“You can never forget that the Academy is people. It’s not even the Emmys, when you have an elite group. It’s just people and considering that many of those people -are Jewish, he’s screwed. I don’t care if it’s the most amazing movie since ‘Gone with the Wind’ and ‘Citizen Kane,’ put together. He’s gotten the last ones and he should keep them in nice condition because there’s no more coming.” -publicist


“It’ll end up possibly being nominated for some of the lesser awards, but they’ll shun giving it nominations for any of the major awards. The Academy is very sensitive to these kinds of issues.” attorney


“I think they’d honor the film with nominations. If it gets great reviews, I don’t think they can — there’s too much negative press if they snub it for their personal views.” -agent


“If everyone says it’s great, it’s a great movie. I think there will be a little -backlash but if you made a great movie, I think people will embrace it.” -producer


“I don’t know. How Jewish is the Academy? I think they’re going to run screaming.” -studio executive


I will not give up my hard earned money to see this movie, and support this hypocrite, no Mel does not deserve an Oscar. -Variety subscriber


“I wonder if the Academy will even watch it. I think they’ll just ignore it. Their punishment would be not acknowledging it. If you have X amount of DVDs you have to watch, this would probably be at the bottom of your pile. You probably wouldn’t give it away, either. You’d probably throw it out.” -manager


The film should be accorded all the consideration given to any other film. Given Gibson’s offense, voters may be reluctant to give him a best director or best picture nom. But his personal issues are no reason to punish the other departments. If what they created is truly a remarkable, original film it should not be ignored. Since when is filmmaking a solitary endeavor? -actress


If some Academy members refused to even watch and vote for last year’s best film, “Brokeback Mountain,” and there were no negatives swirling around it, Mel is looking at a couple technical nominations at best. Unfortunately for too many people, it is too difficult to separate the art and the artist, or as last year proved, art and politics. -editor


Great art comes from great pain. Van Gogh, “the little painter man,” was shunned due to his diverse personality and affection for alcohol. The old saying, “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones,” comes to mind when I think of your question. A century from now, Mel will be remembered in the same way as Van Gogh…a man of contradiction who was a master of art. Why can’t we judge the man on his work alone and leave his personal choices to his maker? -a fan of great art


It seems that most of those that Variety questioned believe that Mel Gibson’s anti-semitic comments are going to lead to him being snubbed for the Oscars. What people are forgetting though, is that the Academy itself has an image to maintain while constantly being criticized for being “overly biased.”

“Apocalypto” provides a wonderful opportunity for those of the Academy. By recognizing the film with an Oscar, but not allowing it to obtain multiple, they assert that the Jewish community does not support or condone the actions of Gibson, but they still have the ability to recognize a good movie when they see one.  In doing so, they help to dissuade all the rumors that the Academy is incredibly biased.

For an example of when this has happened before, how about back in 2003 when Roman Polanski won best director for The Pianist?  A lot of people were angry about that, due to his fugitive status, but it made a statement on the part of the Academy that the Oscars are not as biased and played out as many believe them to be.  What an Oscar for “Apocalypto” must basically say is that Hollywood supports the movie, not Mel Gibson, but the movie.  Therefore, I see very little chance that he will get best director. 

However, I also see little chance on best picture as well. My money would be on Best Actor for Rudy Youngblood.  For a relatively inexperienced actor -based on IMDb, he did an amazing job. He is an actor that has the ability to establish an incredibly strong connection with the audience no matter the situation. I see this same ability in Gael Garcia Bernal, and it is clear that his career has more than blossomed in the past few years. I see no less for Youngblood.

While Apocalypto may have been an amazing film, Gibson’s comments and drunken tirade from before will undoubtedly hurt his chances at the Oscar, but not as much as many are predicting. -writer/producer


Is the questions “should they” or “will they”? If the question is “should they” then the answer is, “of course”. Hollywood of all industries should recall the perils of blackballing someone because of suspected ideologies that person may hold. “Will they” remember? I doubt it. -writer


Even without the negative Gibson stigma, I don’t think that this film, good or bad, is going to drawn a huge audience, and I doubt that it will garner any major Oscar nominations. I wasn’t planning to see it, because it’s not really my kind of picture anyway, nor is it a picture that the Academy will likely embrace. -screenwriter


The Academy can be unpredictable. There have been some movies that did not receive all positive reviews but have been nominated for Oscars. Sure, there is a chance that “Apocalypto” can garner some Oscar nominations. -Variety subscriber


“Passion of the Christ” was better than “Apocalypto” and also got strong reviews. If the Academy could overlook “Passion,” they’ve been supplied even more reasons to overlook “Apocalypto.”


Regardless of Mr. Gibson’s mean-spirited outbursts, I doubt that his new movie will garner any awards, although he stands a chance in some of the technical categories. The Academy has not a fan of the intense blood and gore that runs rampant through Apocalypto. Tarantino got overlooked for Kill Bill, which was a much better film. I think Gibson can expect the same.


Four words… “Birth Of A Nation.” Let’s see, if I recall, it’s considered a landmark motion picture. But it’s racist and disgusting. Given how much more damage that film continues to cause, for the AFI to honor it as one of the “Best 100 Movies” is still an embarrassment to American Cinema. And just who voted for it? Therefore, as much as one hates the director, what they stand for, or the message of the work, “Apocalypto” must be judged on its own, and fairly. -musician


It’s staggering to read some of the hypocrisy above, especially by those who judge the film without having seen it. Worse, there are those who won’t forgive Gibson for what he said, as if they themselves have never said anything stupid in their lives. Unfortunately, such absurdly judgmental small-mindedness is gradually destroying a once open-minded and benevolent society. -distributor


After reading all those comments about whether or not Academy voters should vote on Apocalypto, the above comment more or less summed up the hypocritical, holier-than-thou attitude of Hollywood and I agree completely with his statement.


What thought provoking comments. As I read them Roman Polanski came to mind as well as the comments said to me many years ago from an Exhibitor affirming Mr. Gibson’s Apartheid views. I have since come to realize this, If you are a racist fine- (I can show tolerance for ignorance) but if you choose to make a film with Danny Glover to capitalize on minorities, than you are a hypocrite. I can not and will not be tolerant of Hypocrites!

I have had several (free) offers to view this film and have declined everyone. I will not pay to see any Mel Gibson films and I will no longer watch any of his films on cable or TV. I will not support his Anti Semitic, Apartheid-agreeing lifestyle. Make your riches elsewhere Mr. Gibson, because you will no longer get my money. -Disney employee


Mel Gibson is a human being and has never claimed to be perfect, which a lot of journalists and critics all claim to be.


What a time to once again snub an entire people and ancient civilization. What is at the heart of the matter here is focusing on a subject and time that has been misunderstood for so long. I hope that the film does the Mayan story justice, and if anything corrects any false notions from outdated texts. That is what is at stake here. The Academy’s role can be just as damaging if it chooses to ignore this film. -artist/art educator


Will these same people pull Seinfeld episodes from the air and boycott the CDs that are for sale? Will this community respond to a personal attack, a vicious racist assault on the audience from a performer who is on stage working — as it does to an alcoholic driving home? It should. Where’s the outrage and public response of the “Hollywood” community? - seminarian


A film is made by more than just one man. A film is even bigger than the sum of its contributors. A good film — as a creation — is a work of art. Apocalypto is a great film. It reminds us of what filmmakers should aspire to. It reminds us of the great tradition of film making. It whispers the spirit of the greats who dared to make daring films. It pushes the envelope, breaks the mold, reinvents the wheel and stands proudly outside the box. Whether Hollywood admits it or not will only determine Oscar’s credibility.

Do the right thing: Forget Mel – Remember Apocalypto. - actor


It is sad to read some of the pompous comments that are more filled with hate and dissension than those made by Mel Gibson. It is not like everyone didn’t already know he was an alcoholic. It is an illness. Unfortunately, he made a terrible mistake by drinking the first drink. What happened after that is reprehensible but forgivable. I am sure the Jewish people know about forgiveness.

I have much more quarrel with what happened on The View when Danny DeVito showed such disrespect for our president by saying all the bleeped words about him. That was not my idea of entertainment, though the ladies on The View were laughing. Then he went on to brag about spending the night in the Lincoln bedroom,saying that he and his wife made it their business to trash the whole room. That is not funny! He turned an honor into a despicable action. He should be hiding his head in shame not bragging about it on national television or anywhere else. The White House belongs to the people and that room is part of our White House. What kind of welcome would you get if you were somesone’s guest in their home and you made it your responsibility to trash their house?

What a fool he made of himself and what fools the ladies appeared to be when they laughed at his supposedly drunken antics. Mel Gibson insulted the Jews and Danny DeVito insulted the entire population of the United States.

Mel Gibson was ashamed of his actions and apologized and tried to make things right. Danny DeVito lacks the class to even know how ignorant he was and he got laughs from the ladies of The View.

Seems the Clintons were lacking in discretion when they honored some people by inviting them to sleep in the White House. - a Grandmother


What’s your opinion? Email us at opinions@variety.com and we’ll publish your responses right here.

Want Entertainment News First? Sign up for Variety Alerts and Newsletters!
Post A Comment 0