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)















PastDeadline RSS