Sympathy for The Beaver
As Nikki Finke reported last Thursday, Summit will release The Beaver, otherwise known as the unfortunately named Mel Gibson starring vehicle, this Spring. The one-sheet is out (see below) and the trailer is circulating. And here’s the kicker: this film, which I should, by all accounts, hate — especially since Gibson has repeatedly revealed himself to be a uber-conservative, racist, misogynist — looks…..well, really good. The trailer totally takes advantage of me. The question of this post, then, is whether this movie has the potential to salvage Gibson’s career….or, alternately, whether a good film with a great performance can be saved from the image of its most prominent star.
The Beaver was set-up as a redemptive vehicle for Gibson: it was directed by long-time friend Jodie Foster, and the script for the film (penned by Kyle Killen — the guy behind the quickly cancelled critical darling Lone Star who came to speak at the Flow Conference) was #1 on Hollywood’s 2008 “Black List,” which lists the best unproduced screenplays circulating in Hollywood. (The creation story of The Black List is actually super fascinating — I highly recommend listening to Kim Masters’ “The Business” podcast interview with its founder).
Once Foster optioned the script, Jim Carrey and Steve Carrell were both attached to star at various points — but she decided on Gibson. This was after the anti-semitic sugar-tits rant…and before the misogynistic and super offensive voice mails to ex-girlfriend (and mother of his child) Oksana Grigorieva. So take a minute and watch the trailer, embedded below:
There’s something touching, no? That beautiful scene with Gibson floating in pool with the stream rising around him; the utterly hang-dog look to his face — it seems like he really is sorry for something.
But I also think that Summit — and Foster, if she had approval over the trailer — are very aware of the intertextuality between Gibson’s own life and the narrative of the film. A few choice quotes:
From the voice-over narration:
“This is the story of Walter Black, a hopelessly depressed individual.”
“The successful and loving family man he used to be has gone missing….and no matter what he’s tried, he can’t bring him back.”
“Walter is a man who has lost all hope.”
From the voice of The Beaver:
Walter: “I’m sick.” The Beaver: ”Do you want to get better?”
The Beaver: “This man is a dead end. He’s gone.”
From Walter’s wife, played by Jodie Foster:
“I fought for you, and I will continue to fight for you….”
All that’s missing is a stand-in for Summit saying “WE BELIEVE IN YOU AND YOUR RESILIENT FANBASE! THE CHRISTIANS, THEY LOVE YOU!”
The point being: we’re meant to see this film as Gibson’s personal and professional redemption. A chance for him to prove that he was, indeed, sick, but that he wants to get better, and to prove to the people who love him (his fans, Foster, whomever) that that is indeed possible. The Beaver even speaks in an Australian accent — a version of Gibson’s own “real” voice. The Beaver is Gibson’s true core, encouraging his broken exterior to become a better man.
A year ago, this would’ve played brilliantly. Hollywood loves a redemption story — see especially Robert Downey Jr. — especially when the subject of such redemption is male. (Females have a harder time — their weaknesses are less forgivable. Winona Ryder, etc.) The film would’ve been released as Oscar bait, would’ve almost certainly garnered several noms, and Gibson would be given the opportunity to reclaim his former Braveheart glory, a changed man, cognizant of the mistakes he had made and ready to rejoin Hollywood. I’d guess a Vanity Fair cover, complete with confessional disclosure, an Oprah interview, maybe even a slot on Barbara Walter’s Most Interesting People. He’d be doing promotional rounds RIGHT NOW.
Instead, the film is pushed to the Spring — well known as the place where once-potential prestige films go to die. (Granted, Silence of the Lambs, featuring Foster, was released in January and still managed to keep steam through the next year’s award season, but the game has changed since 1991). Summit is good at clever/exploitative marketing, and managed to keep The Hurt Locker alive in critic’s minds after a minuscule summer release. But I don’t think an aura of prestige is going to do much for this film.
Summit needs to use the selfsame narrative that they would’ve used if this were an Oscar film and Gibson’s relationship with his exgirlfriend hadn’t exploded across TMZ and the rest of the mediascape. They need to elide the fact that the film was made before those revelations and play it like a redemption for those mistakes as well. And this trailer proves they know such a strategy is imperative: Foster’s character’s exclamation that “I fought for you, and I will continue to fight for you” is almost identical to the way she has defended Gibson to the press.
According to a CBS/Vanity Fair poll, 76% of respondents said that “Gibson’s personal troubles would have no effect on whether they would see one of his movies.” To be clear: 76% would be uninfluenced by his “personal troubles.” But of that 76%, how many would actually be COMPELLED to SEE one of his films if it co-opted and commented on his personal troubles? And how many of the 24% who said that they would be “affected” could potentially be “affected” to go see it, so long as it sent a message of transformation?
This is the power of star image — when co-opted correctly, it can push a film or performance into legend. That could’ve been Gibson’s fate. But even a month ago, it was uncertain if the film would even see a release. The decision to go forward is most likely based on the relative silence on the Gibson front — not to mention the fact that several holes have been poked in Grigorieva’s case. The seas have calmed, as it were. This film — and Gibson’s career — could either fade away or be reborn.
I want to make it clear that no matter what Gibson once was, alcohol and power have turned him into a nasty human being. I don’t think it’s okay to talk to women the way that he did; I don’t think it’s okay to use racial or derogatory slurs. Obviously. But I find myself torn: am I willing to attend the film of a man who makes these remarks? Is it unfeminist to do so? But don’t I also watch movies made by Roman Polanski, Woody Allen? Starring Christian Bale? Is it possible to dislike the man and like the performance — hate the sin, love the sinner?
So tell me: will you have sympathy for The Beaver?
11 Responses to “Sympathy for The Beaver”
I recently watched SILENCE OF THE LAMBS three times in two weeks (I crazily taught it in ALL of my classes this semester!) and found myself remarking to my students after each screening, “That Jodie Foster really needs to star in more films. I miss seeing her onscreen.”
I tell you that because the reason I’ll probably see THE BEAVER is Foster. Of course, there’s no getting around Gibson’s jacked-up star persona and the ways the film presumably attempts to reframe/rework that image, but I wonder how many viewers will forgive, ignore, or suppress all of that because they are fans of Foster and, like me, “miss seeing her onscreen”?
Enjoyed your post…as usual.
Great point, Kelli. Interestingly, she is featured relatively little in the preview — mostly as a foil to Gibson. I think they’re selling it much more as her project and less as her starring role….despite the fact that her previous foray into directing yielded….Little Man Tate?
But you’re right: Foster has a solid fan base, particularly amongst middle aged woman, although the demo is slightly different than the fanbase of, say, Sandra Bullock. I, for one, would like to see her in something that doesn’t ask her to be an ass-kicker, a la Flight Plan? (Was that the name of it? The one where she has to take down an entire plane?) and more along the lines of her turn in Inside Man, which was just exquisitely done.
I’ll also add that I think that Foster’s fan base might be the type of woman who is *less* likely to forgive Gibson. In other words: strong women who don’t think that his actions towards his exgirlfriend are appropriate or forgivable, regardless of the context.
I realize I’m over-generalizing here. But then again: Foster herself supports Gibson. Do her fans just go along with it?
Yes, it’s LITTLE MAN TATE! Yuck. I was less than impressed with that film and wondered why, of all actors, she selected that for her directorial debut.
Re: Foster’s minimal screen-time in the trailer (and probably in the film itself), it sorta confuses me, especially based on her other films/roles like, as you mentioned, the kick-ass character in FLIGHT PLAN (which was originally written for a man, if I remember correctly). In other words, the mother/wife foil isn’t something Foster usually gravitates toward, so this could be interesting or, like LITTLE MAN TATE, disastrous.
Not sure if her fans will “just go along with it.” Will be interesting to find out though…
Kelli
PS. Unless you have good reason for not including it, may I suggest this plug-in for your blog so that readers can be notified of responses? http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/
I think it’d be easier to watch a film directed by a despicable person than starring one, since it’s easier to forget the person behind the film while watching it; it’s also easier to detach the person from the person’s work when it’s the director rather than the actor. I could never watch anything with Mel Gibson without being overwhelmed with hatred for him whenever I saw his horrible antisemitic/misogynistic/racist face.
What makes Mel Gibson especially repulsive, at least for me, is that he’s had so many of these “incidents” where he “mistakenly” says these things that he seems completely evil. I think that he genuinely believes the things he says; the fact that he apologizes for it means nothing, only that he’s interested in hiding his beliefs (not that he’s interested in changing them). Also, I hadn’t even heard of Holocaust denial before the thing with Mel Gibson, so I heavily associate him with that.
I would never, ever see a Mel Gibson movie; to me it would be like I was endorsing the things that I believe he stands for (racism, antisemitism, misogyny, etc). Seeing a Mel Gibson movie would be like contributing to his political campaign, partially because I think that he could use his money to support other things that are racist/antisemitic/misogynistic (politicians, companies, films, etc.), but also because I would be sending the message that I think that he deserves to still work in Hollywood, that his face belongs on the screen. And I can’t do that because I associate his face with everything that is bad in the world.
I really can’t imagine paying for a ticket to see a movie Mel Gibson was in; it would feel like i was putting money in his pocket. I would hate myself forever.
I guess I would see a roman polanski film (but only on megavideo or something) though.
Also I think Jodie Foster seems kind of racist- I just remember the trailer for this one movie she was in that was all like “white lady scared of black thugs and then gets back at them, good job white lady, you killed a black person.” Maybe that’s not what the movie was about though.
I’m really just excited for someone on youtube to recut this trailer into a horror movie trailer.
As Annie often writes, our perception of what a star believes is a construct. Sometimes, we get glimpses of what seems to be the actual bonafide real person and values. Maybe we’ll decide that going to a movie in which this person stars somehow endorses those beliefs and decide not to go.
If so, when choosing a movie, should we not also consider the values and beliefs of the producer, the source of the financial backing, whether or not the production company treats women well? Are they subcontracting stuff out to companies that pay crap and don’t offer benefits? How about the stuntpeople or the artists? Any jerks there?
Well, I probably can’t find out and I don’t have to think about it because I don’t have to look at those people on the screen. So, maybe I should restrict the morality tests to stars. Hmmm, hardly a consistent moral standard.
It is very difficult to consume only product that does not have the fingerprints of a jerk somewhere on it.
At any rate, this movie looks predictable, boring, and WHINY. I do not want to see it, Mel Gibson or not.
I know what you are getting at with Mel — these incidents just KEEP happening — to the point that one can’t help but feel that they are who he “really” is and the apologies and redemption are just a facade. But having experienced plenty of mental illness and addiction among my loved ones — both of which are obvious problems for Mr. Gibson — I see it as more complex than that. I don’t know enough about him, and never will, to know what’s “real” and what’s not, but neither do you. Unfortunately, like Laura says above, it is pretty difficult (I’d say near impossible) to consume anything without supporting assholes. The thing about Mel is that his assholeishness just happens to be of the publicly aired variety. But the fact that a woman as smart as Jodie Foster has continued to support him makes me think that, just like any other asshole, there probably is a lot more there — maybe even a genuinely remorseful and somewhat pathetic man who is trying to fight his inner demons. Of course, that’s the opposite end of the spectrum from what you’re saying and I’m not sure I believe it entirely, I’m just saying that there is really no way of knowing what’s right here.
What’s interesting is that you mention that you will watch Roman Polanski films: I actually don’t, even though I know he’s a brilliant director — because being convicted of a sex crime towards a minor and then fleeing from the consequences is far more beyond the pale than any speech expression I’ve heard from, well, anyone, including Mel. I know that there is a lot of insinuated domestic abuse in the Gibson situation, but nothing that he has been convicted of. I shudder when stars that I love (ahem, Johnny Depp) defend Polanski, because in my particular world view, drugging and raping a thirteen year old girl and then “getting away with it” is indefensible no matter how weak and feeble you may be at the moment.
Gibson’s rants are perhaps easier for me to swallow than they are for some because of my fairly direct experience with a bipolar disorder. To be honest, they sound pretty familiar, and I have actually heard words that harsh coming from someone who I DO know is a good, kind-hearted person. I have no way of knowing if Gibson is, and I don’t particularly LIKE the guy now by any stretch, but I’m certainly willing to give his performance here a shot.
You raise a really crucial point, Summer — Mel Gibson is, in fact, a person, and people deal with illnesses (such as bi-polar, depression, alcoholism) that images, or ideas (which is, of course, what a star IS) cannot always incorporate, explain, or other account for. One of the problems of stardom/celebrity is the fact that the person at the core of these ideas — the living, breathing, joyous, suffering soul — is obviated in the name of what we have made that star to be. Mel Gibson is a star; Mel Gibson is a person — there’s overlap between the two, but they are by no means one and the same.
So what do we do with this? Can you forgive the actual person…but say that behavior like that is not acceptable for the image? All stars have ugly parts; they just employ people (and their own means of self-control) to make sure those parts don’t become part of their images, less the image become unmanageable, distasteful, whatever. What’s interesting is that Gibson’s image began to go sour shortly after his incredible success with Passion of the Christ — a film that made so much money (almost all of which went to Gibson, since he produced it himself) that Gibson is basically set for life. There was no need financial need for him to maintain an image.
Both you and Laura point to the gray area we face with stars, an area that we want to be more black and white, at least to make ourselves feel better about the media we consume. As a feminist, how do I deal with Kanye — a question I know you’ve thought a lot about. Can I appreciate the fact that he is working through his own issues with women, respect, power, hubris, etc. in a public forum, but still dislike the parts of him which still seem pretty blatantly misogynist? How do we — or anyone, for that matter — negotiate pleasure? What are the persona lines that we refuse to cross? For you, it’s drugging and rape; for another person, it’s the use of a racial slur; for someone else, it’s even making a movie that denigrates women (I’m thinking of Lars von Trier here).
I’m kinda winding myself in rhetorical circles here, but what I’m most interested in is the way that Gibson, or rather, the idea of Gibson, provides a means to talk through issues that otherwise might not get explicitly discussed. “Is misogyny okay?” is not a dinnertable conversation; “What do I think about Mel Gibson?” is.
Anyway, my thanks for commenting and helping me think through these issues a bit more…..
Man, Annie, the most interesting thing about star studies, and about Mel Gibson, and about Kanye West is pretty beautifully summarized in this part of your comment: “Is misogyny okay?” is not a dinnertable conversation; “What do I think about Mel Gibson?” is.”
I have been experiencing this a lot lately in making my Kanye West rounds. To me, the fact that he can be “blatantly misogynistic” — among other negative qualities, and other qualities that I wouldn’t personally call negative but that a lot of other people take offense to — is part of what makes him interesting as a “star” and as an artist. The fact that his persona enables me to talk to my friends about race and aggression and machismo and misogyny and art and relationships and wealth and power — subjects that are typically hard to breach even among close friends, but which I am endlessly fascinated by and really WANT to talk about — is one of the reasons I “love” him. And by love, I mean appreciate, and by him, I mean his art and his id, not Kanye West the man. Because really, who knows?
Anyway, all this applies in the Mel Gibson case as well, and Polanski too I suppose. Where you draw the line is the question, I guess, and everyone probably draws it somewhere no matter how open-minded towards art they might imagine themselves to be. Maybe even without realizing it, we all have some instinctual biases that keep us away from certain stars and artists. I like to think that I can separate the two, but I know in some cases (Polanski is easily the best example I can think of — oh! and Michael Vick! Which is sports but basically the same thing), I cannot.
I get that it’s impossible to avoid consuming products untouched by jerks. And I get that our impression of Mel Gibson’s beliefs is a construct and might not have anything to do with the actual bonafide real person, but I do think that no matter how accurate/inaccurate those impressions might be, having really bad impressions of an actor poisons him and makes it difficult to watch movies in which he appears. Maybe it’s not a “consistent” moral standard, but the ways in which producers and actors are involved in movies aren’t consistent either. I don’t think it’s hypocritical to react to them differently. It’s part of a star’s job to protect his/her image because of this inconsistency; I don’t think it’s my job to be more forgiving, to try to get over their image because I’m not treating actors as consistently as I treat producers. Yes, maybe it’s not fair that hating an star’s “person/beliefs” will stop me from seeing a movie, whereas the producer or stuntperson or artist may be a terrible person and no one will ever know, but that’s just why it’s important for the star to make sure people don’t hate them. And yes maybe it’s because I’m too lazy to look into the background of everyone else involved in the movie and because I don’t have to think about them, but that doesn’t change anything.
I think it makes sense that since I hate what Mel Gibson seems to stand for (regardless of whether or not he actually does), I don’t want to watch Mel Gibson movies because his face reminds me of the terrible things I associate with it. I think this is a normal reaction to have, and enough to justify not seeing a Mel Gibson movie.
I think I’m actually just reaffirming that I’m doing what you’re accusing me of doing, but I think this double standard is entirely fair to have.
I must preface by saying I am not defending Mel Gibson’s actions in anyway shape or form, but haven’t we all said something or done something (again not condoning physical violence) that we wish we could take back. The word vomit spilling out of your mouth floating in the air, people hearing it that will always remember that you said it and then it’s caught on video and played on national television for the rest of your life and beyond. Oh yeah, hopefully that last part will never happen because we are not celebrities.
However, celebrities are human and make mistakes and because they are in the public eye they will never truly live them down. Remember when Mel was king of the box office (lethal weapon(s), what women want) you loved him for his charming personality, because he was a family man and he made good movies; now the guy can’t even get a ride home.
I think that we transfer so much of our own emotions and fellings on celebrities because we can so easly disown them from our lives. “Well, Mel said this and did that so I am not going to see his movie” there the end, no more Mel Gibson in our lives; but to a real person who we have daily interaction with we have to work much harder to forgive or even tolerate their shortcomings.
I guess the point I am trying to make is yes they are celebrities and yes they are in the public eye and most certainly need to mind what they say and do because it will probably be caught on video; but they are also human and cannot be soley judged on one thing that they did wrong for the rest of their lives because if they are what hope is their for us? Should all the good be undone by one wrong?
Maybe I am taking this to deep with mel and his new movie but it was just my gut reaction to the post and I think I am going to give mel another chance because i really do hope he has seen the error of his way and is trying to get his life back in order and I would hate for someone not to give me a second chance.