- Share This Post
- Pin It
- 0
- 10
-
Sparkle (0)
I’ve been trying hard to ignore the media fascination with Mel Gibson’s continued fall from decency, but it’s been challenging. Actually, it's been impossible. Last week avoiding the "Mel's Tirade" story required more than simply dodging tabloids, Twitter tags and TMZ -- I even heard excerpts of his rant audio tapes on NPR.
But it's not news that Mel Gibson is a raging menace. I know enough about domestic violence to know that publicly exposed racist and homophobic hate like we've heard from Gibson in the past is often a red flag for abusive interpersonal relationships, too. So I wasn’t too surprised to hear the tapes of his bilious attack, and while hoping the best for the people around him, I’m just not too interested in Mel anymore. Sure, The Year of Living Dangerously was great. In 1982. His career is dead, people are saying. No biggie, I say.
Wait a minute, though. Case not closed. Now ABC is reporting that audio experts say the tapes may not be proof positive in that they have been edited. The Huffington Post updated its story about the shocking post-fight photos of Mel's wife Oksana/s broken teeth, saying the photos are reported to have been edited.
So now, when I should be entirely over this shark-triple-lindy-jumping story, I’m actually intrigued. Because it is now an interesting example of modern media, legal and ethical challenges. We tend to think of film and photos as evidence, but we also know that Photoshop can add or subtract a chin with a click. Can technology get in the way of the truth? What standards should media have for airing tapes that are potentially altered? What amount of editing changes the integrity of a photo or a tape -- or of an entire story?
Certainly even if the tapes edited out Oksana berating Mel, his rant towards her is still reprehensible. Right? Or not? Does context matter, especially when people are considering whether or not his career is over?
Some celebrities are lightning rods for very important culture discussions. O.J. Simpson made us think about race and the legal system. Michael Jackson made us think long and hard about our perceptions of how adults should behave and about the many issues of child molestation. I think Mel Gibson is one of these lightning rods around many issues our society is facing now, including religious-based bombastic conservatism, family violence, racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia and more.
He's also just an entertainer, a filmmaker, an actor. He's William Wallace in a kilt. He's Mad Max. He's The Passion of the Christ.
Does Mel, either his personal life, his career, or the zeitgeist he's tripping on, still have any interest for you? Or are you hoping this story will soon go away, far, far away? Is he a racist we should ignore, or does his career still hold currency?
Contributing Editor Deb Rox blogs like a freaking butterfly, stings like a Tweet, and --listen up-- plans to meet you in the Thunderdome.
