Does Infamy Lessen Charitable Acts and Contributions?
Mel Gibson in a scene from his new film "Edge of Darkness".
Thanks to his notoriety for anti-Semitic remarks during a tirade while being arrested in 2006 on drunk driving charges, much has been made of the box office performance of the Mel Gibson movie "Edge of Darkness," considered to be his big comeback as an actor. The film, his first starring role since 2006, opened on Friday. And ... it basically tanked in comparison to some of his previous film debuts BEFORE said tirade.
To be fair, it also was pitted against "Avatar," which has steam-rolled everything in its path since its Dec. 18th release. Even before Mel's infamous 2006 incident, the actor/director/producer had been known to be a bit of a loose cannon who is liable to offend whole groups with one sound bite. Just recently, he got snippy, shall we say, with
WGN's Dean Richards during an interview about the new film,
ending the interview with an expletive. Certifiable knucklehead? Sure. But Mel also is a generous philanthropist.
He's given millions to charities whose work center on children. His
charitable contributions aren't as ballyhooed as his misdeeds are
booed. Which brings me to this question: Does a person's notoriety
dilute his or her philanthropy? Is he or she less worthy of praise for
good deeds?
Some celebrities have done big things in charity despite scandal
including adultery, pedophilia accusations, and even criminal
records. Turns out the notorious can be very generous, sometimes even when
nobody's really looking.
In this gallery
His wholesome image held fast for years until a shocking car crash in late November 2009 unraveled a sordid tale of infidelities with mutliple mistresses. Despite the very public meltdown of his marriage at his own hands, Tiger Woods has generously donated millions of dollars to charitable causes related to kids through his Tiger Woods Foundation, established with his father in 1996.
Angelina Jolie never espoused wholesomeness! But she began an affair with Brad Pitt while he was still married to Jennifer Aniston, leaving them both open to scorn by some fans in some circles. But they are both globe-trotting do gooders and humanitarians contributing millions of their own dollars to causes at home and abroad.
Known for her domestic magic kingdom and for an icy persona, Martha Stewart also is known as an ex-con thanks to serving time in prison for lying to investigators about a stock sale. But she contributed $5 million to open the Martha Stewart Center for Living, a geriatric outpatient center, at Mount Sinai Hospital. 
Seen here kissing Britney Spears in 2003 no doubt for the sheer controversy of it, the Material Girl built her entire career on salaciousness. She also drew accusations of using her celebrity to skirt laws to her advantage when adopting a boy in 2006 from Malawi, a country in Southeast Africa. But Madonna also co-founded Raising Malawi in 2006 to raise resources to help that country's one million orphans.
Even after his death, the world doesn't know what to make of Michael Jackson. Some paint him as a saint, others as a sinner of the worst ilk following accusations and a trial on charges of child molestation. Jackson was never convicted of a crime and denied the allegations vehemently. If he left behind a legacy of controversy, he also left behind a legacy of charitable accomplishment. He was well known for his many charitable efforts benefitting children of the world. He also co-wrote the charity single "We Are the World" with Lionel Richie and that song sold 20 million copies worldwide toward African famine relief in 1985.
Tiger Tales
His wholesome image held fast for years until a shocking car crash in late November 2009 unraveled a sordid tale of infidelities with mutliple mistresses. Despite the very public meltdown of his marriage at his own hands, Tiger Woods has generously donated millions of dollars to charitable causes related to kids through his Tiger Woods Foundation, established with his father in 1996.
2 Comments
Moe Fourte said:
i don't believe that a person's indiscretions should taint their philanthropy but i think it does especially if they're giving or doing in an attempt to draw attention away from their negative publicity. some would immediately question their motives unless it were publicly known before getting into trouble that they were major contributors of their resources for charitable causes.
for me it doesn't matter why they help as much as it matters that they help!
Jean A. Williams said:
Yeah, Moe, I hear ya. Some folks are walking contradictions, but aren't we all in some way or another? Granted, we may not be as sensationally contradicting in our everyday lives, but there's good and bad in everyone. Does giving millions make misdeeds forgivable? I don't think so. But that doesn't mean a maligned person can't also do good.
Leave a Comment?
What your comment will look like:
said: