The way people are reacting, you'd think Mel Gibson had lobbed 150 Iranian-built missiles at Jewish neighborhoods or called for Israel to be driven into the sea rather than saying a few (extremely) ugly things in a drunken rage. There's no defending his words, and I will admit that in interviews Gibson has always appeared to me to be tightly wound. However, the folks who are pig-piling on him on the ground that his nasty outburst reveals "the real Mel Gibson" have it exactly wrong.
I once heard a brilliant psychologist give a talk about I recall not what, because a parenthetical remark captured my attention. He noted that human nature is such that when a person is a stand-up guy his whole life, if we suddenly catch him in a low moment, the first thing we say is, "Now we see the real him." But it isn't the real him. The real him is the one who resists whatever inner demons he has --the person you see 99.95 per cent of the time. It's only our own envy (the desire to bring others down to our own level) or sometimes insecurity (always looking for proof that we're not liked) that makes us conclude the opposite.
I hardly think I'd be alone in confessing I sometimes think shockingly nasty thoughts & words when something gets me really angry --things not one person on earth has ever heard me utter, and please God, no one ever will (a good reason not to get drunk). But these ideas do not reflect what I actually think when I've had a moment to reflect and get ahold of my passions. In fact, they don't even tend to be a response to anything substantive. They just kind of come unbidden if I'm provoked on a day I'm overtired or whatever (the provocation is usually small, & the response disproportionate). When a person loses control of himself, he's giving us a window into his personal demons, maybe, but no insight at all into what he actually thinks about them. And it's just possible he isn't telling us anything personal at all, except that he is drunk, stoned, suffering from exhaustion.
It's the nature of a passion to kind of carry us away; it's the role of virtue to help us dominate our passions with reason and will rather than being controlled by them. Many ugly things pop into our minds unbidden all the time; we have no control over this and are not morally responsible for them. We are morally responsible for what we do with them. So . . .what Gibson did wrong was get drunk. Judge him for that, if you must, but I don't think we can reasonably conclude anything about the substance of his comments. Plus, he has apologized. Twice. Manly, substantive apologies, a model of contrition. So let it go people. Pray for him. (Janet Parshall's 3rd hour today included people who know Gibson defending him.)
I do have a confession to make where Gibson is concerned, however. He's turned out to be a subtle director, and his Icon productions projects have always been interesting. The Passion of the Christ is an artistic masterpiece --I find something new in it each time I see it. But he isn't much of an actor. (There, I said it, and I am not under the influence). He has a kind of stalwart competence he brings to roles (and, yes, he's yummy), but he hasn't much range --tends to play all fear, sorrow and rage in the same way: bugs out the eyes, shoots a desperate glance at his love-interest, falls to his knees to implore, collapses, overcome by emotion, and. . . scene. His apology I believe; not his acting.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
