Last weeks little bombshell about Mel Gibson losing his cameo in The Hangover 2 focused on how a (former) megastar could lose an acting gig through the power of the "little people" - and at least one vocal lead actor - even after the studio chief and the director signed off on it.
While I'm sure there were plenty of above and below-the-liners relishing their vicarious triumph, their victory dance left an interesting hypocrisy in its wake. If those same crew and cast members were offered to work on a prestigious movie to be directed by Roman Polanski how many of them would have protested about not wanting to work with a child rapist? I'm betting Polanski would still have the job.
Actors seem to have no problem working with a man who admitted to raping a child and jumping bail, but the soapbox isn't big enough when there's an alcoholic racist in the cast. Why is that?
Don't get me wrong. The Mel Gibson rants we've all heard or read about are vile, disgusting and have no place in our society. The result is that you can't be a pop icon if you reveal yourself to be a bigot.
But put him next to Polanski and what we take away is that you can rape a child, jump bail and win the hearts of millions because you're an "artist." And that's unfortunate.