There was an article in the New York Times this morning about Mel Gibson's Mayan epic, Apocalypto. The writer, Sharon Waxman, discussed some early praise for the film, alongside Hollywood criticism for the actor/director/producer's behavior. She writes:
"Since Mr. Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews last summer, many people in Hollywood swore -- both publicly and privately -- that they would not work with him again or see his movies."
The point of the article though, is whether Apocalypto, excellent film or not, would be nominated for an Oscar, considering the tension that still exists over Gibson's anti-semitism. We've wondered the very same thing in a recent online exclusive, "Can Mel Gibson Bounce Back?"
Looking at Gibson as a brand, we wonder whether a Gibson sanctioned project can still carry the same cachet? Can Hollywood accept the film on its artistic merit alone and overlook the personal brand attached to it? And what about the public? Is there enough interest in this film to generate wide audience acceptance?
How does a brand bounce back after a scandal? This slideshow, "Rebounding Brands," shows examples of a few.
Related Stories: | Topics:Work/Life, arts + entertainment, Mel Gibson, Hollywood, Entertainment, Celebrity News, Movie Stars |
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 5 Total
December 5, 2006 at 1:58pm by me
I don't see wha tthe suprise here. Mel is your typical bigoted, hypocrtical, drunken catholic. If that were a crime, a lot of people would be in jail. If the movie is good, people will see it. If it stinks they won't. See Mission Impossible 3 | Tom Cruise | Scientology.
December 5, 2006 at 3:52pm by Mary
It never ceases to amaze me when critics or journalists talk about Mel Gibson as a man who has tainted himself forever because he got drunk and made a stupid remark.
Hollywood is full of prostitutes, drug addicts, misfits, money grabbers and who knows what else, and these are just the studio heads.
The hypocritical, holier-than-thou media ought to look at their own thinking and see what evil lurks behind their personna's and perhaps they wouldn't be so quick to point the finger at an alcoholic who has apologised more than once and is seeking help by putting himself in rehab and seeking to be reconciled to the Jewish Community whom he has offended.
Its nice to know that Mel ISN'T perfect and that makes him more human.
December 6, 2006 at 6:49am by Matt Shannon
The market for "honest" personalities is quite ripe; be it talk radio, or comedy, or the extremes of faith; one can get away with a lot of commonly objectable remarks if the play the honesty card.
It's the nature of almost any strong remark that, if held fast, will cause a polarizing reaction among the public by exploiting previous differences. It will manifest some support, however small, one way or the other - even if this support is only contrarian spite for the majority. The other motivating factor is that people respect deep convictions, as it typically means a life's worth of experience has led to them. Being the thinking, breathing people we are, we'll extend the courtesy of consideration for other, assumably functionable people and their views. It simply is the case that this is happens, and support will manifest one way or ther other, if not both.
About the only thing that can dissolve this support, is to waiver; to be seen as something less than honest or without strong convictions.
December 6, 2006 at 9:49am by Rob Gregory
I think that there is room for the brand to bounce back simply because of the quality products they deliver.
I dont know anyone who agrees with Mel's views in the slightest degree, however I feel that a lot of people wont take that into account when they go to see the movie. People appreciate a great movie whether they like the people making it or not.
I am sure that there will be a large group that will boycott, but I would expect the movie to still draw a crowd because it sticks to what Mel's brand does well -- tension and drama. It will be interesting to see if a quality product is more important to the people than their personal opinions of the CEO.
December 14, 2006 at 1:22pm by De Freitas
Mel's a big shot and they like to tear those guys down. if it'd been seinfeld himself instead of michael richards...we'd never hear the end of that- either. This sitch is exacerbated by his previous claims of not being an anti-semite in the lead up to the release of his 2004 film about Christ's last days.Getting caught contradicting that so openly in front of public servants was his huge mistake.