Never trust a man named “Mel.”

Old posts:

• Tom Cruise and Katie, wow! (June 2nd, 2005)
• Tom Cruise engaged in real relationship, really. For real. (June 17, 2005)
• Tom Cruise and Katie… really? (December 2nd, 2005)
• Contemplating a Mel Gibson boycott (March 2nd, 2004).

There are two lessons I draw from these posts:

1. I can see the future.

   I accurately described Tom Cruise’s farcical marriage (including the sham baby!) and anticipated Mel Gibson’s going around the bend.*

2. Who cares?

   These aren’t world leaders or great philosophers; they’re purveyors of generally mindless entertainment. As much as I enjoy making the case that they are somehow coercing their fans into sharing their awful beliefs, I don’t think I can seriously argue it. Do you think anybody has become a scientologist because of Tom Cruise’s meltdown? Is there anybody walking around today saying, “you know, Mel’s right–Jews ARE responsible for the world’s suffering!”?

   There will always be people who think these things, and at least a few of those people will be famous. But does it really make any difference in my life if Tom Cruise is a raving lunatic, or if Mel Gibson drinks too much and reveals his (completely unsurprising) bigotry? I don’t think it does. And does it somehow change the value of their work? I don’t think so, at least in the sense that I think an artistic work (yes, I am including The Patriot and Cocktail in the category) should be judged on its own merits, and not by the context of its creation.

All that being said, though, I find it doubtful that I will ever watch a Tom Cruise/Mel Gibson movie without being distracted by thoughts of their respective derangements. I know that as soon as The Passion of the Christ came out, Gibson’s filmography took on a different shape. Suddenly I noticed that almost every role he played required him to get beaten, abused, or tortured–and often sacrifice himself for a greater good. And of course Tom Cruise’s manic grin and desperate affability look different in the cold light of morning, as well.

I like to read and write about the personal lives of famous people, and I do think there’s an element of relevance in some of these stories. Fame carries with it influence, and a celebrity’s views on significant matters like race, religion, sexual orientation, global poverty, etc. can actually make a real difference in the world. For example, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to argue that The Passion of the Christ acted as a real, if minor, energizing force in the evangelical Christian movement. But there’s a huge difference between the effect of releasing that movie and the effect of making some boorish and offensive remarks after getting pulled over for drunk driving. I don’t like Mel for saying the things he said, but I think it’s somewhat hilarious that there are people out there condemning him for them after giving him a pass when he released his polemic two years ago.

In summary: Mel Gibson is a hateful jerk**, which we pretty much already knew. Tom Cruise has constructed an elaborate but clumsy public life to mask what is surely a pathetic and weird private life. Making sweeping judgments about either man because of how he chooses to live his life is both unfair and inevitable.

^* Yeah, I know. Not exactly the most difficult prognostication ever performed.

^** Isn’t it interesting how Mel’s getting excoriated for his entirely predictable anti-semitic rant while getting a free pass on calling a female officer “sugar-tits” and attempting to threaten his way out of the arrest by claiming to own Malibu? Do you still want to see this guy as the lead in What Women Want?