Mel Gibson: the man, the artist, the icon. Whatever you want to call him, he has ranked number one on the Forbes annual celebrity power list of 2004. His total earnings are an estimated $210 million, mainly from his controversial film “The Passion of the Christ.” First and foremost, I consider Gibson one of the rare true film artists. He deserves to be number one. Not like Britney Spears that ranked number one in the 2002 that can’t sing but only sell T&A. Gibson has the talent and the vision to make any film a critically memorable multimillion dollar success.

When every mainstream studio and distributor declined to endorse and promote “The Passion of the Christ,” he funded the estimated $25 million budget himself and found Newmarket Films to distribute the film on an independent level. He wasn’t about to trash twelve years of his research. He obviously has generated a lot of profit for the big studios and it must have been disappointing for him to be shut out in the cold. This is Hollywood’s tragic irony. They send you out as sheep amidst the wolves. Having seen the box office results, I’ll bet the studio executives are kicking themselves if they haven’t done so already.

“The Passion of the Christ” grossed $370 million in the United States and a little over $600 million worldwide. It was released on February 25, 2004 and held the number one spot for the weekend gross for three consecutive weekends. It reentered the number one weekend gross the weekend of Good Friday (April 9). This is a rarity in Hollywood. It is also estimated that the film will earn another $150 million from the DVD sales which will rank him high in the 2005 power list.

Gibson has mastered every role he has taken. From the womanizer in “What Women Want,” to the suicidal goofball in the “Lethal Weapon” series, to the vengeful thief in “Payback,” to the slick gambler in “Maverick,” to the faithless widower in “Signs,” to the legendary Scottish hero in the brilliant “Braveheart.” So it’s safe to say he has excelled every genre of film. Not only that, he developed convincing chemistry with every one of his leading ladies and other costars.

This opinion wouldn’t be complete if I didn’t at least briefly critique “The Passion of the Christ.” Artistically, Gibson takes the unbiased direction. He’s not making the film to serve or satisfy anyone. Is it historically accurate? No one can be the judge of that. Not any religious figure/group or historian. Many fail to realize that fact. With any film based on a true story or event, some facts are purposely excluded and/or changed for entertainment purposes, the reputation of parties’ involved, privacy issues, etc. Given “The Passion of the Christ” as well as “Braveheart” as an example, the events were told through many generations and may or may not have been documented accurately. This is a film, not a documentary.

So what’s going to happen to Gibson now? Every studio will be drooling and fighting over his future projects. Gibson has expressed an interest in making a film about the Maccabees and the Jewish faith. He has earned his place in Hollywood history. He has earned his place as number one. In the film “Ransom,” he said “Many people acquire their fortune. But not me, I built it, from the ground up and no one is taking it away.” This holds true.