How PR can return Mel Gibson to his former glory

That's a trick title. It can't*.

*Even in the seemingly unlikely event that the latest Mel Gibson violent tirade recording doesn't turn out to be authentic.

[Photo from smartdogs.wordpress.com]

A recently-released recording, purported to be of movie star Mel Gibson spewing hateful, violent, racist vitriol at an ex-girlfriend over the phone earlier this year, has renewed interest in the Mel-Gibson-is-a-hateful-jerk storyline, both online and in the mainstream media.

The AP story I linked to above (and again here) says that Radar Online, which broke the story, claims to have confirmed the authenticity of the recording, and says that Gibson has (so far) refused to comment on it.

A sequel even more action-packed than the original

In 2006, Gibson was reported to have gone on an anti-semitic tirade while being arrested on suspicion of drunk driving (an aside: if you Google "Mel Gibson anti-semitic tirade" today, you'll get 1.9 billion results).

Gibson may have recognized after the 2006 incident that his career could be in peril as a result. He apologized publicly, issuing statements including the following:

"I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested, and said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable. I am deeply ashamed of everything I said."

While I agree that reports of the incident portrayed what seemed to be a person "completely out of control," and that what he said was despicable, I never buy apologies in which people claim to have said things when drunk which they don't actually believe when sober. From what I've observed, people are more honest when they're drunk, not less.

To my ears at least, that statement sounded like Gibson was lying even as he sought to be forgiven for his racist remarks. In fancy PR terminology, we call that "not good."

Gibson's image has carried the stink of that incident ever since. Kim Masters, editor at large for The Hollywood Reporter, says that in "the mainstream Hollywood community" Gibson is "a pariah."

What will movie fans think this time around?

As bad as Gibson's 2006 statements were, his reported 2010 performance, which denigrates more groups in repugnant terms, is even more offensive (the recording is now available from a number of sources online, but do yourself a favour and take my word for it).

With that said, some people will still want to go see his movies because they like his movies, and don't care what kind of a person he is.

Yet others are racist and/or misogynist, and may be more likely to consider seeing his movies because they'll respect him for having expressed views similar to their own.

But if this recording is authentic, I suspect Gibson will have a much tougher time getting the rest of us to forget about this (now) pattern of hateful outbursts, and to want to support him by seeing his movies.

Is there anything he can do to improve his PR?

Of course; there are always things you can do.

• He can get some help -- if not for continued alcohol abuse issues, then at least for anger management and sensitivity training -- and then come out the other side and be open about it. He doesn't have to (nor should he) go on at length and share every gory detail, but he should honestly admit to having been wrong, apologize publicly, and encourage others who share his problems to get help.
• He can use his wealth, influence and profile to do good things; for example, contributing to the fight against racism and domestic violence.
• And of course, he can change his ways and make good movies, in the hopes that, with time, people will gradually put their disgust on the back burner (Americans are, on the whole, a pretty forgiving lot).

But PR can't fix everything.

While some people may be able to excuse one racist/violent outburst, I suspect many more won't be able to ignore two. Mel Gibson now appears to have shown that his reported 2006 tirade wasn't an isolated incident; it's an alleged pattern of behaviour which would seem to reflect the way he really sees the world.

If he does get help, admit to/apologize for his hateful speech, and make some attempt to atone by helping combat the kind of thinking he reportedly espoused, I suspect a fair number of his former fans will admire his guts, even if they aren't ever able to entirely like him again.

Good, honest PR, reflecting an earnest effort to deal with his issues and to change, could do Mel Gibson's image a lot of good, and could help mitigate the damage at the box office.

But if this latest recording really is what it appears to be (and, frankly, even if it isn't), Gibson won't ever be able to fully restore the good-guy, family-man image of his Lethal Weapon days. His name will always have an asterisk next to it, which I don't think any amount of PR will be able to completely erase.

On recovery, rehabilitation and redemption

My last post on public image rehabilitation following moral lapses has had me thinking about Michael Richards’ quest to restore his name after a racist outburst at a comedy club in 2006.

Michael Richards played Kramer on Seinfeld for its entire run from 1990 to 1998, and was a key element of the ensemble show’s enormous appeal. The show, which its producers and stars insisted was “about nothing,” was nevertheless able to ridicule appalling social realities ranging from racism to homophobia, using a light but intelligent, comfortable, comedic environment.

That enlightened wit is part of what set Seinfeld apart from its peers, and what made Michael Richards’ racist tirade against a couple of comedy club hecklers particularly upsetting to some of his fans.

The cellphone video of Richards’ outburst was played ad nauseam in the days and weeks after it happened. I’m not posting it here; you can find it on YouTube if you’d like. What interests me from a PR perspective, though, is whether Richards has, in the three years since the incident, been able to live it down. Will his fans put it behind them when he joins the cast of Seinfeld for a reunion on HBO’s Curb Your Enthusiasm this season?

Richards would appear to have done all the right things:

1) He quickly and (apparently, anyway) sincerely apologized for the outburst.



2) He did a number of appearances and interviews related to opening a dialogue about racism, notably Jesse Jackson’s syndicated radio program, Keep Hope Alive.

3) He disappeared for a while, presumably in the hopes of giving American audiences a chance to remember his decade of brilliant work more prominently than one evening’s outburst. (He may have had some help with this one – I’m not sure the offers continued to pour in in the immediate aftermath.)

But will it be enough?

When politicians are able to come back from sex scandals, I think it’s because their audiences accept their apologies, and consciously decide to accept that their politicians are capable of poor personal judgment. I think they also consciously decide that poor personal judgment has a limited impact on professional decisions – or, “he/she’s not perfect, but I can accept these flaws because they’re not related to what I need him/her to do for me.”

When celebrities spew hate speech, it can be more difficult to separate the personal behaviour from the job they do; their job is to entertain us, and it can be harder to be entertained by someone you think is a jerk.

With the Seinfeld reunion on Curb Your Enthusiasm this season, it'll be interesting to see whether audiences are able to get past Michael Richards' one terrible night – or at least, believe that’s all it was. As Extra reported, Larry David, creator of both Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm, indicated that even three years later, Richards wanted to address the issue on the show:

"He wanted to," David explained when asked if Richards felt comfortable addressing the drama onscreen. "He made a terrible mistake." David added that Richards deserves a second chance after being shunned in Tinseltown the past three years."

Is racism a tarnish that can be polished away over time? We'll see.

The Johnny Mac school of image rehabilitation?

We talked in class this morning about disgraced NFL star Michael Vick’s speaking engagement at a Philadelphia high school, at which he warned students against falling victim to peer pressure. When you’ve been jailed for illegal dogfighting, the path to redemption is uphill – but it has to begin somewhere, and it would appear that Vick is working on it.

As Vick’s imprisonment illustrates, pro athletes don’t necessarily get free passes for bad behaviour. They have to pay the legal price, and they have to do penance with their fans, too. The length of the penance depends on the sport’s audience and the athlete’s reputation before the incident; a “bad boy” playing in a rough sport like football might get more slack than, say, a top performer in the gentlemanly sport of tennis.

A tale of two Johnnies

Tennis’ best-known “bad boy,” John McEnroe, knows what it’s like to be vilified and admired at the same time. A fixture of the pro tennis circuit of the 1970s and 1980s, McEnroe thrilled fans with his brilliant play and his unpredictable antics, and embarrassed line judges, chair umpires, and tournament directors along the way. He served as a polarizing figure in tennis – and whether fans found his tirades entertaining or shameful, he generated a lot of interest in what had previously been considered a rather staid sport.

There are many McEnroe tantrum videos available on YouTube; I’m posting this one for old times’ sake, because it contains that iconic line which, incidentally, he used as the title of his 2002 autobiography.



Over the years, McEnroe says, parenthood has mellowed him; and he has re-habilitated his image to a great degree. He has been actively involved with charity work for a number of organizations, and – perhaps most importantly from a public perception point of view – he has made it clear that he recognizes his on-court tirades were inappropriate. He has made ads (like the one below), endorsements (for example, the "Visine Mac Cam" which was used at pro tournaments to second-guess line calls), and at least one feature film appearance (in Adam Sandler's Mr. Deeds) playing on his “bad boy” behaviour, all of which serve to gently ridicule it. The resulting perception: John McEnroe can laugh at himself; he must be a good guy.



Yesterday’s villain, today’s hero?

Serbia’s Novak Djokovic, the fourth-highest ranked tennis player in the world today, is known for his uncanny imitations of his fellow pro tour players. The players have been polite about Djokovic’s imitations, which delight audiences – it's all in good fun, right? But when Djokovic had some trouble taking some ribbing from Andy Roddick about his multiple calls for trainers during last year’s U.S. Open in New York, his “fun guy” image took a bit of a beating.



Djokovic became the guy who can dish it out but can't take it, and has worn the mantle of “bad sport” ever since.

Fast forward to this week, and the early rounds of the 2009 U.S. Open. During his on-court interview after a win, Djokovic kissed up to the crowd, and then challenged John McEnroe, now a well-respected commentator for ESPN, to come down to Centre Court and hit with him. The crowd went wild, and as McEnroe made his way down from the broadcast booth, interviewer Darren Cahill asked Djokovic to do his best McEnroe imitation – which he did, to the crowd’s delight.



Earlier in the evening, the announcers had discussed the need for Djokovic to shake off that "poor sport" rap. Given that chatter, the unusual length of the post-match on-court interview, the ready involvement of McEnroe (who has a special empathy for young guys whose mouths get them in trouble), and the unexpected opportunity for the crowd to see Djokovic laugh at McEnroe’s imitation of him, I had to wonder whether the whole thing had been set up in advance... and whether McEnroe was behind it.

If not, that was some truly great unplanned PR.