Mel Gibson and Compartmentalization
I was perusing this week’s issue of Entertainment Weekly and I came across Mark Harris’ latest piece entitled, “Thanks, Mel. Seriously.” For the most part I really enjoy Harris’ writing and I find him to have some pretty sharp insights into the goings-on in Hollywood. However, as I was reading his latest essay, I found myself befuddled by a position he takes.
I don’t know Mel Gibson personally, so I find it odd to write the following: he seems like a fairly despicable person. Between the racism, the antisemitism, and the rage-fueled taped phone calls that I couldn’t avoid, he doesn’t exactly seem like a person I would want to hang out with for any length of time. But I do believe that the man is a talent, both behind and in front of the camera. When this whole brouhaha about The Hangover 2 came out – Mel was supposed to have a cameo, but then because of his transgressions, was let go – I was excited to see him play the role. I enjoy seeing the man on screen. Even after his whole drunken antisemitic rant in Malibu a few years ago, I still saw him in Edge of Darkness and liked it well enough. I have the ability to separate the character he plays from who he might be in real life. I mean, I think Spike Lee is one of the greatest filmmakers we have, but I disagree vehemently with some of his political views. To take it a step further, I think Woody Allen is one of the best filmmakers of all-time, but I find his actions with his (now-wife) adopted stepdaughter abhorrent. The actions and opinions of these two men don’t make me enjoy or despise their output any more or less. When Tom Cruise jumped on a couch and spouted his ridiculous political opinions, I didn’t give a shit because what he does outside the realm of a movie screen doesn’t concern me.
So I found it odd to see Mark Harris write that the maxim of “It should be all about the work” strikes him as “peculiar.” And I found it especially strange when he writes that, “[T]he ability to take a great deal of proof that someone is a loathsome creep and tuck it away in a corner of your brain that even you can’t find just so you can enjoy some dopey comedy doesn’t feel to me to be evidence of a healthy perspective but rather of a weirdly over-developed ability to compartmentalize.” Wow, that’s a lot of judgment about people who go to the movies. Because, you see, anybody that has ever enjoyed a film has “a weirdly over-developed ability to compartmentalize.”
Compartmentalization is what we do when we go to the movies, except we call it “suspension of disbelief.” Unless you feel like Robert Downey, Jr. actually is Iron Man, then guess what? You’ve compartmentalized. It means you have the ability to believe that what is actually happening on the screen doesn’t necessarily correspond to what is happening in real life, that you can believe that an actor is the character he is playing rather than the actor himself. Just because one particular actor might have done some despicable and disgusting things in their private life doesn’t mean that the character they are playing is influenced by those actions. And if you are influenced by those actions, then that doesn’t make you a more caring, sensitive person, it means that you are unable to suspend disbelief with one such person. But I find that to be strange because if you can’t believe that Mel Gibson is anything other than the racist pig that he (probably) is, then how can you believe that Brad Pitt is anything other than the (fill in the Brangelina reference here) or that George Clooney is anything other than the (insert womanizing liberal reference here), etc. etc.
I have my opinions about Mel Gibson as a person, but I also have my opinions about his talents as an actor and they do not inform one another. I’m not saying I have the correct view, but I do think that Mark Harris is wrong in saying that my ability to compartmentalize is “weirdly over-developed.” Like I said, we all do it every time we go to the movies.
Hey Noah,
I caught your article over at ACTORSandCREW (I write the Above The Line feature column, btw). I have to agree with you regarding Harris article. I think Gibson is hot fodder on everyone’s radar right now and perhaps in an effort to dig deeper in what amounts to an already excavated site, this idea of separatism and compartmentalization seems like an interesting if not new for the sake of new approach. Isn’t that why we have automated tweet services – to stay relevant even at the cost of relevancy? Anyway, I find this phenomenon in movie reviews where half way through the article, which consists primarily of plot analysis and best-guess opinions, you realize the author doesn’t have anything meaningful to say about the film so they fill up the white space to reach the minimum number of words and press submit.
“I have my opinions about Mel Gibson as a person, but I also have my opinions about his talents as an actor and they don’t inform one another.” My sentiments exactly.
Cheers->
Rory
Couldn’t agree more. And I must say his work in “What Women Want” was rather outstanding.
Noah,
Thank you for a fresh look at the issue of an actor’s personal life being synonymous with their creative ability. Your post brings up some intriguing issues, mainly in regards to an audience’s ability to “suspend disbelief” while watching a film, specifically in relation to the highly controversial actor Mel Gibson. I agree that there is no doubt Mel Gibson has major personality problems, yet it would also be nearly impossible to argue against his unabashed talent as an actor. Nearly every movie that he has stared in has topped the box office charts. While I agree with your post and realize that compartmentalization does occur while watching movies, I think in certain instances when actor’s personal life has become so perverted and the media circles them like vultures, it is harder to suspend disbelief and therefore riskier for Hollywood to continue casting these actors. The performer looses their ability to be a transparent window through which the audience can see a character the more prevalent their personal life is in the media. It is for this reason that I disagree with your statement about the audience’s ability to see that the “actor is the character he is playing rather than the actor himself.” Do you think Mel Gibson’s negative publicity will affect an audience’s ability to compartmentalize while watching his films? In a perfect world an actor’s personal life could remain separate from their creative work, yet today with audiences fascination with reality television and personal details via social networking a person going to the movies rarely comes with virgin eyes, naively unaware of the “man behind the curtain.”
Hollywood executives now have the unfortunate task of having to acknowledge that the flaws of the actors themselves will be seen in addition to the characters they are playing. Audiences approach movies with an unabridged intertextuality. For creative talent this may be a death sentence for those who cannot seem to keep their abhorrent actions out of the spotlight. At the end of the day, Hollywood is still a business and image is everything. There are no curtains anymore—so the actor is either going to have to clean up their act of take a final bow.
I agree. It seems Mark Harris should throw out every dvd he has of Charlie Chaplin (statutory rapist), Morgan Freeman (dating his step-grandaughter), Roman Polanski (if you don’t know what he did then I assume you are reading a movie blog by accident), Dennis Hopper (beat his wife amongst many other offenses). Yeah he’s an asshole, great now you know not to plan that round of golf that was never going to happen. Go enjoy his films.
You are an idiot for comparing Woody Allen with any of those people. The man did absolutely nothing wrong and the fact that he is still with the woman is a testament to the fact that what he did was right.