I hope Mel Gibson’s publicity reps are billing him for their blood pressure pills and the salon appointments to cover up the gray hair he’s giving them.
The actor-director-producer’s current PR schedule on behalf of “Edge of Darkness,” his first lead role in eight years, could easily be titled The Hostility Tour.
May and September appearances with Jay Leno – softball-tossing, buddy-buddy chats – hinted at a renewed, revitalized Gibson. During the January 17 Golden Globes broadcast, the star’s gently self-deprecating response to host Rick Gervais’ crack about his drinking problems nudged this new image further.
But two days later, things took a different, weird turn. Gibson’s more straightforward sitdown with KTLA-TV’s Sam Rubin to promote the film veered into downright combative. And it included what can only be interpreted as an ethnically tinged taunt by the actor toward the Jewish entertainment reporter.
Just as the viral reach of the KTLA video died down, another one took its place.
Last week, Gibson had another testy interview, this time by satellite with WGN-TV Chicago. The reporter cut the segment off after some tense back-and-forth. While Gibson was still mic’ed and on-camera he muttered, “Asshole.”
Over the past few days, I’ve been barraged with links to this new video through Twitter, Facebook, industry sites and every other channel.
But get past the train wreck fascination with both interviews and you’ll find a more interesting situation.
Beyond the eight-year acting hiatus, this round of publicity represents Gibson’s first major voluntary celebrity exposure since his notorious 2006 drunk-driving arrest and the obscenity-laced anti-Semitic, misogynistic rant that accompanied it.
It’s logical to expect that during this round of interviews, any reporter getting more than a single soundbite is obligated to ask some variation of "How are you faring post-meltdown?"
And it’s just as logical to assume that Gibson and his handlers have worked up and rehearsed a number of respectable PR replies that address in broad strokes – then summarily curtail – that subject. That’s how the game is played.
In each of the videos, however, the reporter is caught off-guard to find that Gibson doesn’t have a well-practiced answer and, instead, veers between coy and angry. And Gibson seems under the impression that this incident currently merits neither discussion nor response.
You have to wonder whether Gibson believes he can shut down that particular line of questioning simply through intimidation. Or if he is convinced that an interview tied to his latest work has no right straying from that subject. Or even if he’s decided he never has to address these incidents again because he’s endured the now-requisite process of accountability, then apology. In fact, he alludes to having done just what was demanded of him, which should put it behind him, in the WGN piece.
Whatever reasoning he wants to argue, he’s wrong.
No journalist expects Gibson to launch into a lengthy existential monologue about the impact of his actions four years ago and all that’s transpired since then.
