 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.243.210.185
In Reply to: It's too bad.... posted by NuWave on September 7, 2006 at 09:38:15:
...so vapid that someone's off-screen politics affects the pleasure you derive from their screen performances? Not to get off point, but do you have a similar attitude towards friends and co-workers, for instance?FTR, there are a number of right-wingnut (NeroCon) performers whose roles I still enjoy because it's the ON SCREEN work which I'm consuming and I can set the political differences aside.
>>> "I was a fan of Ed Norton(awesome job in Primal Fear) until he displayed himself as a flaming lib, I had to throw him on the scrap heap." <<<
Sheeeesh! I don't care if an artist happens to be one of Rush Limburger's Vicodin poppin' ditto-heads or a Bush pro-war groupy as long as it doesn't impact what I see on the screen talent-wise. Off screen I have a lot of respect for those who express their Constitutionally protected free speech rights, regardless of whether they're "flamming libs" or Daddy Warbucks Bush apologists, but I'd never allow my personal opinion of an actor to deteriate to the point of shallowness by boycotting the artist's work, as you've apparently done.
AuPh
Follow Ups:
By your reasoning, if Hussein was a good actor, you could sit through one of his recent films. Martin Sheen and Sean Penn are two of the finest actors today, bar none, but I have difficulty watching them now. It's easy to say you'd watch conservative actors in a movie even if they were "Rush Limburger's Vicodin poppin' ditto-heads or a Bush pro-war groupy" because there are very few from the right who are so outspoken they turn your stomach. It's easy to look past a Gary Sinise or a Tom Selleck. Unfortunately, a majority of the big names now have put themselves up front with their views and are happy to do so. If they have the right to splash themselves around, I have the right to respond in my own way. There is no law saying I need to like a person's acting because they don't take their views into films(which they HAVE been doing lately). Personal views and behavior DO affect a large portion of our lives and how others see us and deal with us on a daily basis, at least that's how it is for us non-hollywood schlubs. Some actors have the attitude like yours I guess...."I can say whatever I want! And you must continue to enjoy my movies regardless, otherwise YOU'RE vapid!". Can I at least avoid POLITICAL movies? I haven't seen one from either side I can admit and I don't really want to.
For you to condemn a movie simply because you dislike certain actors political views and boycott their films to deny their right as citizens to speak their views in public as you yourself have done is bigotry in the extreme. The reason it's bigotry is that you are pointing to his politics in a critical manner to denigrate the actor in a public forum for something other than his performance. If you wish to avoid his movies or critisize his acting, you are certainly entitled, but to condemn his work across the board publicly and then to say it's because of his politics is offensive.Here is a prime example of over-the-top extremism:
> > > "By your reasoning, if Hussein was a good actor, you could sit through one of his recent films." < < <
Where that comes from I'll never know! If you'd used Ojay Simpson, Robert Blake or Michael Jackson as examples that might've made a better case, because they've done things or are perceived as having done things that are unacceptable in society.
What has Martin Sean, Sean Penn or Edward Norton done that is so dispicable as to deserve public consternation of their craft? The Hussein analogy is really beyond the pale.
If you're comparing these fine actors to Saddam Hussein then you're apparently off your trolly (even if you aren't off the wagon). Is your political zeal so extreme that you're missing a synaptic connection whenever it comes to Liberal actors expressing their Constitutionally protected opinions? Do you want Studios to impose YOUR views on them so that they're forced to keep their opinions private? No offense, but if that's how you feel, then the freedom train left the station without you. :o(
AuPh
They can star in anything they want, and it should be shown in theaters. I don't HAVE to see it, and if i don't, then i am not taking away their 'free speech' rights. Just like they don't have to see conservative movies if they don't want. 'Not listening' to someone is not taking away their right to rant and rave. I haven't condemned the movies they are in, just them as people. Studios should release whatever movies they want(within reason of course) and the viewers will decide what they like and dislike. But if a movie does poorly, you can't blame the viewer. If someone makes a flick about Moses or Bush Sr. or whoever and people just don't go, I won't scream that the studio and actors right to free speech are being shunned, i would think the public just has no interest in it. If the movie was made and the public had the right to see it and simply didn't, then the system works. The Blake and OJ examples are good so add those to my Hussein analogy(and I certainly think Saddam would fall under "they've done things or are perceived as having done things that are unacceptable in society". You gotta admit that Penn is a pretty good actor, some people don't though. They have to look past 'spicoli' which he did a good job at for what it was. Although Martin Sheen probably played himself when he was the crooked unhinged politician in Dead Zone. That part was made to order for him, so I can still easily watch him as 'Greg Stilson'.
> > > "They can star in anything they want, and it should be shown in theaters. I don't HAVE to see it, and if i don't, then i am not taking away their 'free speech' rights. Just like they don't have to see conservative movies if they don't want. 'Not listening' to someone is not taking away their right to rant and rave." < < <Agreed, but that isn't the point I was making or a crucial element of the argument we were discussing.
> > > "I haven't condemned the movies they are in, just them as people." < < <
No, actually you went a couple of steps beyond that.
> > > "Studios should release whatever movies they want(within reason of course) and the viewers will decide what they like and dislike." < < <
Agreed, but the decision to see or support a movie shouldn't be made on personal criticism of the actor unless it's the work that's deserving of the criticism; politics should be off-limits or at least set-aside from the work. You publicly expressed the opinion that you wouldn't see Ed Norton's work based on his politics (putting it politely) which amounts to a boycott. See my point?
> > > "But if a movie does poorly, you can't blame the viewer." < < <
Ah, but who assesses why a film does poorly? It may receive limited distribution or just be badly marketed; then again, the movie's subject matter may be too timely or not timely enough; lastly, it may be released at the wrong time or up against a similarly themed film that is better promoted. None of this has anything to do with an actor's political activism.
For anyone to suggest that an actor's politics causes a film to do poorly is a bold, purely subjective assessment, and IMIO, a completely wrong-headed one. There are lots of reasons why movies fail to accrue a big box-office take which have absolutely nothing to do with an actor's political views.
Conversely, by way of example, Mel Gibson is apparently a staunch Conservative with anti-Semitic views who made a small fortune pandering to the church crowd with The Passion. Last year he was the golden boy of the political right; he could do no wrong.
Should the Studio refund everyone's money now that his anti-jewish sentiments are fully out of the closet? Does the fact that so many went to see the Passion mean that this is a nation of anti-Semites? I sincerely hope not. Would I go to see another Mel Gibson movie? Depending on the film, probably, even if I was disgusted by the man's open bigotry.
> > > "Although Martin Sheen probably played himself when he was the crooked unhinged politician in Dead Zone. That part was made to order for him, so I can still easily watch him as 'Greg Stilson'. " < < <
He was much better in West Wing (if only we had a President like that in Office we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now).
AuPh
Which mess, the 4.6% unemployment or the fact that we haven't had a terrorist attack in this country since 9/11 and we're able to fight Al-quaeda in Iraq? Even you admit you'd see a Mel Gibson movie "probably". And why is it when HE makes a movie it's 'pandering', and when a lib makes one is 'expressing free speech and artistic talent, and tackling important issues'. At least show some distain with a show having a SITTING prez being assasinated. I myself would feel disgust if someone did a movie like that about Clinton or Carter, I suppose nothing is off limits then. There has to be some conservatives in this asylum somewhere.....?
> > > "Which mess, the 4.6% unemployment or the fact that we haven't had a terrorist attack in this country since 9/11 and we're able to fight Al-quaeda in Iraq?" < < <Typical wing-nut Shinola fed from the WH and Tony Snow-job to a vanishing legion of supporters and Party faithful, spun ad infinitum by NeroCon mouthpieces on talk radio and blowhard bloggers. Here's a clue:
1) The low unemployment figures are massaged statistics (similar to the massaged intel on Iraq which also didn't provide an accurate picture). Statistics don't reflect the longer hours and double jobs many middle and lower class folks are being forced to work these days in order to make as much as they were back in the 90's. Cost of living has increased, but middle class wages are flat or lower. Unemployment statistics are limited to the filing and refiling of claims over a period of time. At some point those who aren't seeking assistance are dropped from the records; it is "assumed" that they are either employed or no longer in need of employment. However, they may have simply exhausted their benefits or are working for less off the books.
2) The 9/11 argument is one of the silliest, most infantile of all NeroCon ploys! Of course we haven't been attacked, but you know as well as I do that the right-wing would've spun it the other way if we had been attacked. BTW, we haven't been attacked by space aliens either (except perhaps illegal ones seeking to anex U.S. space by sneaking over our unprotected southern borders en masse), so maybe the Star Wars program worked after all (grin)!
Before you get too cocky about how much safer we supposedly are keep in mind that our ports are unprotected and border patrols have been pulled off duty to protect the National Guard troops sent to the borders by Bush as a token gesture to border security critics. The bottom line: If we haven't been attacked, it's either a) a fluke, b) a matter of terrorists bidding their time and waitinf for the right opportunity or c) better FBI and Homeland Security intel. This has nothing to do with the Bush's illegal unjustified war in Iraq; Al Qaeda wasn't there before and neither were the weapons of mass destruction. If anything, we've HELPED Al Qaeda and other radical Islamic groups recruit more terrorists.
One other point about fighting terrorists overseas. Do you think that it's justifiable to place other nation's citizens in harms way by deposing an iron-fisted dictator who kept the various waring religious sects in line thus keeping terroists out of his own country? You apparently think that creating a situation where 3rd world countries fall into chaos is fine and dandy as long as you don't have to worry about it showing up in your own back yard (out of sight, out of mind, I guess). You apparently think it's okay for THEIR wives & kids to die in large numbers as long as you can drive your kids to soccer practice in an SUV and gripe about the cost of gas which has been paid for in the blood of American soldiers and foreign citizens caught in the middle.
> > > "Even you admit you'd see a Mel Gibson movie "probably". And why is it when HE makes a movie it's 'pandering', and when a lib makes one is 'expressing free speech and artistic talent, and tackling important issues'." < < <
Because The Passion IS pandering to a specific audience and was marketed as such; of course the ultimate irony is his anti-semitism coming to light after all those good christians shelled out wads of filthy lucre to prove his point (and mine). Hey, I'm not saying that he doesn't have a free speech right (he's proven that, hasn't he? -grin); he's free to make whatever kind of film he wants! Nor am I suggesting that there's a lack of artistic talent on Mel's part. However, it's hard to rationalize a film like The Passion as "tackling an important issue" where a documentary like Fahrenheit 911 (call it a satire if you like) is addressing those issues, and even more relevent today.
> > > "At least show some distain with a show having a SITTING prez being assasinated." < < <
The word is disdain, and I've never discussed the Canadian film of which you speak. Since I haven't seen it I can't comment on it's merits, but the concept of showing the assassination of a sitting President is troubling and pushes the envelope. OTOH, can you think of a President in recent times who has been more of a lightening rod for such contemptuous behavior?
> > > "I myself would feel disgust if someone did a movie like that about Clinton or Carter, I suppose nothing is off limits then." < < <
You either have free speech or you don't; there are limits (if what you do endangers others or threatens the government), but criticism of public officials, at least in this country, isn't off limits, ...at least not yet (give Rove & Smirknasty a couple of more years though).
> > > "There has to be some conservatives in this asylum somewhere.....?" < < <
Too many, but they usually get taken down a notch or two by over on the Outside boards by those of us whose opinions are better informed (the Outside Asylum is the secret Asylum, if you had no clue; bookmark the link below, because there is no direct link here).
One caution though: Outside ain't for milque-toasts. If you head over there and tackle issues with simplistic soundbite rhetoric you'll get your head handed to you on a platter fast.
AuPh
that forum sure could use a few more Conservatives. Flogging the current bunch is starting to get pretty old. :0)
To defend something by saying "Since I haven't seen it I can't comment on it's merits" and follow it immediately with 'OTOH'('but' is the more commonly used term in this instance)strains your credibility beyond belief, along with the typical lib tactic of name calling(wing-nut Shinola fed,Snow-job,blowhard bloggers,infantile,NeroCon mouthpieces). You are correct in that these types of comments ARE more at place in the outside asylum, which is what I try to avoid it, but it seems to have leaked into here.
Saying that "Since I haven't seen it I can't comment on it's merits" isn't a defense, it merely provides context. "OTOH," ...on the other hand, is entirely appropriate, as is "but" given the context. As for the film, it's easy to find cause for concern based on a) the theme, as it's being promoted, and b) the still photographs which display the PinocchiOTUS's ugly mugg superimposed over an actor's face.So, does one have to actually SEE a movie before questioning certain controversial aspects of the film based on publicity? Given that context, m'thinks not, but that doesn't qualify as a review either; it's just a subjective impression of how the film is being marketed to the public. I'd have to see the film before providing a first hand analysis of it's merits (hence my comment).
Furthermore, I'm adamantly opposed to 2nd hand reviews being posted as first-hand opinions, so you never have to worry about me trying to snow you with my opinions; FYI, they're almost always strongly formed and adequately informed.
> > > "...along with the typical lib tactic of name calling(wing-nut Shinola fed,Snow-job,blowhard bloggers,infantile,NeroCon mouthpieces)." < < <
Trust me, I was being kind! Furthermore, it isn't name-calling if such comments aren't directed specifically at you (they weren't). In fairness, those terms were a triffle harsh, albeit completely honest. Sorry if you were offended by the truth.
> > > "You are correct in that these types of comments ARE more at place in the outside asylum, which is what I try to avoid it, but it seems to have leaked into here." < < <
No, it isn't a leak (those usually originate from the Bush WH, BTW). Try to keep in mind that YOU are the person who brought politics into this discussion with a couple of ridiculous statistical fractured fairy tales that don't even begin to give an accurate picture of how things are in this country.
You would probably do well to continue to avoid the great Outside. No offense, but you're apparently too sensitive and easily offended to hold up well in that fast paced environment.
AuPh
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
