Why Mel Gibson Must Be Rehabilitated

Joe Queenan explains why the film industry cannot afford to lose Mel Gibson:

If the year 2010 is the year Gibson goes down for the count, that is not necessarily something to cheer about, at least not from the film buff's point of view.... This is not an industry that can afford to lose talented actors and directors; it doesn't have that many of them. Moreover, you simply cannot talk about the last three decades of motion picture history without talking about Gibson's part in it. He is a linchpin of the industry, the kind of mainstream actor (not unlike John Wayne or Steve McQueen or Clint Eastwood) who does not himself win acting awards, but without whom there would be no actors making films. Whatever you may think of him, Mel Gibson is Hollywood.

Read it here.

He's right. Absent government subsidy, film makers must depend on attracting viewers, and that is something that Mel Gibson, throughout his career, has been able to do. And he has done it very well. What is more, he takes chances and pushes the limits of the medium in interesting ways. He is, for all his embarrassments, a major figure who is still young enough to be making important films. I, for one, would like to see them.