I don't intend this as a political statement...to me, it's a moral issue.
I like to watch movies, and I also like to look them up on IMDB and read the trivia about them. Last night, I was reading the trivia posted for The Alamo (the original version, starring John Wayne.) One comment said that Mr. Wayne and Richard Widmark didn't get along, in part due to their opposing views on gun control. I was intrigued by that, and did some further reading on Richard Widmark. It turns out that he was very much in favor of gun control, disliked guns and violence, and even said:
''I know I've made kind of a half-assed career out of violence, but I abhor violence...I am an ardent supporter of gun control. It seems incredible to me that we are the only civilized nation that does not put some effective control on guns.''
Now, I can't say I've seen every movie he's ever made, but in the ones I have seen, primarily westerns, he's used a gun. I know that actors are playing a part, and just because one plays a rapist or murderer in a movie doesn't mean that he or she is one in real life, or agrees with it. However, it seems to me that if one felt so strongly about an issue as some of these actors claim to feel, they would not take on a role that would glorify or support the use of guns and/or violence. If anything, they would take roles that would show guns and violence to be bad or wrong.
I know that we all face issues in our own lives wherein we have to do something that we don't agree with. For example, I spent my working life in HR with a major company. We often had to meet EEOC goals and targets, and in order to do so, had to pass over more qualified applicants who were not minorities to hire lesser qualified applicants who were minorities (but who still met the minimum qualifications.) I didn't agree with that then, and don't now...I think race should never be a consideration, either pro or con, and only qualifications and experience should be considered. However, I followed the mandates of my company and the government, and so I suppose that makes me a hypocrite to some degree as well.
It just seems to me that these action movie stars who get rich portraying characters who use guns and violence to their advantage in the movies, and then decry their use in their own lives are talking out of both sides of their mouths (to be polite.) They could choose roles that didn't violate their so-called beliefs. However, I guess the same thing could be said of me...I could have found a different job where I didn't have to comply with those staffing directives I didn't think were correct. The actors who are choosing these roles aren't under a government or company mandate to do so, and that is what I see as the difference...they are doing it simply for the money.
There aren't many celebrities I admire...there are a few, like Jimmy Stewart, for example, that lived a public life that upheld his personal beliefs. These seem to be a rare commodity anymore.
I like to watch movies, and I also like to look them up on IMDB and read the trivia about them. Last night, I was reading the trivia posted for The Alamo (the original version, starring John Wayne.) One comment said that Mr. Wayne and Richard Widmark didn't get along, in part due to their opposing views on gun control. I was intrigued by that, and did some further reading on Richard Widmark. It turns out that he was very much in favor of gun control, disliked guns and violence, and even said:
''I know I've made kind of a half-assed career out of violence, but I abhor violence...I am an ardent supporter of gun control. It seems incredible to me that we are the only civilized nation that does not put some effective control on guns.''
Now, I can't say I've seen every movie he's ever made, but in the ones I have seen, primarily westerns, he's used a gun. I know that actors are playing a part, and just because one plays a rapist or murderer in a movie doesn't mean that he or she is one in real life, or agrees with it. However, it seems to me that if one felt so strongly about an issue as some of these actors claim to feel, they would not take on a role that would glorify or support the use of guns and/or violence. If anything, they would take roles that would show guns and violence to be bad or wrong.
I know that we all face issues in our own lives wherein we have to do something that we don't agree with. For example, I spent my working life in HR with a major company. We often had to meet EEOC goals and targets, and in order to do so, had to pass over more qualified applicants who were not minorities to hire lesser qualified applicants who were minorities (but who still met the minimum qualifications.) I didn't agree with that then, and don't now...I think race should never be a consideration, either pro or con, and only qualifications and experience should be considered. However, I followed the mandates of my company and the government, and so I suppose that makes me a hypocrite to some degree as well.
It just seems to me that these action movie stars who get rich portraying characters who use guns and violence to their advantage in the movies, and then decry their use in their own lives are talking out of both sides of their mouths (to be polite.) They could choose roles that didn't violate their so-called beliefs. However, I guess the same thing could be said of me...I could have found a different job where I didn't have to comply with those staffing directives I didn't think were correct. The actors who are choosing these roles aren't under a government or company mandate to do so, and that is what I see as the difference...they are doing it simply for the money.
There aren't many celebrities I admire...there are a few, like Jimmy Stewart, for example, that lived a public life that upheld his personal beliefs. These seem to be a rare commodity anymore.
