As we learned last week, Mel Gibson was served another reason to be angry when Warner Bros. and director Todd Phillips reneged on their decision to give the struggling actor a cameo in 'The Hangover 2.' Gibson was to play a Bangkok tattoo artist in the film, getting the bad-guy cameo gig that Mike Tyson filled in the first. But while Phillips had "the full backing of Jeff Robinov and his team" on the decision to include Gibson, the cast were angry and Gibson subsequently lost the gig. Some rumors rest it at the feet of star Zach Galifianakis, who admitted to being in "deep protest" over one of his upcoming film projects.
Though there are no angry voicemails to confirm it, the New York Post now reports that Gibson is "furious" over getting booted from 'The Hangover 2.' Their sources claim that "He doesn't understand why Mike Tyson, a drug user who turned his life around, was given a chance while Mel was kicked to the curb. Everybody deserves a second chance."
So why does Tyson get one and Gibson does not?
Their crimes start out similarly. Both actors are known to fly into rages, have struggled with substance abuse, received DUIs and have reputations as perpetrators of oral and physical domestic violence. But Tyson takes it to an added level as a convicted rapist and crazed ear biter.
Is it their differing backgrounds? Mel Gibson was a beloved actor, charming masses with his acting talents and baby blues, starring in a slew of highly successful films and creating a solid career before it came crashing down with his drunken run-in with the law a handful of years ago. Mike Tyson, on the other hand, struggled his whole life, even back in his young days when he was sent to Tryon -- a reform school in upstate New York. The masses have come to expect something wholly different from Gibson than Tyson.
Is it the time that has passed? It's been a while since Tyson made negative headlines, but Gibson just refreshed his bad publicity and image foibles a few months ago with his voicemail rants. His vicious tirades toward Oksana Grigorieva are fresh on all of our minds.
Is it the classic Hollywood hypocrisy? Shunning here and embracing there? The industry is known for having duplicitous views that match whim more than reason. Roman Polanski's name is always brought out in this scenario -- and while Gibson has had successes behind the camera, he hasn't created the unconditional love that helps Polanski weather through relatively unscathed.
Do we think Gibson should know better? The actor's actions lay in stark contrast to the image he fostered over decades. And, just as Gibson started to wipe away memories of his anti-Semitic rant and rebuild his career, he brought it down again and proved that any lessons he might have learned went in one ear and out the other.
And maybe it's just as simple as out of sight, out of mind. There's a comfort that comes with the passage of time, the assumption -- right or wrong -- that the person has gotten help and moved on. When the turmoil is as fresh as this, it certainly doesn't make for an easy, breezy acting situation.
There are many possibilities for the why, but whatever the reason -- should it matter? Should Gibson have been given the chance regardless of the cast's complaints? Or, should he be out after two strikes?