is uttering the words on camera have his or her mouth digitally obscured -- apparently to protect lip-readers from having their fragile sensibilities compromised as well. Producers have complained that the masking process is awkward and embarrassing. And of course they're right.

What's next? How about digitally decapitating the speaker so as to remove from the equation any facial movements that might be viewed as patently offensive? It's ridiculous, but trust me that it isn't so far off.

"We are only (blurring the mouths) in places where we can see very clearly the judgment" is the way PBS senior VP of programming John Wilson described it on Wednesday, which raised the question: How exactly does a human mouth convey judgment? Wilson continued, "Our current policy is to try to follow the zig and the zag here of the FCC.  We are now blurring the lips when you can see plainly, to a reasonable person making this judgment, that you can tell what they are saying. And that's on the advice of counsel. The FCC hasn't directed us to do that, but we are taking this route."

This is disturbing for a number of reasons. One is that it finds PBS running so scared that the pubcaster sees it as necessary to expend vast amounts of energy predicting the most radically repressive content path the FCC might think to follow -- and then beating it to the punch! Another is the notion that language concerns need suddenly extend to the eyes. We don't even have to hear the profanity now to be offended by it so long as we can see it. It's but a small step from justifying censorship through mind-reading. We know what that guy is thinking, and it's not good. That'll be $325,000 please.

The slippery slope being traversed here by public broadcasting is one of self-fulfilling prophecy, I fear, rather than genuine prudent restraint. It's destined to result in government bureaucrats dictating scheduling, specifically with regard to the much-anticipated Ken Burns World War II series "The War" that's earmarked for Fall 2007. With salty language uttered by the featured veterans themselves, the dread is that PBS may feel compelled to bury it in a 10 p.m. timeslot rather than the 8 p.m. family position it deserves. Right now, PBS is considering both 8 p.m. and 9 p.m., because upsetting Burns may be the only thing that frightens these folks more than does running afoul of the FCC.

In any case, both Kerger and Wilson vigorously defended their caution and timidity on Wednesday, vowing to fight the FCC but at the same time practically adding the caveat, "We're presently asking the FCC if they'd mind our disagreeing with them a little bit on this."

"It is an issue...of free speech," Kerger emphasized. "It is an issue because our filmmakers deserve to be able to tell their stories and tell them well...The FCC (needs to) understand that we are not talking about doing salacious work, we are just trying to do good work."

Some Web Servers Are More Secure Than Others

Why would Middle Eastern extremists be motivated to hack the official Website of a Hollywood writer-producer? That's probably what Matthew Carnahan is asking himself right now. Carnahan, a novelist, writer, producer and director and longtime significant other of (and father of a daughter with) Helen Hunt as well as creator-showrunner of the forthcoming FX comedy series "Dirt" starring Courteney Cox-Arquette, had his site's home page taken over by an unidentified group on Wednesday.

When surfing at www.matthewcarnahan.com, instead of Carnahan's credentials and samples of his work, visitors (as of 2:45 p.m. PT on Wednesday) were met by the words "This Site Has Been Hacked By...," followed by Arabic characters. There are pictures of a little girl wearing camouflage and another of the purported body of a six-year-old girl said to have been killed by Israeli soldiers, along with the words, "If You Stop War We Will Be(sic) Stop Hacking."

It's obviously very disturbing stuff, a jarring reminder that even wrapped in our little Hollywood coccoon, real life can occasionally pay a visit.

UPDATE: Hacked Carnahan site was taken down at 2:58 p.m. PT.

Alas, a revealing clue emerged later in the day Wednesday as to why Carnahan in particular might have been targeted by, say, a Palestinian group: mistaken identity. A screenwriter named Matthew Michael Carnahan (different guy, no relation) scripted the now-shooting Universal political thriller "The Kingdom" (featuring Jennifer Garner, Jamie Foxx and Chris Cooper) that centers on a team of U.S. Government anti-terrorism agents who are sent to investigate the bombing of an American facility in the Middle East. Whomever did the hacking may simply have chosen the wrong Matt Carnahan. This would seem to make the hacker responsible for this a hack in his own right.

Lance-y, We Hardly Knew Ye

Lance Bass -- gay? No no, stop it, stop it! From 'N Sync to Out 'N Sync. Wow. That's all I can saw. Wow. Wow because it so messes with my sense of the universe. Wow because it now seems possible that even guys like Richard Simmons and Nathan Lane could be...you know...that way. Wow because it now occurs to me that had Lance been able to buy his way into space, we'd have had our first admittedly gay cosmonaut. As it stands now, we have our first admittedly gay man to almost join the Russians in zero gravity.

Let me be the first (okay, maybe the second) to say that I accept Lance Bass's sexual orientation without reservation. His music still blows, however. And I'm wondering what was meant by the wording on the obligatory People magazine cover where it's described that Bass was "hurt by rumors." Can one be hurt by rumors that are in fact true? And if confirmed, doesn't that automatically render them something other than rumors? Just askin', just askin'...

Oh, and about Bass's contention that he is in a "very stable" relationship with "Amazing Race" winner Reichen Lehmkuhl (that's Irish, isn't it?), I'm wondering if it's considered possible to have a stable relationship with a reality TV icon. Doesn't that kind of go against everything the unscripted world stands for?

But I digress. Good luck in your new fraud-free life, Lance. It took some courage for you to do this. And to think that without the existence of People magazine, we might never have known. God bless you, TimeWarner Inc.

Hey, If It's About Them, Then It Isn't About Us! Yippee!!

I was speaking to someone in the television industry (these people generally don't like to be identified because, I mean -- duh! -- it's TV), and this individual whom I will call Rumpelstiltskin gave me some interesting food for thought about ABC's decision to aggressively counterprogram NBC's Primetime Emmy telecast on Aug. 27 with a broadcast of "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl." Rumpelstiltskin gave me the idea that there appears to be a certain Br'er Rabbit in the Briar Patch aspect to this thing.

Because the Emmy ratings are no doubt destined to suck anyway given that the ceremony is being held in late August, when many viewers are either vacationing or paying more heed to the barbecue grill than the television set, the embittered move by ABC to bury the Emmys as revenge for "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives" getting shafted gives the TV Academy an easy out.

"Hey, they put that damn Jack Sparrow flick on. How are we supposed to compete with that? I mean, sure, it's a three-year-old movie everybody's already seen, and it's of course really pathetic to be so vulnerable that even overexposed theatricals might trounce us, but that's something we'll just have to take up in committee."

Getting back to the issue at hand, an especially conspiratorial mind could go so far as to speculate that the academy all but goaded ABC into doing it, secretly instructing its members to shortchange as many ABC shows and stars in the big categories as possible -- knowing that ABC Entertainment chief Stephen McPherson can be a mite reactive and gambling that he'd fall right into the trap by using something in his program arsenal designed to give the Emmys a good smack upside the head. And voila! They couldn't have plotted it any better.

Anyway, it's pretty far-fetched, of course. But the truth is that without far, I'd have no fetched at all. However, were I NBC, I think I'd shove it right back in ABC's face by renaming the awards telecast, "The 58th Annual Primetime Emmy Awards: The Curse of the Blue 'Earl'."

Oh, and a final note. The Los Angeles Times apparently just uncovered a huge scoop: winning an Emmy isn't nearly as cool as winning an Oscar. You talk about crack reporting. My God, it's journalistic alchemy! How on earth do they manage to weave such profundity?

Never Scream 'PBS!' in An Air-Conditioned Hotel

So with Wednesday arrives the final two days of the Television Critics Assn. press tour in Pasadena. And it's just the luck of PBS that it has to go last. When PBS is in the middle, everyone has to stick around. When the pubcaster is in the wrap-up position, my guess is that up to 35% or 40% of the critics will head out early and skip the final two days of TCA. Whomever made the order this year probably isn't a huge fan of "Frontline," "Nova" and "The American Experience," I'm guessing.

Critics will stomp and shout about the dearth of quality in the broadcast primetime world (though we're hearing less of that this year), but that still won't keep many around to cover the new offerings on a consistently high-end purveyor like public broadcasting. Bottom line: at the end of the day, the masses care less about it. It's a major reason why the audience generally gets the television it deserves. Often that's pretty good, too. I'm not a doomsayer who decries the TV medium as a vast electronic wasteland. Actually, the real wasteland these days, more often than not, can be found on the larger screen at your local movie house.

Surely You Can't Be Claiming That the Lives of Unattractive Non-Blondes Are Worth Anything

At a TV Critics Assn. press tour session on Monday designed to hype the 10th anniversary of Fox News, a critic asked Fox News Channel chairman and CEO Roger Ailes why it seems that the only time his news service seems to care about missing people is when they're female, attractive and generally blonde (hello, Natalee Holloway). Are these the only humans who ever disappear?

"Well, I think you make a good point," Ailes admitted, "in that, you know, there are actually more missing people, boys and girls, in minority communities. We did two this year of African-Americans, actually, one somewhere in the Midwest and one in Philadelphia. Both stories sort of ended tragically, I think, pretty quickly. But we covered both of them for...as long as the story went."

But Ailes went on to make the point that in the case of both minority-themed missing persons stories, the network received less e-mail and Internet traffic discussing them than was the case with Holloway in particular -- which he ascribed to the fact that "parents are freaked out (by) a senior trip or graduation trip (as was the case with Holloway). So I'm not sure that (spike in interest) happened just because she was a pretty blonde girl. But as you know, as with everything else in society, some people have it more fair than others."

Brad Garrett Is a Very Tall, Very Funny Man

I only wish that Brad Garrett's new Fox sitcom "'Til Death" were as hilarious as he is. He's a great stand-up comic. I saw him in Las Vegas last year and he killed. He also killed -- evidently in a different way -- in May at the Fox upfronts in New York City, offending a whole bunch of people with what was seen as inappropriate humor for the venue. (Thin skin, I believe they call it.) But Garrett had no such problem with the TV critics Monday at the Television Critics Assn. gathering in Pasadena, where he charmed the uncharmable with some dead-on improv wit.

After having gotten into trouble for joking at the upfronts that he and Ryan Seacrest were lovers, the 6-foot-8 1/2 Garrett noted, "Well, we've been together four years, Ryan and I, and...no, that's really just comedy...It was just good fun. You probably shouldn't do comedy during the day is what I learned."

Yet here was Garrett once again doing comedy with the sun still shining brightly. Some of his greatest hits:

--About a new film he recently shot entitled "Music and Lyrics By": "I play Hugh (Grant's) manager. See, I have a weird film career. I'm very picky and not in demand."

--On filming at the same lot where some great old sitcoms were shot: "I used Webster's old car."

--After being asked to give a one-word answer for his opinion of the key ingredient in a happy marriage: "Attorney."

--After "'Til Death" co-star Joely Fisher noted that her five-month-old daughter is "perfect": "Well...let's not get crazy. She's cute."

Again, Garrett deserves better than the material he gets in his new series, which doesn't come close in the pilot to matching the greatness of his "Everybody Loves Raymond" role. Maybe he'll, uh, grow into it.