Jim:

Mel Gibson, a controversial figure of late but fondly remembered by many for his moody portrayal of the eponymous ‘Max’ in George Miller’s classic post-apocalyptic action-thriller franchise Mad Max. If it wasn’t for Mel they’ve have probably ending up casting Jason Donovan – can you imagine!

Tash:

First of all, one role does not an excellent actor make, and second of all, your Jason Donovan obsession is erring on the side of illness. He would have been eleven whilst filming took place for God’s sake – do you really think his tiny hands could have handled the wheel in a high speed car chase? Of course they could, he’s Jason Donovan after all, but that’s not the point. Let’s be honest here, no matter what you say, every Mel Gibson film has been fatally tarnished by the fact that he’s a… what’s the phrase again… Oh yeah, an ANTI-SEMETIC WOMEN-BEATING DONG-KNOB. Apart from What Women Want, of course – rock bottom is rock bottom, after all.

Jim:

I agree you can’t make a career from one successful franchise, but how about two? I am course referring to LETHAL WEAPON: that movie that gave us the awesome synergy of Glover and Gibson – probably the greatest cop duo in movie history! And all this talk of bigotry is really beside the point; why should Gibson’s personal opinions affect our evaluation of Gibson as an artist? After all Roman Polanski is a rapist and a paedophile but Chinatown is still one of the best films ever made!

Tash:

You simply can’t get away from personal decisions in this biz we call show, these days actors are just as much brands as they are artists: I mean, sure Jennifer Aniston might be considered a great actress if she didn’t just choose absolutely shit roles over and over again, but that’s the situation we’re in, and thus she is, and will continue to be, crap. And anyway, Mel brings his “personal decisions” into his art all the bloody time: are you saying he directed The Passion Of The Christ purely cos he knew Jeezie C would be a great money-spinner? Of course not, he proudly brought his personal beliefs into the work he created and used it to sell the film, but as soon as the shoe is on the other, bastardy foot, he expects us to separate who he is from what he does.

Jim:

Oh dear, this has got a bit serious hasn’t it? Anyway I suppose you’ve seen Mel’s latest effort, The Beaver? It’s about a mentally ill man (Gibson) who only communicates through a hand puppet. Find some bigotry in there, I dare you!

Tash:

Hmmm, lets see, a man who’s decided that whatever ‘beaver’ that comes his way deserves to have his greasy hand shoved up it, and is only allowed to parrot views he himself holds – YEAH THAT’S RIGHT I FLIP REVERSED IT ON YOU.

Jim:

Oh come now, let’s not confuse Mel’s spiritual beliefs with his personal bigotry. The Passion of the Christ was clearly inspired by his faith in Jesus, but why is this a problem? What is a film isn’t in some way inspired by the beliefs of its creator? What is important is Gibson’s work should not be judged in light of his bigotry unless that bigotry somehow informs his work. Gibson has managed to keep his ridiculous views out of his work (so far) and they are therefore irrelevant.

Tash:

Genuine quality of work/smug self-satisfaction about doing ‘The Lord’s’ work aside, I just genuinely don’t believe that we should allow characters like Mel Gibson to make up the inherently aspirational world of celebrity – you can say what you like, but there’s no denying that film stars and the like are worshipped like bloomin modern day Greek gods. Perhaps its a shame that the two worlds – film-making and celebrity – are no longer separate, but that’s the world we live in. If you accept that going in (as Mel obviously did), you gotta accept the other side of it when the going gets racist.

Jim:

Still, it could be worse, he could be Charlie Sheen.

Tash:

True dat.

By Natasha Hodgson and Jim Buckfield