So Let Me See If I've Got This Straight: It's OK To Drive Drunk, Bash Jews and Womanize With Impunity, Just Don't Diss Psychiatry, Jump On Couches Or Father Children You Hide From the World

There is a disturbing subtext in the announcement by Paramount Pictures on Tuesday that it is parting company with the production company jointly operated by Tom Cruise and partner Paula Wagner that relates to Mel Gibson. And while I know this seems on its face to be a bit of a stretch, stick with me and I promise this will start making sense in just a moment.

First, let's do a little comparing and contrasting:

MEL GIBSON: He is arrested for DUI in a rant-filled incident that draws worldwide attention and all-too-brief condemnation. He excoriates Jewish people for their role in all warfare and reportedly directs a sexist slur at a female deputy refering to a portion of her anatomy that comes in pairs. There have long been whispers of anti-Semitism and homophobia as well as serial womanizing. Oh yes, he's also an icon for the Christian community, which some might find a tad hypocritical. Top brass at The Walt Disney Co. ponders all of this for maybe 15 or 20 minutes before concluding it's insufficient to tap any morals clause, announcing that its business association with Gibson will remain unaffected and his feature "Apocalypto" is to be released on schedule in December.

TOM CRUISE: He has what appears to be a faulty synapse-induced meltdown on the couch and stage of "The Oprah Winfrey Show," allegedly in his glee over a relationship with a woman he just met. There are reports of an uptick in his Scientology obsession on the set of "Mission: Impossible III." He locks horns with Matt Lauer on the "Today" show over his contention that psychiatry is a pseudo science, then he outrageously blasts Brooke Shields for taking meds to deal with postpartum depression. He impregnates the woman who inspired the "Oprah" hijinks and then shields the resulting child from public view. The coup de grace: "M:I III" underperforms at the box office. Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone told the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, "(Cruise's) recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount."

Okay, now again, if we hold a mirror up to these situations, Cruise is at worst an iconoclast and a nut case, whereas Gibson has given evidence of intolerance, sexism, philandering and hatemongering. But Gibson gets to stay at a studio long synonymous with wholesomeness and family values and Cruise has to go due to unacceptable conduct? Gee, that's kind of interesting, huh?

I agree with my esteemed Hollywood Reporter colleague Anne Thompson that this ain't really about Cruise's sometimes erratic behavior at all. As Anne wrote on her Risky Biz blog, "Truth is, if Cruise had killed with 'M:I III,' they might have made a deal" for Cruise/Wagner to stay on the lot despite the prohibitive expense to the studio. She continues, "Cruise's cockeyed behavior gave the studio the excuse not to." Bingo. Let me also just add here that I'm pretty much the last guy in North America to rush to Tom Cruise's defense. But I smell a lame smokescreen.

What I had predicted from day one of the Mel Gibson fiasco has come to pass, and in the reverse it applies to the Cruise divorce from Paramount. It relates back to Richmond's Rules of Transgression: 1. Hollywood will forgive anything except being unsuccessful; 2. America will forgive anything except being unrepentant.

This has been more than borne out here. Cruise's stock as a money-generating superstar has shown a tangible drop that likely won't ever return to its previous level; therefore, he's expendable. He has also never apologized for any of his weirdness. Gibson's stock has been tarnished, but there is no evidence it has been seriously damaged. And besides, he issued not one but two allegedly heartfelt mea culpas. Gibson is therefore considered a worthwhile risk, particularly given his standing with religious America.

Had Gibson said during his drunken rant, "Oprah is responsible for all of the wars in history," this could be a far different conversation. But he didn't. Meanwhile, if this is to be believed, then it alone could explain Cruise's Paramount parting. We also know that had Cruise set box office records with the last "Mission," the quote from Redstone would have been something closer to, "His recent conduct has proven Tom Cruise to be a family man with deep religious convictions. That's the kind of human being we want associated with Paramount."

And that, as they say, is showbiz.

Comments

[Cheryl]

I think part of the reason M:I III tanked is because there are a lot of people (like me) who have been so completely skeeved by La Cruise's behavior of late that we didn't go see it. I feel the same way about Mel Gibson and haven't seen anything of his since Chicken Run.

[ya ya]

==
======== It's all business. If Tom isn't working out for them, then they have to move on. That's how it goes, Tom probably doesn't care. He's already got way more than enough money.

[Lance Mazmanian]

Ray, your two "Platinum Rules" hit the nail on the head.

But this comparison between Cruise and Gibson is much more complex, with all manner of grotto and eddy along the way.

Cruise has enjoyed huge success but has always had a "Great Crowd" out there just *waiting* for him to stumble.

I don't think he's ever been particularly well-liked by the masses and media, generally speaking, and his "extracurricular" behaviour has always had a way of crossing many thresholds of intolerance, on a global scale.

Gibson, on the other hand, while a bit wacky, has never done ANYTHING that could universally cast him from heaven. You know as well as I that quite a few people secretly (and not so secretly) agree with the garbage Mel was coughing-up at that traffic stop.

The rest of Mel's dossier? Well, as you mention, repentance is a powerful tool.

As I said about the Mel Gibson affair I will now say about Cruise: It's not going to matter a damn. Gibson is worth US$875-million, and Cruise is probably not far behind. People want to "hurt" these two for what they've done of late, but the only way to "hurt" someone like is to damage them financially and/or artistically...

And neither is possible with Cruise or Gibson. These two gentlemen are just too gargantuan to be scratched.

Paramount "fires" Cruise. So what? I can practically GUARANTEE they'll regret it. Again, I'll bet you a coffee that, within two calendar years, those at Paramount responsible for going along with this decision will be scratching and biting themselves in utter dismay.

As for Gibson...he's practically out of the woods by now. No surprise there.

People of this magnitude must commit some extremely heinous crimes to disappear from the radar and be denied by the public and financiers alike. Neither have really done that, and neither are small enough to be touched by ANYONE right now...

Save God himself.

L.

[OldOldLady Of The Hills]

What you say is very very interesting Ray and I do think it is ALWAYS about Dollars & Sense..Oh excuse me, I mean Cents...and it was ever thus!

One other small thing that may or may not have any bearing here where Gibson is concerned....The Father of that Studio was a well known Anti-Semite. I realize that he has been gone a very very long time, but....still, old beliefs die hard---no matter that Michael Eisner was the Head Honcho for so very long....This may have absolutely no bearing here but it is just another little piece of a strange puzzle...The Hollywood Puzzle is still based on Monopoly, don't you think? He who has, gets respect. He who hasn't, gets dumped....
But I'm sure Mr. Cruise already has another deal in place, don't you think?

[Theodora]

All valid points on both sides of the ledger...

But for a few fact-stretching points...

Gibson's being heralded by Disney is not that far afield of Uncle Walt's subliminal racism. He was, after all, a leader in the John Birch Society --and went to the extreme to 'construct' Disneyland as a White Supremacist Fantasy Land. Mebbe some of y'all are too young to remember it --but before the late 1960s blossomed, "people of color" and Hippies were FORBIDDEN to enter The Magic Kingdom...

Perhaps some of that stench lingers in the caverns beneath The Small World pavilion...

Tommy is part of a pseudo-religion --which prides itself on psychological reprogramming (affectionately known as BRAINWASHING --but then, some have said you have to have a brain *first* before you can have it dry-cleaned...)

Paramount's first mistake was thinking the translation of a blandly successful TV series into a motion picture was enough to keep box office bucks rolling in... He should've had the Second Coming of Christ: The Suri Cruise story as its subplot (aha --they could've contracted MadMelGumFlapper to collaborate)...

Bottom line: Cruise overstayed his welcome in the media --and paid his publicists to work overtime to keep the clap running thru the septic tank.

It was preposterous that he felt the need to 'champion' Post-Partum Depression --when he never stayed married long enough to create children in the first place to have a front row seat to what women go thru...

I don't care that either of them are freakin'arseholes... Gibson can knock on every Execs' door in Hollywood and offer a half-assed culpa for his sewage --but it ain't gonna erase the damage.

Aside from the fact that he needs a history book shoved up his back-chute... Roman Catholics crucified Christ --who was known as King of the Jews (if I've got my Lloyd-Webber history correct). The warring faction is ISRAELIS --not JEWS..

They've overstayed their welcome anyway... No amount of contrition can whitewash their termite-ridden fences...

What more than concerns me is the news that Queen Elton wants to prostitute himself to Rappers... The same clusterphuquers who sanction raping and murdering women and gays...

Mind-boggling, ain't it???