Read this: The West Wing‘s Josh Malina asks Hollywood to “Cancel Mel Gibson”
The West Wing and Sports Night actor cites Gibson's history of antisemitism, racism, and domestic violence
Aux News Mel Gibson
Hollywood can’t seem to quit Mel Gibson. Just last month, the actor, known for racist and antisemitic outbursts and a battery charge against his ex-girlfriend, reportedly entered talks to direct Lethal Weapon 5. Before that, Lionsgate hired him for a John Wick spin-off, tarnishing that franchise’s impressive track record. So it begs the question, what does Mel Gibson have on Hollywood?
But it’s probably more straightforward than that. As West Wing actor Joshua Malina puts it in a new essay for The Atlantic, “If Gibson is welcomed back to direct the latest installment of this beloved franchise, it may be time to stop publishing think pieces about the power of ‘cancel culture.’ Because if he can continue to find big bucks and approbation in Hollywood, cancel culture simply does not exist.”
Malina brings up some good points (aside from this assertion that “the anti-racist, progressive left often seems to tolerate and, at times, produce” antisemitism—you can take the man out of The West Wing, but you can’t take The West Wing out of the man). But his overall question remains, why does Hollywood keep giving Mel Gibson so many chances?
The actor, known for roles on Sports Night and The Big Bang Theory, accuses Hollywood, specifically Warner Bros., of remaining complicit with Gibson because “Jews don’t count.’
The fact that this doesn’t seem to bother Warner Bros. executives makes me wonder if, to them, “Jews don’t count”—as the comic David Baddiel posits in his book of the same name. Baddiel, a British Jew, argues that “polite” society treats anti-Semitism as a semi-acceptable form of prejudice. And most maddening and confusing is that the anti-racist, progressive left often seems to tolerate and, at times, produce it. It breaks my heart to ponder how many Jews must have been part of the process that led to Warner Bros.’ announcement.
This probably won’t be news to anyone reading this, but Gibson has a long, intense, and largely unapologetic history of antisemitism, racism, and misogyny. There was the time he went on a racist tirade against the mother of his child, telling her he wished she would be sexually assaulted. And who could forget when he threw an antisemitic tantrum after getting pulled over for a DUI? Or, when he was ironically developing a Macabees movie before screenwriter Joe Eszterhaus wrote a nine-page open letter accusing Gibson of referring to Jews as “‘Hebes’ and ‘oven-dodgers’ and ‘Jewboys.’” What about the time he lobbed similar insults at Winona Ryder?
For his part, in 2016, Gibson wondered aloud on the Variety podcast, “I don’t understand why after 10 years it’s any kind of issue […] Surely if I was really what they say I was, some kind of hater, there’d be evidence of actions somewhere.” He continued asserting that it was perfectly reasonable to act this way:
It was an unfortunate incident. I was loaded and angry and arrested. I was recorded illegally by an unscrupulous police officer who was never prosecuted for that crime. And then it was made public by him for profit, and by members of — we’ll call it the press. So, not fair. I guess as who I am, I’m not allowed to have a nervous breakdown, ever.
Within the exhausting cancel culture conversation, context gets flattened. Many feel empathy for someone who told his ex-girlfriend that he’s going to “burn the goddamn house down, but blow me first” because they might lose work due to their actions. But what of the people who have to work for and with him? As a director, he’s responsible for his crew, including Jews and people of color. Would they be able to trust the director to create a safe and equitable working environment knowing he believes “Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world?”
Malina isn’t ignorant to how this essay will probably hurt his career. “I write this knowing that it’s more likely to lead to a boycott by Warner Bros. of Joshua Malina than of Mel Gibson.” Unfortunately, he’s probably right. Meanwhile, it’s only a matter of time before Gibson’s next big break.
Read the whole article at The Atlantic.
168 Comments
Since “cancelling” evidently doesn’t work and arguably has lost all meaning, can we find another word to describe not hiring a person because they’re awful.
Shunned seems to fit.
“Exiled” has a nice ring to it.
I prefer “banishment.”
Having been born in Amish country, I’m inclined to favor “shunning” as well. I would put people like Mel Gibson in a social gulag though.
I assume that you are referencing:
He busted a deal. The deal to not be a racist, anti-semitic, misogynist fuck.
I have a friend who recently suggested “consequencing.” It doesn’t roll off the tongue quite as well, but I like it.
Let’s just go with “held accountable”. Most accurate, least inflammatory.
Some people seem immune to cancelation — usually those with a lot of power and money. But plenty of people have been banned permanently on social media platforms for saying things far less outrageous than anything Gibson has said. Let alone people who have lost their actual jobs.
We say jailed, when we put someone in jail. Are they in jail forever? Not always. Cancelled is fine.
Can we still use Blacklisted?
I think the concept of cancel culture refers more to strident demands of some people that purported offenders are banished, rather than any actual banishment. It’s more a loud mob than a group with real power.
Hollywood producers continue to make Mel Gibson films, so who’s to blame? The left for some reason. No I will not elaborate.
I understand what Malina’s saying about permitted antisemitism in antiracist spaces. There’s a not uncommon sentiment I’ve witnessed that Jewish people, for all their history, are just another flavor of white. Of course, the thorny thing here is that sometimes that’s true and sometimes it isn’t. It’s a fun thing called situational privilege.
All of which is to say, the writer of this article shouldn’t dismiss Malina’s perspective so out of hand. The intersection of Jewishness, whiteness, and antiracism is complicated, and makes these conversations commensurately so. It deserves more nuance and consideration than a cheap shot at The West Wing.
Antisemitism from anyone who isn’t a white male conservative doesn’t fit the narrative. Progressives need to stick to the narrative, or else.
What? The writer didn’t dismiss Malina’s perspective at all. Pretty much the complete opposite actually.
I have had this conversation with antiracist people who seem to have a prejudice against Jewish people like myself and the response seems to always be that Jews have a culture and a home country whereas BIPOC do not. I am not here to cast judgement on the veracity of those claims but it seems to be their excuse for excluding Jews from inclusion conversations. Consider that Nick Cannon made horrific comments about Jews and is doing fine now.
Prejudice against Jewish people like yourself? What kind of Jewish person are you?
Gibson’s kind of a weird example, though, in that I think it’s hard to make a convincing case that he’s being given a pass because his bigotry was directed against Jews since there was also a healthy dose of racism and misogyny on top of the anti-semitism.
It seems way more likely that he’s getting a pass because his primary fanbase at this point is the Christian right and 50+-year-old white men who remember him from the ‘80’s, and they’re generally not as bothered by this stuff as a group. In other words, he still makes money and the entertainment industry’s “reforms” are frequently just performative exercises.
Yeah that’s the problem there. Trying to make out that he’s getting a pass because of the targets rings false because he’s also been incredibly racist against Black people, and frequently wildly misogynist, and that’s not even half of it. That he’s shriekingly anti-semitic is just part of the horror show.
Eh, I’m not quite that old but have loved the guy since Road Warrior and Gallipoli, and at this point have no interest in any of his new projects.
“Malina brings up some good points (aside from this assertion that ‘the anti-racist, progressive left often seems to tolerate and, at times, produce’ antisemitism”Cool how AV Club will go out of its way to make sure no slight against progressives goes unchallenged. Impossible to consider that antisemitism might actually a problem at both ends of the political spectrum.
As someone who lives on the left side of the political spectrum, one of our side’s worst tendencies is our collective insistence that our shit don’t stink. For all our smugness about red states and blue states, I’ve had way more racial slurs hurled my way on the streets of New York and LA than I ever did in North Carolina or Kentucky.
But of course, everyone knows the best way to solve a problem is to pretend you don’t have one, right??
I’ve had way more racial slurs hurled my way on the streets of New York and LA “Originally I’m from up north.”“Woah, woah…”“Don’t worry, I’m from Boston.”
I mean, New Yorkers who vote Republican exist.Not trying to deny there’s liberal intolerance, but homogenizing a region’s politics is a dumb way to go about things.
Perhaps the people yelling those slurs are the same people who hate that they live in a blue state. Not everyone in red states vote red and not everyone in blue states vote blue.
I think that’s mainly because because people in the south are more polite. They still think it, they just don’t say it.
as a POC in NYC I will say some of the most annoying racist I deal with are White liberals who talk down to every person of color I see them interact with or they talk at them but not to them. It’s something to see.Now I won’t say that’s as bad as the rest of this fucked up country but it is still some shit to deal with.
Seriously, lordy mercy is this take off. I’m pretty far left and emphatically believe that criticism of Israel’s government is in a separate circle from antisemitism, but hoo boy are there folks on my side who live in the middle of that Venn Diagram.
Being Jewish AND one who considers themselves Progressive/Left, yes there is anti-Semitism on our side. No, it’s no where near what exists on the right. Nope, not talking about any topics relating to Middle Eastern geography. More like, when you have a movement dedicated to holding power responsible – especially financial power – you can attract people who believe *CERTAIN* people control those levers of financial and government power. Where DOES bleed into matters of Middle Eastern geography is in discussion of government funding. And then certain countries are brought up as the “reason” we don’t have Medicare for All, and certain countries are declared to be the “reason” the police over here are so damn racist. It’s more subtle, more “polite,” and seemingly justified, if things are phrased in a certain way.
We get singled out by both the Left and Right in negative and positive ways, and unfortunately, they’re most negative ways, with varying degrees of injury on our part.
You’re absolutely right, I’m only saying that in my own experience people become a bit bolder expressing their disdain for Jewish people in general when they think they can get away with pretending their bigotry is just criticism of Israeli policy.Of the many issues this presents, one of them is that it muddles actual criticism of the Israeli government because advocates can correctly say that there are more than a few straight-up antisemites in the ranks of those who protest its actions. Folks on the left have to watch this shit, call it out, and stomp it out; patting ourselves on the back and pretending there’s no antisemitism on our ranks is obscene.
didn’t mean to imply i disagreed with your prior comment. just trying to add on
Look at us, agreeing and shit.If only it was about something cool.
Well, we’ve seen what happens when the right takes antisemitism to extremes.
You can criticise the murderous, apartheid state of Israel without being anti semitic. The Palestinians are semites too.
Actually, the OP never mentioned Israel, but I understand that you’d prefer to muddy the waters than address anything they actually said.
I would argue that most anti-semitism on the left does stem from antipathy toward Israel, although there’s also a somewhat smaller number of leftist anti-semites whose hatred is based more on stereotypes regarding Jewish bankers and business owners. And then you’ve got an even smaller segment that blames Jews for the slave trade, for some reason, but I think they’re a lot less vocal than they were two or three decades ago.
Don’t confuse the idiot classes!
Antisemitism is a word coined to solely refer to hatred of Jews. Don’t be an asshole by claiming otherwise.
I completely agree with you that criticism of Israel isn’t necessarily anti Semitism, but the whole “It’s not anti-semitism because Palestinians are semites too,” argument is dumb. It’s trying to turn an argument about prejudice directed towards Jews into semantic hair-splitting. Like if you were told that someone is racist against Latinos and responded, “That’s impossible because Latino is an ethnicity, not a race.” It may be technically correct on some level, but it’s completely beside the point.
*progressive, anti-racist Jewish person makes a point about occasional tolerance of anti-Semitism in progressive, anti-racist circles*AV Club: No, that’s dumb. That’s a dumb thing to say and to think, and you’re dumb for saying and thinking it.
He’s not that progressive if he’s approvingly quoting David “Blackface” Baddiel
yeah, maybe listen to Jewish people when they tell you antisemitism can be a problem on the left?
yeah, maybe listen to Jewish people when they tell you antisemitism can be a problem on the left
Does that also mean I should listen to Jewish people who would tell me there ISN’T antisemitism on the Left? And in that case, who would “win”?
Presumably the people who are telling you about the things they themselves experienced rather than the people who are trying to tell you about what other people may or may not have experienced? Seems comically obvious.If a person says, “Jimothy attacked me,” and another person says, “Jimothy never attacked me,” your response would actually be, “Oh, well I guess it’s clear Jimothy never attacked anyone!”?
Love the influx of a specific type of white, bourgeois “Leftist” incels who are VERY UPSET at the suggestion that anti-Semitism on “his side” isn’t just an invention of a Global Zionist Conspiracy.Fair warning, though – you, Jhelter and MpB would definitely get banned from The Avocado for this.
Dear Matt Schimkowitz:Fuck you. You’re part of the problem
And telling him so in an article he wrote that paid him is… what, the solution?
It’s true that anti-Semitism and racism are problems regardless of political affiliation. It’s also true that the American and international right make anti-Semitism and racism foundational to their policy. While leftists may tolerate bigots in their midst, they don’t make policy based on that bigotry. Fascists, on the other hand choose their leadership based on the strength of the bigots’ conviction. You can see the difference, right?
leftists may tolerate bigots in their midst, they don’t make policy based on that bigotry
Yeah, and even after him in the Soviet Union there was plenty of anti-Jewish discrimination. That’s why a huge percentage of Soviet/Russian Jews emigrated to Israel when they could. Even though most of them aren’t religious nor speak Hebrew.
Oh my, no that is incorrect.
I’m a Jewish Leftist, and this has been my experience. I’ve gotten comments (from other Leftists) implying that I, a person who has never been to the Middle East, is responsible firsthand for any atrocities Israel might have caused, that “all Jews are white, so you can’t experience prejudice” (What about Tiffany Hadish? Eric Andre? Daveed Diggs?), that the Holocaust or anything related to it (i.e. Nazi fetishization/cosplay) can’t upset me because it happened before I was born, that Nazis are no longer “a thing” and haven’t been since WWII, that I’m lying about having monetary problems because the government is paying my family annually as an apology for the Holocaust (???? No, they’re not?)
It’s made me feel like all my efforts to support others via “social justice” are falling on the ears of people who wouldn’t support me when the tables are turned.
I’ve said this before but here we go again: “Hollywood” isn’t a thing. It’s a word used to describe the film industry. Sometimes, it’s limited to the American film industry; sometimes it’s the film industry in general; other times it’s to talk about celebrities, American or not.My point is, “Hollywood” is word describing a bunch of people independent of each other. If the medias want to know why Mel Gibson can still find work, it’s for the same reason Sean Hannity still has a job: because no matter how many people in your work find you despicable, no matter how many of them would like to “cancel you”, you just need a few other despicable persons to hire you and you’re good. And that is a pretty low bar to meet.
Thank you, this always annoys me. “Hollywood” describes everything from Disney to Blumhouse to A24 to whoever makes random on-demand action movies or low-budget Christmas romcoms. It’s an industry made up of thousands of random companies of varying sizes and dispositions.Discussing it as a monolith is like saying, “when will the restaurant industry take mask mandates seriously?” Which restaurants, located where? I’m pretty sure we’re not going to see Mel Gibson pop up in the MCU Fantastic Four, but apparently among the ocean of production that happens in “Hollywood,” there are some random companies still willing to work with this scumbag.
Indeed. These “cancel culture doesn’t exist” people really seem to misunderstand what most people mean by the term. By any standard Mel Gibson (a man formerly a major star on the level of a Tom Hanks or a George Clooney) has by any reasonable standard taken a massive (and probably deserved) career hit because of his horrifying personality, the fact that he isn’t literally reduced to begging on the street is not somehow proof that a culture of canceling doesn’t exist. Granted, being able to make a movie with Warner Brothers is definitely a bigger gig than a lot of “cancelled” people get, but this same goofy argument seems to get trotted out every time Louis CK manages to find a comedy club to perform at (despite basically being persona non grata on television now) or when Kevin Spacey finds a way to get a cameo in an obscure Italian movie or something.
Louis CK just got nominated for a Grammy.
First off, I agree with your point. Secondly, that’s a great username.
She’s of the Connecticut Jerkstores.
So did several hundred other people across 86 categories.
If cancel culture was real, he wouldn’t be.
How many of them pulled their dick out in front of their label’s interns?
Conservatively? Maybe 10%…
we know.
MJS didn’t seem to.
There’s a whole spectrum between ‘begging on the street’ and ‘being handed multi-million dollar deals’ that the pro-cancel crowd would be happy for Gibson to occupy.
Cancel culture is a buzzy phrase that’s mostly used to reduce a complicated question to a binary issue that people can quickly take sides on. That question is “should the things a person does or says affect their ability to work in profitable, high-profile industries?”
The people who are philosophically opposed to this in absolute terms are a minority so small they’re irrelevant in practice. No one talks about Colin Kapernick being cancelled, but he’s got a better case that he was blackballed from his industry over political messaging than most, and the people supposedly incensed over cancel culture are largely fine with it.
“Cancel culture doesn’t exist” is probably overly simplistic — there objectively are people advocating for professional repercussions for racism and homophobia, and the fact that they’re not always totally successful doesn’t mean they’re not real — but “cancel culture is a bullshit phrase created by the right to try and rebrand career consequences for your words and actions that have always existed into a leftist problem they can rally against now that the tide is turning ever so slightly against bigots” is a little wordy.
Clooney? What was the last thing he was in?
Hundred million dollar Netflix film The Midnight Sky, which debuted during the pandemic. On a four year hiatus before then because he made a billion dollars selling a tequila company.
If I worked at a bank and got my dick out in front of a coworker, I would likely not be hired by another bank.If I was a cashier at a grocery store and called a customer a “dirty heeb”, I would likely not be hired by another grocery store.Stop pretending that these entertainment jobs are not jobs. It is fucking RIDICULOUS that CK gets to keep doing comedy.Gibson is a harder case because his shit was off work. But even so, this “begging on the street” bullshit rhetoric people like you pull is dumb. Mel Gibson ISN’T starving. And if he was, he could get a job that DOESN’T pay huge and put him IN CHARGE of people he probably hates.It’s not a “goofy argument” to think that privileged assholes who got their privilege from a particular industry shouldn’t be allowed to once again profit from that industry. It’s just asking for basic fucking accountability.And for what it’s worth, any job they could do can be done by someone who ISN’T them. Tom Hardy managed to be Mad Max just fine. A whole movie got reworked around replacing Kevin Spacey. If I need a laugh I can listen to Kyle Kinane instead of Louis.
I think you over-estimate how thoroughly banks and grocery stores do background checks.
Cool. So you agree that they *should* perform those checks but they don’t? Or was that your attempt at a clever dismissal?
I’m saying they don’t, and in the case of the antiemetic grocery store cashier I doubt that a statement like that is going to show up on a background check even if they did one.
Not the fucking point douchebag.
I get what you’re saying, but Malina is specifically talking about a major studios like Warner Bros. giving Gibson work, and not a known shit hole like Fox News being a safe harbor for people like Sean Hannity.
It’s weird, because “Cancel Culture” really only gets used pejoratively—it’s been observed that “Consequence Culture” would/should be more accurate. Malina’s on the correct side, I think it goes without saying, but this is no time to take back the phrase.
Consequence culture is just rebranded cancel culture. Apparently, there are no statute of limitations for those who have transgressed so the “consequence” really equates to “canceled forever.”
As West Wing actor Joshua Mandel puts it in a new essay for The Atlantic, Who is Joshua MANDEL?!
Different Jewish guy who is okay with antisemitism so long as it comes from the right.
Prove that he said he’s okay with antisemitism from the right.
He supports the antisemite who ran the country for the last four years.
Howie’s hairy younger brother?
Howie’s less annoying sibling?
Where’s that one guy who loves to write essays about how Mel’s totally changed now?
the anti-racist, progressive left often seems to tolerate and, at times, produce” antisemitismHe’s not wrong.https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/29/labour-accused-of-harassment-and-discrimination-in-antisemitism-inquiry
Also:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40407057
Ugh, I wish those stories weren’t as frequent as they are.
.
Nah, he’s very wrong. OFTEN? Nah. Fuck off with your bothsiderism.
You seem like the kind of chill, fun dude who gets super mad about “centrism”.
>>Malina brings up some good points (aside from this assertion that “the anti-racist, progressive left often seems to tolerate and, at times, produce” antisemitism—you can take the man out of The West Wing, but you can’t take The West Wing out of the man).Literally what the actual f*** are you talking about?
It’s incredibly clear what he is saying. That both the sentiment it “happens often” on the Left is complete bullshit, and also fits with that 90s Triangulation politics featured in Sorkin works. Makes total sense.
It’s a non-sequitir in the article itself, but even standing on its own, it doesn’t make any sense. Sorkin wasn’t “triangulation politics,” he was firmly on the left side of the spectrum and has been excessively vocal about this. The paragraph seems to be saying “the left can’t be racist or anti-semitic” which… what the actual f*** is he talking about?
Nope. What it’s saying is that the Left isn’t OFTEN antisemitic. Because isn’t. The end.
So I guess that Linda Sarsour (BLM central organisation), Tamika Mallory (BLM central organisation), Louis Farrakhan and Malcolm X (Nation of Islam), Ilhan Omar (Democratic Party), Jeremy Corbyn, David Livingstone, Jackie Walker, Naz Shah and Martin Lindon (UK Labour Party), and Jean-Luc Melenchon (La France Insoumise) are all just big old right-wingers in disguise, hmmmm?
Why would you spend time mounting such a limp defense?
Because bothsiderists are the most dangerous scum on planet Earth.
Take it down a notch, incel.
It’s limp because it’s honest.So it’s kind of shitty for you to be shitty about it. I know it’s more fun if everyone lies and overstates everything, but it’s fair to say the left is sometimes anti-Semitic, but not “often”. That’s just bullshit posturing. And again, I get it that that’s more fun and less “limp”, but maybe if more people were honest and limp, instead of rock-hard liars, we’d be in a better place?
Star for “rock hard liars.”
Seriously.I know the AVC at this point is just a game of “Spot the Incel wearing a ‘This is What a Feminist Looks Like’ shirt,” but ncbo is making it too easy.
Yeah this is the problem, there’s a certain kind of middle-class psuedo-intellectual centrist (usually not Jewish), who has a intense desire to believe and insist that there’s a massive burning core of anti-Semitism if you go ever slightly left of centre. C.f. the whole “Eve Fartlow” business and the people shrieking from the rooftops about a playground insult, and literally treating it as it was akin to racial abuse, or even in some cases, a death threat. Mostly the people who were freaking out about it just need to have their phone taken away and be forced to go outside or stroke a cat or something for a minute.There is definitely some anti-Semitism on the left, but the idea that it’s even comparable to the right is laughable both-sides-ism, and that it’s a huge problem is just eyeroll material.
‘Sorkin wasn’t “triangulation politics,” he was firmly on the left side of the spectrum and has been excessively vocal about this.’I will always take the opportunity to point out that the ‘triangulation politics’ people associate with The West Wing stem almost entirely from its post-Sorkin years. It was John Wells who gave us a pro-life, anti-union Hispanic Democratic presidential candidate, not Sorkin.
Sorkin is a utter centrist, claiming he’s “firmly on the left” is the most American possible thing to say. Almost no viewpoint he expresses is anywhere left of centre outside the US.Next you’ll be telling me the New York Times is “firmly on the left”.It is true the really insane West Wing shit is from later, but Sorkin has come out with plenty of ridiculous nonsense himself.
(aside from this assertion that “the anti-racist, progressive left often seems to tolerate and, at times, produce” antisemitism—you can take the man out of The West Wing, but you can’t take The West Wing out of the man).Wow. Are you really that stupid? I’m having a problem even granting that some form of nativity.
*naivety. Damn you spell check. and my inability to spells things.
I was going to be a smartass and tell you it’s naivete or naïveté, but I looked it up and naivety is an acceptable (chiefly British) variant, so you showed me.
Feel free to still be a smartass, because I certainly didn’t intentionally choose the chiefly British variant. It just happened to be the version without a red squiggly line under it.
I was a Wise Man in the Living Naivety.
Autocorrect, Holiday Edition!
Yeah, that was a fucking BAD, glib, blanket take.
OFTEN? Pure fucking lie. Malina is flat wrong.
Followup question: does anyone know what that paragraph translates to in English? I’m coming up blank.
But it’s probably more straightforward than that. As West Wing actor Joshua Mandel puts it in a new essay for The Atlantic, “If Gibson is welcomed back to direct the latest installment of this beloved franchise, it may be time to stop publishing think pieces about the power of ‘cancel culture.’ Because if he can continue to find big bucks and approbation in Hollywood, cancel culture simply does not exist.”Dude, we’re WAY fuckin’ past that. Gibson was nominated for the Best Director Oscar for Hacksaw Ridge not even 6 years ago. If he wasn’t persona non grata back then, he sure as shit won’t be now.
David Baddiel is undoubtedly an erudite, funny man, and his point is well made. However, his reputation for me is never going to recover from the season of ‘Taskmaster’ he appeared on, where we got to watch him have a complete mental breakdown in real time.
For me, he’ll always be the distinguished host of “History Today”. Some of the gags haven’t aged well, but they’re still damn funny:
I do like his response to accusations of writing a Tracy Ullman sketch that deals with antisemitism.https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jun/03/tracey-ullman-angers-corbyn-fans-labour-antisemitism-sketch-david-baddiel “Maybe I should ask for royalties. Or will that confirm the stereotype for the antisemites?”
Blame Jodie Foster for giving Gibson a role after much of his shit came to light.
No Jodie, he didn’t deserve another chance. Fuck no.
There are a billion people who deserve that chance over Mel Gibson.
Also, why is everyone stuck on the anti-semitism thing, Gibson has insulted or assaulted just about every demo on the planet. He’s a POS who deserves nothing.
See, this is an example of assuming someone is woke because she’s LGBT and the victim of arguably the most famous stalking/obsession case in modern history.
Whoopi Goldberg once apologized for Roman Polanski. These guys protect each other. The only color or gender they see is the white man in green ink on $100 bills.
Why does being stalked make you think she’d be woke?
I don’t blame someone for giving someone a chance. That’s kind of Christlike. I blame Mel Gibson for using said chance to show us he’s an irredeemable anus hat.
I guess I wonder does Ms. Foster still back him up or did she throw up her hands and say “Well, I tried!”?
We can’t let Gibson’s “The Passion” off the hook. It has these characters in it as the villains. But people seem hesitant to call it out as the anti-semitic garbage that it is just because some people with certain “sincerely-held religious beliefs” think this is actually what happened in history.
That movie made $300+ million on like a $12 budget. If Mel had announced “Passion 2: The Passioner” and “Passion 3: The Passionest” filmed back to back, he’d have gotten $200 million to make it from a lot of guys who eat Chinese food on Christmas Day.
Pretty sure this was widely discussed at the time.
He only makes that face when someone says “YHVH”.
The director’s cut has them holding sacks with dollar signs on them.
Because West Wing fucking sucks and smug neo-liberals like Josh Malina are annoying. If I had to choose between them and a rabid racist hobo from Australia I’d go for the latter.
[FARTS]
Is that Australian hobo I smell?
He’s originally from Peekskill, New York.
Who’s an edgy boy!
That’s fucked up dude
So a wife abuser is less horrible than an actor you don’t like with mainstream political views that you don’t like?
“Everything I don’t like is neoliberal, and the less I like it, the more neoliberal it is!”
srsly? is this nostalgia-cancel? He couldn’t do that [15 yrs ago] without plugging his favorite artists? reeks of stooge-flop
spooge-fap?
Two things:1) Gibson is a anti-semetic piece of shit and Malina is right to call out his career ressurection.
2) that being said, if you want to make an argument about how some minorities don’t count maybe don’t cite a guy who spent years bullying a black footballer while wearing blackface and has a history of anti-black racism and islamophobia.
While we’re at it, can we cancel the improper use of the term “begs the question?”
Say what you want about Mel Gibson, he sure got a lot of Christmas presents.
Coming this Christmas
A film by Mel Gibson
Kevin Spacey
David K. W. Chapelle
Lethal Weapon V: Cancel THIS
so ready for this site to lose its readership. you’ve long since lost the writing.
Why still around? Because we like to think that we could fix him, that lovable bad boy, if we could just pull these mean thoughts out of his head.
Congratulations, Matt. Your casually tossed-out line about Malina and the West Wing has now generated more comments than the actual subject of Mel Gibson.
You have successfully made this about yourself, rather than about anyone hurt or threatened by Gibson’s comments, or the debate about what was said, how long ago it was said, how contrite or not contrite he is or whether studio executives, regardless of their race or religion, have the creative right or the fiducial responsibility to their stockholders to deal with Gibson if he makes the money.But sure, let’s talk about your understanding of left-wing anti-Semitism, Middle East politics and that time Rando187310135t18 got called an anti-semitic slur in Boston. Well done.
And then it was made public by him for profit, and by members of — we’ll call it the press.I’m having some trouble here. Can someone help me decipher the subtext?
I assume he’s trying to imply a distinction between “tabloids” and “the press” as an ostensibly respectable institution.
I’m pretty sure that was where he almost said “jew-run media.”
Antisemitics accuse Jews of making money, being successful, and controlling industries.What antisemitic groups are really complaining about is their perceived inequality compared to Jews – who are successful because they benefit (un/intentionally) from a system of White supremacy. But some how, when people of color make the same complaint they are silenced and told they need boot straps by the same White supremacists.
Is Mel Gibson even particularly profitable at this point outside of his Jesus propaganda? I agree with Malina that this should be a non-question based on his behavior, but I can’t figure out what the upside is for WB either. Is the Lethal Weapon franchise that much of a nostalgia trip?
If you don’t like it don’t watch it. This guy’s essay in the Atlantic is a really stupid way to handle this. I assure you, you won’t get hired not because of this but because people don’t know you. Hollywood responds to money. If you don’t give Gibson’s movies money, then he won’t get to make them. Pretty simple. Way more effective than a bullshit essay.
What kind of people does he thinks runs Hollywood? Weinstein was an open secret for decades. Why would anyone care about Gibson?
someone should “John Wick” Mel Gibson
There is a certain honestly to Mel Gibson – he is just straight-up anti-Semitic and doesn’t try to rehabilitate his image by visiting a Holocaust museum with a rabbi or use coded language about money and then claim that he wasn’t talking about the Jews when people point out he was definitely talking about the Jews. Because very mainstream celebrities and politicians pull that shit all the time and I hate it. I don’t admire Mel Gibson and he should totally not work in Hollywood again and I will not see any more even remotely affiliated with him, but his old school hatred is borderline refreshing.
I’m Jewish and like most Jews I know outside of older Fox News Jews, single-issue-voter pro-Israel Jews, or just selfish wannabe-WASP Jews, I’m very liberal. And Malina’s 1000 percent right about the progressive left’s penchant towards anti-semitism. This isn’t a “both sides” thing. The right at the moment is increasingly fascistic, embraces and even courts anti-semites, dog-whistles about Soros et al, etc. Hell, most of the evangelicals are only pro-Israel because they think all the Jews have to go back to Israel for the second coming to happen.But the left’s problems with anti-semitism, while they’re nearly not as bad as the right’s, are still legitimate problems, and there’s no reason one can’t hold both thoughts at the same time. The socialist left uses a lot of the same globalist dog-whistle crap, sometimes I imagine without fully realizing it. American Jews are often made to answer for Israel in order to be included in Progressive spaces, even if most never have nor will set foot on Israeli soil. I hate Netanyahu with the fire of 1000 suns, but I’ve found that as soon as I’m critical of Israel, people suddenly get waaaaay too comfortable saying weird shit to me. And I know way too many Jews who went to liberal arts colleges who were asked where their horns and tails are – and were asked sincerely. Not a coincidence Demi Lovato’s shilling for some crunchy granola anti-semitic crap – there is an actual path to that stuff on the left. I’ve no idea if the author here is Jewish or not, but if he is a progressive Jew and just hasn’t experienced this, he’s quite lucky – and he has something to look forward to! If he’s not Jewish and feels comfortable saying that on behalf of liberal Jews, well, that gives away the game right there.
[bothsiderist crap]“This isn’t a both sides thing”[bothsiderist crap]
K thx bye.
So let me get this straight, the whole world is falling apart and there are people like this actor who get to publish articles about a film studio hiring an asshole to make a movie? This isn’t news, it’s the way the entertainment industry works. The motivator is money and that’s it. Film hasn’t meant anything truly to the overall culture for decades now because they don’t speak to anything but corporate bottom lines. If you want to punish someone in the entertainment business for their actions you don’t need to have an authority figure cancel them; you stop paying attention to them and writing articles about them. Has no one ever heard of the phrase “ No such thing as bad publicity.” Ignore him like we as society have done for years and years and he’ll go away. Why? Because it sends a direct message to the people making these decisions that he’s box office poison.
But it’s probably more straightforward than that. As West Wing actor Joshua Mandel puts it in a new essay for The Atlantic,…FFS, it’s literally the first mention of the actor’s name in the article…
I can understand mistakes, but the fact that they seem to have a policy of never fixing them now is so frustrating. Just go start a Facebook group or something if you don’t care to be an actual professional writer.
YUP.
Lol fuck this piece of shit. Fuck mel gibson, too.
Also just lol @ them first calling the author of The Atlantic piece “Joshua Mandel” but then, later on, referring to him as “Malina”…spotty editing
What? Name a recent success of his, please. Gibson has his cancellation covered. No one has to do it for him.
He was literally nominated for the Best Director Oscar a decade AFTER the arrest and scandal that he was supposedly canceled for.
I’m more surprised he keeps getting work cause he’s a 1 trick pony. All he can play is slightly angry looking man. Every single role he has is an angry looking man. He should have been typecast out the game ages ago but people keep creating slightly angry looking roles for him.