Do we judge a movie by its players?

I was surprised to see that Mel Gibson's Apocalypto was the #1 draw in the box office over the past weekend. Granted, it wasn't up against a potential blockbuster like Casino Royale, but it still pulled in over $15 million. I'd take that, wouldn't you?

The movie honestly didn't appeal to me before Gibson's drunken and racial antics back in July, but the news and blogs were filled with people saying how they would boycott his work from now on. But some people obviously went to see it.

I asked myself that if the movie appeared remotely interesting to me in the first place, would I have still gone to see it? I have no idea. I see both sides of the argument and it honestly may come down to individual situation. On one hand, I do think that people that behave the way that he did back in July should be held accountable for their actions.

However, something else came to mind. You may or may not remember a few years ago when the Academy wanted to give director Elia Kazan an honorary Oscar for his work on films such as On the Waterfront and A Streetcar Named Desire. Many celebrities felt that this was dishonoring their profession, for Kazan was reputed to have cooperated with the House UnAmerican Activities Committee that resulted in the blacklisting of many in Hollywood. Others felt that the Oscar was to pay tribute to Kazan's work on film, not the man himself (which reminded me of a quote from Band of Brothers where he said "you respect the rank, not the man").

Did you see Mel Gibson's Apocalpyto (or do you plan to)? Why or why not? Is it possible to admire the art but not the artist?