Actors' beliefs/actions influence your viewing their work?
After the Super Bowl there were several comment threads on Facebook about the commercials but one thread just annoyed me. The comment was about the Liam Neeson commercial and the commenter said he would never watch another Liam Neeson movie since he was anti gun and in action movies and he could not enjoy that. I go to movies to be entertained and have never cared about the personal life of the actors in the movie. The plot, acting, cinematography, and special effects may affect my enjoyment but not the actors life outside of the movie. Does it matter to you if or affect your entertainment from the movie if the actors personal life is not in line with yours?
MK Well said,MK. I fell in love with Liam Nelson after watching Schindler's list. His acting was so great, I really thought he WAS Schindler! I have no idea what he eats, believes in, etc. A great actor is SUPPOSED to make the you feel like that is how they really behave. People just have to remember.... IT'S A MOVIE. By the way... we are going to see our 1st move in eight years. Should we see "Taken" or " American Sniper "?
terry page I have had this discussion with my kids, but more regarding musicians. My kids loved music by Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus, and we've talked about how we can appreciate their music without necessarily agreeing with the way they live their lives. (Not that I like their music, but the kids do!)
Jersey Girl 
If they were the actor's "private" feelings/opinions I couldn't care less, but when they try to leverage their hollywood "star power" and inject themselves into politics or lobby for further restrictions then it reflects poorly on the rest of their work.
Plus it's just extremely hypocritical to say that guns should be banned, nobody should have them, etc. and then profit on the very thing you seem to despise by blowing away bad guys with guns in your movies. Don't like guns? Fine... own it. Only take jobs that don't have guns in them.
Same reason people want to watch Bob Costas and Greg Gumbel for their sports knowledge, not using their air time for anti-gun rants, etc...
I bet they all have plenty of guns and/or armed bodyguards as well. I guess if you don't make millions, you don't deserve to have the same protection in their eyes.
Mark Mc. I don't care if a star uses their popularity for a cause they believe in, being it animal cruelty, poor children in other countries, or any political cause. They are entitled the same way that politicians, company spokespeople, talking heads, or any one else famous for anything expressing their opinions and supporting causes. I still don't understand why they have to make movie that the movie has to maintain the whatever their cause is. Writers write, some become movie scripts, some movie studio decides it's got the chance to make money, then people are hired. The actor comes very late to the process and often has no input on script or plot turns in a movie. Why can't they just earn their living? Do you refuse to work for your employer because you don't agree across the board with their way of dealing with clients? It's a movie, entertainment, not a lifestyle choice.
I don't think the actors vocally expressing their concern for poor children or abused animals are taking many roles where they beat animals or deprive children... there is consistency in their outlook. There's still plenty of opportunity for them to make a living.
If Liam doesn't like guns, why do a good portion of his movies contain guns? There are plenty of other dramatic roles and plenty of movies that don't contain violence as the main theme. I'm not knocking the movies or the script writers, I'm pointing out the actors cashing in on something they strongly disagree with - strongly enough to specifically comment on it outside of their roles.
The great thing here is choice. Some folks have a problem with hypocritical behavior, others don't. No big deal.
Personally I don't like to reward famous people that are openly hypocritical, and I do that with my choice of purchases. Seems odd to me to agree politically with someone yet willingly contribute to their wealth for perpetuating that with which they claim is despicable in real life.
Anyone remember that video from a few years ago, the one in which a bunch of celebrities were saying something like "no more", or "not one more", something like that? Can't recall the issue right now, but the video overlaid the political statements with their gun use in movies and TV series. It was pretty funny.
justintime Something like this justintime?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr37b-FYj8g
I guess the paychecks trump their convictions...
Yes, that's it Mark. They say it's time to do something about it - how about lead by example?
"how about lead by example?"
Or, if they can't maintain a consistent message, just keep their opinions to themselves... privately vote for the representatives they want, etc.
If they were asked a direct question and simply said "I'm personally not a big fan of guns but sometimes the role demands it", that's fine. Sometimes roles depict murder, theft, etc... suspension of disbelief and all.
But they thrust themselves to the forefront of the "debate" and that's where the hypocrisy lies. Would someone who is a spokesperson for anti-rape organizations take a role where they attack women? Wouldn't that reflect poorly on their image? So why shouldn't these "spokespeople" be held to the same standard?
Oh yeah... $$$$$$. If guns are so bad and everyone hates them as a scourge on society, why do these movies make mega bucks?
So I think I know what MK is saying Is that when a actor gets into the role and performs well , and if that actor drinks DR PEPPER then I should not care and this same rule should apply to a lot of things
Caged Animal I think, like everyone else, he should be entitled to his opinion--and that's all he really did was express his opinion. He just sounds like a hypocrite, because of the types of films he's in. It's like being in 5 Cheech and Chong movies but complaining that marijuana is bad for you.
JerseyWolf It's a movie! Not a life statement! Being an actor does not mean everything you do in a movie be a statement of your beliefs. It's a movie......make believe.....so according to you a writer should not write about anything he doesn't believe in, or are only actors held to a higher standard? We all have our moments where we have to do something in our lives that we don't fully believe in, are we all hypocrites or are actors a special case?
I would rather my actors be heros not cowards, stand-up guys (and gals) and not schmucks. As to what they believe in, that's up to them and if they choose to advertise or promote, that's up to them too.
So if Liam Neeson advocates gun control but is in a movie with guns; I don't see that as hypcritical. It's a movie, a work of fiction, not a suggested roadmap for your life. Remember, guns don't make movies........
"Neeson became an official U.S. citizen five years ago. He says of the Constitution: "It is the right to bear arms which is the problem. I think if the Founding Fathers knew what was happening they would be turning in their graves with embarrassment at how that law has been interpreted."" (The Week - 9/15/2014)
mistergoogle I can't watch any movie that has Mel Gibson in it. Used to enjoy his movies, but after his drunken rants, I just won't support his movies. So yes, actions of actors do impact whether I will watch a movie.
Nancy hypocrisy:
a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
Hmm, pretense. Kind of like the chosen profession of actors? ;-)
"We all have our moments where we have to do something in our lives that we don't fully believe in, are we all hypocrites or are actors a special case?"
No doubt we're all hypocrites at some point in our lives MK (more often than not IMO), but in your mind do you justify your own hypocrisy because you need to use it for self-serving purposes? Probably, as most of us do. Does that make it right? No, it does not. And if it's not right, shouldn't we individually work harder to *not* be hypocrites? Do you agree, and if not, why?
i don't support the loonies out there in lala land, so very tired of them preaching to us what to think, how to live, bunch of hypocrites, ( a lot of whom are carrying weapons for their own protection, or have armed body guards escorting them around, total hypocrisy)
neeson's opinion happens to be misguided, and i have crossed him off my list just like i did with woody allen and a whole host of other's,
as JIT said, vote with your consumer dollars, it sends a powerful message.
lala land is coming off a really bad year in sales, they don't know what to do, and the very successful film 'American Sniper' has their panties in a bunch, so they attack the subject of the film, denigrate the image of the man, and personally attack the director, Clint Eastwood, they are total hypocrites, and it's past time to call them out on it.
BrotherDog ...add MUSICIANS to the list as well....
I agree with Mark & JIT. Keep it private, or suffer the wrath (Dixie Chicks lol)
JeffersonRepub Maybe he's on the right path in his quest to stop violence...
I mean, he only killed 20 people in Taken 2, compared to the 31 he killed in the first Taken.
http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ObjFliam-neeson-kill-map-1.jpg
Could care less what their views are. I go to watch if they are good at entertaining me. If a famous person influences you, look in the mirror. That's a you problem. I don't care about their politics, religion, what shoes they wear, what they're drinking etc.
So if someone is very religious, they can't play a bad guy in a film stealing, killing, and blowing things up? Just because it's guns, you're automatically on the defensive and it clouds your judgement. If we were talking about someone portraying a serial killer, and then they go out and support victims of a serial killer then what? They're not allowed? What's next, a Democrat can't portray a Republican?
Fatally flawed argument.
MeisterNJ "So if someone is very religious, they can't play a bad guy in a film stealing, killing, and blowing things up?"
Sure they can, and when they hop on the soap box to publicly tout how their religion denounces those activities and there should be further laws made to restrict OUR rights (against LEGAL possessions and Constitutionally protected activities), we can call them hypocrites too.
Life imitates art. Out culture is influenced by the movies we watch, the music we listen to, the silly memes we read online, and yes, even the video games we play. That doesn't mean that those are the ONLY influences in our lives, or that the influences are always negative--many people have admitted to being positively inspired by the arts--but only a fool would believe that such things do not affect the people and the world around us.
Many actors have refused roles, due to moral grounds. It may be a black actor who refuses to play a role he believes to be demeaning to black Americans, or a woman who refuses to play in a film that promotes violence against women, or even an actor who refuses a role because the character smokes and the actor refuses to promote smoking.
Neeson is quite wealthy. A quick Google search puts his net worth at as much $75 million, and he earns as much as $20 million per film. If he were so morally opposed to firearms and violence, then he could certainly refuse such roles and not end up living on the street. Yet, he still takes such roles, knowing (presuming he's not an idiot) that the films, and his portrayals, may glorify violence and the use of firearms (even if he is playing a good-hearted, heroic character).
THAT, in my humble opinion, is hypocrisy.
I hope they keep it up. Seems to me it's all backfiring. American Sniper is made over how many millions now? Thank you Michael Moore and Seth Rogan!! Keep up the good work.
It's the old, don't do as I do, do as I say
Ollie 
Michael publically apologized for you Ollie; that's what made it all happen :>)
" If he were so morally opposed to firearms and violence" is a classic. So raise your hands, who's not morally opposed to violence?
Meanwhile, Neeson's point is there are too many guns in America and too many guns equates to too many gun murders. As to shoot em up movies: "A character like Bryan Mills going out with guns and taking revenge: it’s fantasy. It’s in the movies, you know? I think it can give people a great release from stresses in life and all the rest of it, you know what I mean? It doesn’t mean [the viewers] are all going to go out and go, “Yeah, let’s get a gun!”" Apparently his personal opinions are actually causing stress.
So raise your hands, who loved the Taken series and has subsequently enrolled to become a trained CIA killer to better protect their family? Was anyone Taken so much they went Mills on someone?
There's a big difference in a work of fiction, one's opinon on gun control, owning guns, and protecting one's family. The fact that I, for one, favor improvements in our gun control system does not diminish my belief in the second amendment, the right to bear arms, protecting one's family, or watching Taken without going totally off the reservation. I just have a different belief about it than others and still love the Taken movies. Now the man needs to procreate just to be able to have more sequels. "Taken 5: kissin cousins....."
LOL, Seth Rogen is about the most apolitical person on the planet. It's funny how he's gotten lumped in with that doofus Michael Moore simply because of an offhand comparison he made with no political intent whatsoever... probably while baked out of his mind.
ianimal Spoken like a true American JeffersonRepub keep your mouth shut or suffer the consequences don't let that little thing like the Constitution or the Bill of Rights get in the way. The problem with a lot of people is they cannot separate the person from his or her political or social beliefs. I for one do not like Paul McCartney's views on animal rights and veganism and so on. But that does not stop me from listening and buying his music or going to one of his concerts
oldred
yankeefan EVERYONE has a right to an opinion! Doesn't mean you have to hate the person for it. Doesn't mean you have to agree with it. Doesn't mean you have to abide by it. It is what it is an OPINION!
Christine Seth can go back to Canada. Oh wait, he won't because he's making out better here.
He has all the freedom to tweet whatever he pleases. Thank you to all the men and women who protect his right to free speech.
keep your mouth shut or suffer the consequences"
If you're not prepared to face the "consequences" (being called a hypocrite), well then, don't say/do something that makes you a hypocrite.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. If he doesn't like guns he can easily just not get a gun (and tell any security guards he employs to get rid of theirs as well as a condition of their employment with him). But as soon as his opinion (and many millions of dollars) tries to tell *me* how to live *my* life through additional legislation, he loses the free pass of just "having an opinion", especially while enjoying the benefits of the things he doesn't want me to have (even in his private life, regardless of any movie roles).
I don't put too much stock in famous people's beliefs. They are just regular folks like you and I and some are pretty boring IRL - ever hear Robert DeNiro interviewed or have to talk unscripted - what a snooze fest. It's America though and people are entitled to their opinions. Stars just have a larger megaphone. Bill O'Reilly puts it into perspective nicely here. http://youtu.be/wk4dcPybTDo
Yes Ollie, free speechers have it soooooo bad in Canada, eh.
Really Mark, anyone who disagrees with you in a way that might create law you disagree with loses their rights to things the Constitution protects? How founding father of you. "Your opinion might create law that I my opinion does not agree with therefore you are verboten from having such opinon. Verboten!!!!"
"Well said Mark."
"It's America though and people are entitled to their opinions"
yes they are, and all americans are entitled to spend or not spend their money on the movies coming out of hollywood,
right ?
they can say and do whatever they want, hypocrites they may be, they have the right to do it, and other free Americans certainly don't have to support them by paying 12 - 15 dollars at the box office
neeson with his misguided musings and lack of understanding of the bill of rights is totally on him, he has the right to express himself, and we have the right not to support the continuation of his preaching by paying to see his movies, correct?
decisions have consequences, just ask one of the many lala land loons, Jim Carrey,
"Really Mark, anyone who disagrees with you in a way that might create law you disagree with loses their rights to things the Constitution protects?"
Where does the Constitution say that stupid opinions get a free pass?
Seriously, nobody is suggesting Liam go to jail for his speech, just that he shouldn't expect to be insulated from people refusing to spend money on his movies because they disagree with what he said.
For someone that gets into a lot of Constitutional debates on this site, it's surprising you'd try to suggest that pissed-off movie goers are a violation of his First Amendment rights. Maybe that's in one of the hidden Amendments about "feelings" that we all hear so much about, right?
What in the hell does the CONSTITUTION or the 1ST AMENDMENT have to do with ANY of this? Here's the answer: NOTHING.
Neeson, the Dixie Chicks, Bruce Springsteen.... whoever.... can THINK anything they want. They can SAY anything they want.
And we consumers can decide we don't want to give them any more of our money. We are not restricting their rights or violating the constitution. WE have an opinion too.
The artists has an opinion. They choose whether or not to vocalize it publicly. They suffer the consequences of their actions, be they increased record sales or cancelled tours.
We as consumers have an opinion, and have every right to exercise that opinion, through either buying or NOT buying the artists' product.
THAT is LIBERTY- on BOTH sides. The constitution has nothing to do with this argument.
What you said Mark was: " But as soon as his opinion (and many millions of dollars) tries to tell *me* how to live *my* life through additional legislation, he loses the free pass of just "having an opinion""
He loses the free pass of just having an opinion. Your words. That can mean a lot of things including sitfling the opinion which would be a 1A violation. If what you meant was consumer's could opt to not buy his product, by all means a resonable response.
"That can mean a lot of things including sitfling the opinion which would be a 1A violation."
I can "stifle" his opinion all I want... I'm not Congress, and the 1st Amendment doesn't restrict me from doing anything.
Mark Mc. says: Neeson, the Dixie Chicks, Bruce Springsteen.... whoever.... can THINK anything they want. They can SAY anything they want.
Right...Just like Ted Nugent, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sarah Palin et.al.
That's what makes this country great. Any lunatic gets to talk. And no one has to listen.
Well, JR said that...
But yes, anyone can say anything... but some people try to protect (and empower) individual rights, and others try to put barriers in place to make private citizens subservient to the government. I guess the question is, whose message is better?
Absolutely YES! They use their celebrity and gullible people listen to what they say ad if they were/are more intelligent than mist people. I would not see that TRAITOR Jane Fonda in anything, even if you paid me.
sientje smith Mark, my apologies for the incorrect attribution.
Still, it seems to me that you are saying if you agree with the celebrity's opinion, that's the better message. I'm simply saying the fact that a person is famous doesn't mean they've become smarter or more educated. They've just become famous. If that fame influences people to listen to their opinions, I fault the listener. I know people who no longer listen to Springsteen, because of his politics. In my opinion, that's a bit foolish. I may not believe in Clint Eastwood's politics, but I am a huge fan of his work. His celebrity doesn't make his non artistic opinions important to me.
It seems that sometime the opposite is true... viewing Clint Eastwood's work apparently will have an effect on King Abdullah's actions...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/after-isis-execution-angry-king-abdullah-quotes-clint-eastwood-to-u.s.-lawmakers/article/2559770
Give 'em hell, Abdullah
Interesting you mention Clint Eastwood. He's a bit wishy-washy on gun rights too despite the long career as a gunslinger, shoot-em-up cop, and other heavily armed/military roles.
He does seem to approach it more as a "private" opinion with a "live and let live" attitude though - kind of middle of the road, seeing the utility of certain types of guns, supporting some but seeing the futility of other gun control measures, and how part of the problem is simply the failure of the justice system by re-releasing violent criminals.
He probably couldn't care less if you have handguns, rifles, or shotguns (as long as you are not a felon) but he's against so called "assault weapons" despite occasionally using them in a few movies.
Tempers his image a bit but it's not quite the 180 degree sell-out of Liam Neeson (especially obnoxious by ridiculing the founders of the country he decided was good enough to immigrate to - almost immediately upon his arrival).
LOL...odd that he didn't use any quotes from "Trouble With the Curve". Or "Hang Em High".
When they use their "Hollywood" stardom to influence politics then they rightful should become targets. If Liam Nelson is anti-gun then, I will no longer pay to see any of his movies. I will vote with my wallet, as it is called.
He will use his money and influence to support a cause I or some else do not agree with.
This is why I will NEVER see, pay for or go to another Bon Jovi concert.
Well said Mark Mc.
HRMC Patient Wonder if you're just lining up to give Ted Nugent your money for his "art."
Or do you just send him a check?
You guys can spend your money where you want, I'll spend mine where I want. I may not like someone's art just because they also like guns, but I certainly won't support them if they don't.
I'm guessing MG doesn't care a whit about the implications of where he spends/earns money, as long as one of his personal finance spreadsheets shows a net positive or some coupon savings.
So how far are you willing to go to parade your integrity? If the company you work for supports things you don't support...candidates, causes, practices...do you quit?
You're right, I have don't care a whit because I am at my whits-end. I am whit-less against your rock solid principalled-based moralistic morass of merchandizing mannerisms.
Let's see if I got it.
If they like guns, I may or may not like their art, it depends.
If they hate guns, I won't support them whether or not I like their art, that's the rule
The following represents Mark's bible for what he's missing: http://www.thesurvivalistblog.net/nra-releases-list-celebrities-organizations-support-gun-control/
And yes Mark, I do cut coupons and put a couple extra thousands of dollars in my wallet each year for a very small time investment. If that is beneath you, so be it. As far as caring a whit, no Mark, I care a whole lot of whit's for how I spend and earn my money; I just don't care for a number of your whits.
Good luck with the list; probably can reduce your cable bill :>)
What if I do? Are you implying it's somehow wrong to have integrity in such decisions?
While it would be impossible to find a company that agrees with 100% of everyone's views they do their best to make the information available for employee's to review. My company is restricted from contributing directly to any Federal candidates, but there is a PAC that employees may voluntarily fund, and here's where that money went (in 2013).
It's actually leaning quite a bit to the R side, which (on the current topic) means good news for me.
That's chump change PAC money. Does your company do any lobbying? Do they let you know where they spend that money? I work for a corporation that strongly opposes net neutrality. I support it. Doesn't make me feel like I have to change careers to protect my integrity. They also employ hundreds of thousands of workers, and provide great benefits. I'm simply saying there is so much grey in our world, it's virtually impossible to make these unilateral decisions. Similarly, the politics of an actor or musician have no bearing for me on whether I enjoy their art. My opinions and beliefs aren't shaped by theirs. I can listen to Cat Scratch Fever and Ted's politics don't really affect my experience. If the Beatles all contributed to Ted Cruz's campaign, would that diminish their artistry for me? No. That's all I'm really saying...
"parade you integrity"
That is a really odd statement. I guess in some circles integrity is one of those "variables" that changes depending on the what the personal benefit would be? Odd indeed.
Yes my company spends about $700k on lobbying (all on record with the Federal government if one was really bored and wanted to look). None of it had anything to do with gun rights, since that is completely unrelated to our field.
The fact that MG is all up in a tizzy on my spending preferences and is so confrontational about the freedom of choice leads me to believe I'm onto something good.
This is NJ, so maybe he's mad that I didn't get the state's permission for my opinion.
Are you suggesting that I don't have integrity in my decisions?
"The fact that MG is all up in a tizzy on my spending preferences and is so confrontational about the freedom of choice leads me to believe I'm onto something good."
Wow, I knew those long tomes would go to effect.
"This is NJ, so maybe he's mad that I didn't get the state's permission for my opinion."
Why ever would that upset me at all. Why would I care about you getting permission from the state. Whatever would lead you there.
"please savior, save your shores"
This got foolish fast... my point is simply this- I have no idea what Ginger Baker's politics are, but based on a recent documentary, they are likely not in line with mine. Nonetheless, he is the greatest rock drummer ever (apologies to Keith Moon) and I am able to separate the two. And JIT, yes, I think people do "parade their integrity", but in reality they make compromises every day. That's life.
FINIS
"parade their integrity"
you don't agree that integrity is important?
we all make individual choices for individual reasons, yes?
i have refused to contribute to the companies PAC once i saw what they were doing with the money, same thing with the voluntary (but still required?) united way donations, even after being threatened with the "your name will go on a list to the vice president of the organization if you don't 'voluntarily contribute' "
crossed off woody allen and his movies because of 'integrity'; doing the same thing with bill cosby, (enough is enough)
i don't happen to like ted nugent or his music even thought he is a very accomplished guitar player. (personal choice) but i think that he is not good for the NRA, and have said so repeatedly and in different forums, (like writing the NRA board about toning him down as his personal style is counter-productive to the NRA's mission statements)
i do urge everybody to watch the tv show 'blue bloods' ; because integrity is important.
so who is still going to watch that NBC charlatan Brian Williams any more? is integrity not important to NBC? or are they going to 'compromise' their integrity yet again?
"He was a man of low integrity since he watched TV shows with people holding different views than his own......."
Funny you mention Blue Bloods since I am a bit of a fan but really. Don't you notice how often the Reagans go off their own personal integrity reservation and take actions that mere mortals would be morally and legally arrested for?
Does anyone really believe all the actors are pro-gun on this show or any show or any movie for that reason? I mean we all know about Tom. But even though I can't speak for Danny, but his brother Mark is pretty vocal anti. Not to mention all the other actors around, many of which are probably pro-gun-control.
Perhaps you high integrity gunnies can get NRA-edited versions for the shows and movies you love but are integrity conflicted about watching :>) Rambo, First Blood, and the Expendables might be a pretty tough view once Stalone is edited out though.
But yeah, I would never spend money on a Woody and the Crosby Bill is much too high now.
Commenting is no longer available.