According to police reports, a drunken Mel Gibson apparently stated that “the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.”
Would alcohol make him say something like that? Possibly, but that does not mean the alcohol put the thoughts in his mind. From my experience with alcohol (and I’ve had a lot) alcohol doesn’t work that way. It loosens inhibitions, and causes you to let slip things you might later regret. Alcohol can cause great embarrassment, but usually because it causes a loss of control. Loss of control means an inability to control impulses — but the impulses are there.
On the other hand, we all say things we do not mean, whether drunk or sober. I’ve said all kinds of stupid things.
I think Gibson should own up to what he said, and discuss it. If he thinks the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world, I’d like to hear his explanation. If he doesn’t think they are, I’d like to hear him say that. I’m still bothered by the fact that he failed to state whether or not he disagreed with the ravings of his anti-Semitic father, because under the circumstances (this was when “The Passion” was released), I think he had a responsibility. (So did David Bernstein.)
And under these circumstances, I don’t think it’s enough to simply say that he said “things” he doesn’t believe:
?I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested, and 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 I may have offended.?
He ought to explain, in specific terms, why he doesn’t think the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world. And not because one annoying blogger is demanding an apology, but because this is a nagging issue he brought to life once again by his actions, and he owes his fans and the movie-going public the whole truth. At this point I’d really like to know — just what does he think? I mean, might the alcohol have only made him engage in hyperbole, and might he have really meant to say that the Jews are responsible not for all wars, but some wars? Which wars? Or no wars? He brought this stuff up, and I’m still irritated by his previous evasiveness.
I’d really like to know what the sane and sober Mel Gibson thinks about those he calls “the Jews” — and not what a professional damage controller might have scripted for him. If he can’t say what he really thinks, I’m afraid I’m going to have to doubt the sincerity of his apology.
Bear in mind that none of this has anything to do with the drunk driving charge, of which Gibson’s guilt will depend on the evidence. And of course, there’s nothing illegal about being an anti-Semite, blaming the Jews for all the wars in the world, or just blaming the Jews for some wars.
I’d like him to just tell the truth.
UPDATE: Power Line’s Scott Johnson thinks Gibson’s drunken remarks support the qualms he had about “The Passion”:
If one is inclined, as I am, to the view that the personal beliefs of artists may be relevant to an interpretation of their works — a view that the New Critics discounted as “the intentional fallacy” — Mel Gibson’s alleged drunken tirade provides some evidence to support my qualms regarding the film. Gibson’s statement on his arrest seems to lend credence to the report of his drunken tirade.
MORE: When I wrote about “The Passion,” Snopes.com had an article about the anti-Semitism of Hutton Gibson, Mel Gibson’s father. The Snopes page has been pulled, and so has its archive (which the Wayback Machine gives as a “BLOCKED SITE ERROR.”)
UPDATE: Via Dean Esmay, Doc Rampage offers a partial defense of Gibson:
obviously Gibson is special. Almost anyone else could yell anything and none of their friends, family, coworkers, or customers will ever know what they said. By contrast, now that it has become public, all of Gibson’s friends, family, coworkers, and customers (moviegoers) are going to know what Mel Gibson said. The consequences for including that information in the report are likely to be far, far more damaging to Gibson than they would be to most other people.
True, Gibson is not an ordinary person. He is a celebrity. Which is why I think he has a greater duty to explain fully what he really thinks, or suffer the inevitable criticism.
He’s still a great director, though. Drunken anti-Semitic remarks do not alter or undo his work.
And suppose he turns out to be a genuine anti-Semite. He would deserve the strongest criticism — even condemnation — for it.
But take Wagner’s undisputed anti-Semitism. Isn’t that a separate issue from the quality of his operas?
UPDATE: Kofi Annan look out! Mel Gibson may be after your job! (Via Glenn Reynolds.)
Comments
7 responses to “Like father, like son?”
I don’t know.
For one, it is a real apology– he’s not just apologizing for getting caught.
Secondly, he does say that he said things that he does not believe are true. I guess the vagueness of this statement does call things into question– but also, there is the double-security element: You can’t inform everyone that they havent changed their security codes from the default because then everyone would become a security hazard to each other– likewise, Mel seems to not want to repeat the things he said while drunk, because to do so would let everyone know he said them. And I can hardly think of a reason why he would want that?
Anyway, it may be a loaded assumption: assuming that he is like his father, this should be damning evidence– but I don’t know that we can really assume that.
To reiterate, I think that his apology seems a little vague, but geniune. This might end his time in the spotlight, at least for awhile. Unfortunately, it is ammo for hard leftists trying to shift the anti-semite label from themselves to conservatives… which may serve them well if depending on how things go with Israel & the Middle East.
Just my two cents.
Enjoying your blog!
I like Mel Gibson. He has made some great movies. But he is beginning to look more and more unhinged. That said, I suppose it’s par for the course in Hollywood. Everyone struggles with their demons, and I certainly have enough of my own.
I personally didn’t see any anti-Semitism in the Passion of the Christ. I saw an accurate depiction of Scripture.
I think that most of these people who blame the Jews fail to make the distinction between the Hebrews, who are a people, and the Jews, who are the religious leaders. In that light, it was indeed the Jews who killed Christ, since the Crucifixion was in the end a political execution brought about by the Sanhedrin. But not a people.
What I liked most about the Passion was the cinematography. Gibson studied the great paintings from the Medieval and Rennaisance periods, and structured each scene as a visual realization of a masterpiece. For that he is to be commemorated.
For getting drunk out of his mind and cursing a people, he is to be condemned.
Just don’t allow the condemnation of his conduct to be confused with the commemoration of his art.
The remarks are certainly condemnable, but maybe the reason Gibson drunkenly states that Jews are out to get him is because, you know, so many Jews soberly stated that they were going to make him a pariah in Hollywood. That includes the head of the most powerful studio in Hollywood, who stated proudly and publicly that he would see to it that Gibson and those who did business with him would not do business with his studio. And all that for making a movie that portrays the fundamental beliefs of Christians, that Jesus died on the cross.
Gibson drunkenly said some very ugly things, but at least he is not proud of his bigoted remarks, unlike his antagonists.
mikem may have a point concerning Gibson’s business relations in Hollywood, but you know, he was also drunk off his ass, and ‘in vino veritas’ and all that.
Mel better hope Apocolypto makes him lots of money.
Um.. small nits
Alcohol is not truth serum, and how alcohol affects the brains of alcoholics is different than the way if affects normal people.
I believe Gibson didn’t denounce publicly denounce his dad is because, you know, it was his father..grandfather to his seven kids. Many people have parents who have some very embarrassing quirks, we usually don’t go around badmouthing them in public.
Unless someone has some evidence of Gibson’s functional anti-semitism, I’d make him as much of an “anti-semite” for random ravings of an alcoholic that has fallen off the wagon, as I would consider Hillary Clinton an anti-semite for an angry (but sober) rant about a person being a “Jew bastard.”
You may be right, Darleen, but I think if Gibson did not mean what he said, he should say so unequivocally. For the rest of his life, people are going to want to know what he thinks about Jews. I haven’t heard him say clearly whatever it is he thinks.
I don’t think he needs to denounce his father, either, but his refusal to disagree with what he has said troubles me, as do the evasive answers about the Holocaust in David Bernstein’s link above. (Disagreeing with someone is not denouncing the person.)
All of this aside, I think the calls for hate speech legislation and prosecution are completely wrong. Gibson has a First Amendment right to say anything he wants, but that doesn’t mean he should escape criticism.
I think he has made the issue of what he thinks about Jews highly relevant. If he is not an anti-Semite, I’d like to hear him explain why.
(I realize it’s unfair to judge the world by my standards, but if something like this happened to me — say I left a drunken psychotic comment somehere — I would certainly explain in full. It all sounds like damage control, which strikes me as too arrogant, given the totality of the circumstances)
Why are some holding Gibson to a standard they aren’t holding Noam Chomsky? or Tony Judt? Or Hillary Clinton? Or Charlie Sheen?
I read Gibson’s apology and found it very straightforward. Were my ex-husband (alcoholic) ever that honest!!! (been divorced almost 10 years and he still has never once apologized for any of the awful stuff he put me and our children through …)