Is it fair to judge a movie based upon the actor/director's personal life?

[gdb]

See, I can understand disliking actors for stuff like murder, rape, child pornography, etc. Those are crimes, the acts are wrong, and the people who perpetuate them are victimizers. However, I have just never looked at Cruise and Gibson that way. They have always seemed more like victims themselves. Cruise has been brainwashed by a cult. I do not recognize Scientology as a religion ... any more than I would David Koresh's cult. But, Cruise is a victim, just like all the other members. If you all remember the South Park where they killed off Chef (after Hayes, who is also a Scientologist supposedly quit out of anger over the Scientology episode) - I think Stan summed it up best. Let's not hate Chef (or Cruise, Travolta, etc.), let's remember the good times. It's that "fruity little club's" fault for manipulating them. As for Gibson, I really think the antisemitism comes from a combination of racism experienced as a child, and his religious rebirth after cleaning up in the mid-90s ... the same fervor that lead to Passion of the Christ. As many Jewish friends that backed him after the arrest ... I just can't believe all those people would do that if he really was a hardcore racist. So, I guess I give him a "pity" pass too.

It seems like your cutoff is murder, rape, child pornography, etc. To me, evangelical hatred can be just as damaging if not more so.

Cruise, for instance, is part of an evangelical religion that wants to brainwash (your word) as many other people as they can. I believe Gibson would be happy doing likewise. Part of these two religions' evangelical methods have been and continue to be subversive marketing. In the 80's Scientology had members of their flock buy multiple copies of L. Ron Hubbard's books (which they donated to the church and then bought again) to put them on the best seller list in an attempt to legitimize their leader and spread his word. Travolta's Battlefield Earth had simuliar goals. Passion of the Christ as well.

To your point that Scientology is a cult, I would suggest that the difference between a cult and a religion is as maleable as a point of view. Meaning, the difference is whether one stands inside the revival tent or out. I'm not defending Scientology. I'm trying to say that the kids who go door to door with pamplets recruiting unclears (I think that's what they call us?) are fudamentally no different than the ones who do it on bicycles wearing ties trying to save people from Hell. They both use scare tactics to evangelize fear and hatred. In the sixties it was at the expense of the blacks. Today it's homosexuals.

To see what damage evangelical hatred can yeild, look to the Middle East. Or right here in our history books.

 

[IronFingaz]

I couldn't help but remember this:

when I was watching MI:III, it was still a decent film, but it did affect me.

Me too... I just watched it for the first time this past sunday, it was a good movie but Tom Cruise was in it. All that s*** he did a couple of years ago really affected his movies because you have that crazy s*** in the back of you'r mind... Luckily it's only post-looney Tom so i can still watch Minority Report, The Last Samurai and stuff like that.

Other than that, peoples background doesnt really affect me when i watch movies.

 

[pixletwin]

Really? I don't remember that. I studied music history extensively but it doesn't ring a bell. I know Tchaikovsky was kind of an ass hat as well as Berlioz, or maybe that was just a crazy opium addiction.

Mahler was. Maybe you didn't read the right books?

 

[KAOSINLA]

The more celebrities jump on the soapbox to express opinions other than their work, the more open they are to critique.

In regards to Cruise, I'd never give a dime to his "work" to further the destructive Scientology cult.

 

[Anzik]

First let me say that I view the entertainment industry as little more than court jesters. Their job is to entertain us. These people specialize in pretending to be something and generally they pretend to be smart. What makes them successful is their ability to present things in such a way as to make them seem knowledgeable, without actually knowing about the subject. We must never forget that they aren't doctors even if they play one on TV.
When they do something that I find reprehensible like OJ, or Salva I will refuse to contribute anything that will help them.
I refuse to support their work when their views transcend their craft. When you can identify a celebrity more as a political activist than an entertainer, I have had enough. Sadly many of them are very talented performers but in my opinion part of what makes them believable is that you don't associate them with anything, so they are able to transform. But when I see Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Rosie O'Donnell et al, no matter what character they portray their chatter always resonates to me.
Similarly when they make a movie, which is about entertaining me, into a 'message'. I can deal with entertainment that happens to have a message, but I don't want a message that tries to be entertaining.
Scientology is a statement of stupidity and it can't be categorized with other religions. Simply because Hubbard said in an interview that making your own religion is where real money is, then he made his own religion.
I dislike actors who glamorize bad behavior, whether its Gangsta, starlet sleaziness (Paris, Lindsay), or drug or alcohol abuse (Tom Sizemore).
I don't look at Gibson as anti-semitic. His reaction was one of anger, not racism. When angry people try and grab the dirtiest word, most insulting word you can think of and sling it at your target. I would like to think that all of the Jewish people that have worked with Gibson would have picked up on his anti-semitism if it were genuine. He has more to apologize for because he drove drunk.

 

[Darklord Dave]

But some celebrities aren't just entertainers. Some are intelligent, articulate people as well and have just as much or more business stating their opinions as most policitians.

I'm sure George Clooney or Alec Baldwin know just as much about running a country as Arnold Schwarzenegger (who is also a smart guy and a shrewd businessman).

And if you're going to boycott Salva, you have to boycott Polanski, the crimes are very similar although Salva actually served time.

As for Gibson - he's been brainwashed by a cult just as much as Cruise - but I'll still go see movies either of them make, I just won't like myself for it.

 

[Anzik]

Dave saying celebrities are as smart as politicians isn't saying much.

 

[Bannister]

And if you're going to boycott Salva, you have to boycott Polanski, the crimes are very similar although Salva actually served time.

Like I said Dave I am a hypocrite.

 

[DouglasMcc]

And if you're going to boycott Salva, you have to boycott Polanski, the crimes are very similar although Salva actually served time.

As for Gibson - he's been brainwashed by a cult just as much as Cruise - but I'll still go see movies either of them make, I just won't like myself for it.

So, could someone explain the whole statutory rape case with Polanski? I understand the laws. If he had intercourse with a 13 year old girl, it's illegal. However, was it forced raped, or consensual? Did Polanski know how old the girl was at the time? Not trying to argue the law, but I have always felt that consensual statutory cases were more a gray area. I used to teach at the high school level before moving to elementary school. And, I caught myself once or twice thinking, "hmm ... who's parent is that ... I want me some of her ..." only to realize later it was a student. Now, I would have never acted on my feelings with the knowledge of her age ... but it's hard to tell sometimes. Many of these girls look like women ... even at the age of 13 to 16. Yes, it is a grown male's responsibility to find out about the age, so a punish is appropriate. However, I do not think consensual and forced sex should be viewed in the same light. If Polanski didn't know/ it was consensual, I definitely think it rates WAY below forced homosexual sodomy of a small boy (which is what the info I found on Salva implied). Now, maybe the separation of the acts is wrong, but that's how I see it. Could it be my heterosexual bias ... since the Salva case was homosexual in nature? Maybe. I don't know.

And Dave, please explain the Gibson cult comment. I won't get into an argument over beliefs ... not my right to tell you what to believe. And, I also realize there are some extreme "cult-like" Christian groups out there. However, the way you phrased your comment, it came off like you were implying all of Christianity was a "cult" and if that's the case, I find it offensive. If that wasn't the case, I apologize for misinterpreting your remarks.

 

[Bannister]

So, could someone explain the whole statutory rape case with Polanski? I understand the laws. If he had intercourse with a 13 year old girl, it's illegal. However, was it forced raped, or consensual? Did Polanski know how old the girl was at the time? Not trying to argue the law, but I have always felt that consensual statutory cases were more a gray area. I used to teach at the high school level before moving to elementary school. And, I caught myself once or twice thinking, "hmm ... who's parent is that ... I want me some of her ..." only to realize later it was a student. Now, I would have never acted on my feelings with the knowledge of her age ... but it's hard to tell sometimes. Many of these girls look like women ... even at the age of 13 to 16. Yes, it is a grown male's responsibility to find out about the age, so a punish is appropriate. However, I do not think consensual and forced sex should be viewed in the same light. If Polanski didn't know/ it was consensual, I definitely think it rates WAY below forced homosexual sodomy of a small boy (which is what the info I found on Salva implied). Now, maybe the separation of the acts is wrong, but that's how I see it. Could it be my heterosexual bias ... since the Salva case was homosexual in nature? Maybe. I don't know.

And Dave, please explain the Gibson cult comment. I won't get into an argument over beliefs ... not my right to tell you what to believe. And, I also realize there are some extreme "cult-like" Christian groups out there. However, the way you phrased your comment, it came off like you were implying all of Christianity was a "cult" and if that's the case, I find it offensive. If that wasn't the case, I apologize for misinterpreting your remarks.

If I am not mistaken, I think Gibson belongs to a more fundamental sect of Catholicism that doesn't recognize Vatican 2 among other things.

 

[DouglasMcc]

It seems like your cutoff is murder, rape, child pornography, etc. To me, evangelical hatred can be just as damaging if not more so.

Well, the very use of etc. was meant to imply that my cutoff is an actual brutal crime. Yes, what Gibson said could be classified as a hate crime in today's world. I don't agree with his sentiment. However, he was under the influence of alcohol and made a mistake. Does he really feel that way? Possibly ... alcohol tends to bring out repressed feelings. However, as long as he isn't out there organizing Klan rallies and calling for Jewish murders/ attacks, I am willing to forgive him. We ALL have hate in our heart. It might be subconscious ... we may never even show it to the outside world. But it's part and parcel of being human. I believe in evolution (yes, yes, a Christian who believes we came from monkeys ... a true rarity) ... and hatred is evident in nature. An animal can be conditioned to hate ... but there are instances of inborn hate between competing species of animals. I think our own hatred is a derivative of that ... made all the worse by our intelligence and proficiency for making instruments of destruction. So, I can't fault Gibson for expressing that hatred under the influence as long as he atoned for it. Do I know if his apologizes were genuine? No. However, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Bannister]

Well, the very use of etc. was meant to imply that my cutoff is an actual brutal crime. Yes, what Gibson said could be classified as a hate crime in today's world. I don't agree with his sentiment. However, he was under the influence of alcohol and made a mistake. Does he really feel that way? Possibly ... alcohol tends to bring out repressed feelings. However, as long as he isn't out there organizing Klan rallies and calling for Jewish murders/ attacks, I am willing to forgive him. We ALL have hate in our heart. It might be subconscious ... we may never even show it to the outside world. But it's part and parcel of being human. I believe in evolution (yes, yes, a Christian who believes we came from monkeys ... a true rarity) ... and hatred is evident in nature. An animal can be conditioned to hate ... but there are instances of inborn hate between competing species of animals. I think our own hatred is a derivative of that ... made all the worse by our intelligence and proficiency for making instruments of destruction. So, I can't fault Gibson for expressing that hatred under the influence as long as he atoned for it. Do I know if his apologizes were genuine? No. However, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I think what also hurts Gibson in some people's eyes is his father is a holocaust denier and he has never come out and said he disagrees with it.

 

[DouglasMcc]

I think what also hurts Gibson in some people's eyes is his father is a holocaust denier and he has never come out and said he disagrees with it.

So basically, he was raised in a world of hate. Now, that doesn't give him a free reign to do anything he wants and get forgiveness (I am not a supporter of the "I experienced X as a child and it made me do those horrible things). However, it does help me see the situation in a new light. My grandmother is 72 and could be defined as a racist. She doesn't hate non-whites. She has always been a loving and caring person - helping out everyone at church and having friends of various races. However, she was taught as a child that whites were "better" than the other races and she believes that. Now, do I believe this perception of the world? Definitely not. However, I can see that it was ingrained into her as a child. She's not a hateful racist and at 72, she's not going to change now, so I just accept it. Not exactly proud of it, but I love her. Gibson may be in a similar place. However, if you discriminate against him based on his beliefs, are you any better than him? Now, if he was out there recruiting and inciting hate (and NO, while I know the history of Passion plays, I refuse to accept that a work of cinema destroyed anyone's world), I would hold him accountable. However, he's not. As for not publicly rebuking his father's beliefs ... why should we hold that against him? He might actually support the belief ... yes, it hard to believe that someone could deny the Holocaust in this day and age, but that would be his right. Or, he might not support his father's beliefs. But, not supporting and publicly rebuking something are entirely different. You have a connection and a love for family that transcends almost anything. Maybe, he feels that speaking out against his father's beliefs would be a betrayal. Sure, I have no problem speaking about my grandmother anonymously here on the internet. However, I do not think I could bring myself to talk badly about her to people in this county that we know. I would feel like I was betraying her ... even though I know her beliefs are wrong. It's real easy to badmouth movie stars ... they are rich and famous - they can have almost anything they want, so it's human nature to be jealous. However, they are still human and subject to the same frailties and imperfections.

 

[Bannister]

So basically, he was raised in a world of hate. Now, that doesn't give him a free reign to do anything he wants and get forgiveness (I am not a supporter of the "I experienced X as a child and it made me do those horrible things). However, it does help me see the situation in a new light. My grandmother is 72 and could be defined as a racist. She doesn't hate non-whites. She has always been a loving and caring person - helping out everyone at church and having friends of various races. However, she was taught as a child that whites were "better" than the other races and she believes that. Now, do I believe this perception of the world? Definitely not. However, I can see that it was ingrained into her as a child. She's not a hateful racist and at 72, she's not going to change now, so I just accept it. Not exactly proud of it, but I love her. Gibson may be in a similar place. However, if you discriminate against him based on his beliefs, are you any better than him? Now, if he was out there recruiting and inciting hate (and NO, while I know the history of Passion plays, I refuse to accept that a work of cinema destroyed anyone's world), I would hold him accountable. However, he's not. As for not publicly rebuking his father's beliefs ... why should we hold that against him? He might actually support the belief ... yes, it hard to believe that someone could deny the Holocaust in this day and age, but that would be his right. Or, he might not support his father's beliefs. But, not supporting and publicly rebuking something are entirely different. You have a connection and a love for family that transcends almost anything. Maybe, he feels that speaking out against his father's beliefs would be a betrayal. Sure, I have no problem speaking about my grandmother anonymously here on the internet. However, I do not think I could bring myself to talk badly about her to people in this county that we know. I would feel like I was betraying her ... even though I know her beliefs are wrong. It's real easy to badmouth movie stars ... they are rich and famous - they can have almost anything they want, so it's human nature to be jealous. However, they are still human and subject to the same frailties and imperfections.

Well said.

 

[gdb]

I believe in evolution (yes, yes, a Christian who believes we came from monkeys ... a true rarity) ...

Maybe I'm old but I remember when that didn't use to be the case. In fact, in most of the world that isn't the case. Evolution and intelligent design needn't be exclusive. God works in mysterious ways... the path from monkey (or lemur actually) to human is pretty darn mysterious... and at the same time, evolution seems pretty darn intelligent. But picking a fight like that is one of many recruitment tools for the evangelicals and it's a front line tactic agianst public schools vs. home schooling and vouchers to Christian schools. Which is one reason why I consider some evangelical agendas a threat as great as a sex offender. And in some churches, there is both.

That expressed, I'll still consider going to a Mel Gibson or Tom Cruise picture. And I have no problem watching My Name is Earl (staring Scientology's own Jason Lee). However I have no interest anymore in a Mad Max figure as I can only see a religious weirdo when I see his face.

 

[DouglasMcc]

Maybe I'm old but I remember when that didn't use to be the case. In fact, in most of the world that isn't the case. Evolution and intelligent design needn't be exclusive. God works in mysterious ways... the path from monkey (or lemur actually) to human is pretty darn mysterious... and at the same time, evolution seems pretty darn intelligent. But picking a fight like that is one of many recruitment tools for the evangelicals and it's a front line tactic agianst public schools vs. home schooling and vouchers to Christian schools. Which is one reason why I consider some evangelical agendas a threat as great as a sex offender. And in some churches, there is both.

That expressed, I'll still consider going to a Mel Gibson or Tom Cruise picture. And I have no problem watching My Name is Earl (staring Scientology's own Jason Lee). However I have no interest anymore in a Mad Max figure as I can only see a religious weirdo when I see his face.

I was thinking about something the other day when Scientology was first brought up in this thread. Many actors are members of the group now (sorry, I will NOT call it a church). And, many, like Jason Lee are not people you would typically associate with the beliefs. So, could Scientology be the new Andy Warhol/ Club 54 of the 21st century - a trendy fad stars hook onto because other famous/ bigger stars are associated? I have a feeling many of them might not necessarily believe the tenets (come on ... who could REALLY believe mankind came from an interplanetary prison ship ... God, I feel dumber for even typing that) ... but see it as a "foot in the door" to Hollywood's elite. And, per your example, Jason Lee's career certainly took off once he joined.

P.S. I love the delicious irony of this possibility - with some many "fake" people in Hollywood, is it really that surprising that they would be drawn to a fake "church"? ---->

 

[JAWS]

First let me say that I view the entertainment industry as little more than court jesters. Their job is to entertain us. These people specialize in pretending to be something and generally they pretend to be smart. What makes them successful is their ability to present things in such a way as to make them seem knowledgeable, without actually knowing about the subject. We must never forget that they aren't doctors even if they play one on TV.
When they do something that I find reprehensible like OJ, or Salva I will refuse to contribute anything that will help them.
I refuse to support their work when their views transcend their craft. When you can identify a celebrity more as a political activist than an entertainer, I have had enough. Sadly many of them are very talented performers but in my opinion part of what makes them believable is that you don't associate them with anything, so they are able to transform. But when I see Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Rosie O'Donnell et al, no matter what character they portray their chatter always resonates to me.
Similarly when they make a movie, which is about entertaining me, into a 'message'. I can deal with entertainment that happens to have a message, but I don't want a message that tries to be entertaining.
Scientology is a statement of stupidity and it can't be categorized with other religions. Simply because Hubbard said in an interview that making your own religion is where real money is, then he made his own religion.
I dislike actors who glamorize bad behavior, whether its Gangsta, starlet sleaziness (Paris, Lindsay), or drug or alcohol abuse (Tom Sizemore).
I don't look at Gibson as anti-semitic. His reaction was one of anger, not racism. When angry people try and grab the dirtiest word, most insulting word you can think of and sling it at your target. I would like to think that all of the Jewish people that have worked with Gibson would have picked up on his anti-semitism if it were genuine. He has more to apologize for because he drove drunk.

Well said.

Gibson has gone on record as saying that much of his anger at the time toward the Jews was because of the crap he took during and after he made Passion of the Christ. He was called names and was told his film would start anti semitic behavior in people (does anyone remember him going on show after show and defending himself, his religion, and the film?). After the film was released and none of this happened Mel never got an apology, all was quiet. NOW does that make what he did right? Not at all. But it makes some sense.

Now the RAPE of children never makes any sense.

It amazes me that Roman Polanski gets fogiven and given an Oscar - I don't care 13 is 13 and it's rape. And I beleive that the girl that this has happened to has said that it was not a good experience and she has not forgiven Roman. And what Victor did to the 12 year old is also unforgivable. Both of them RAPED children. Something that will effect the victems for the rest of their lives in one way or another. I am always amazed at what Hollywood is willing to forgive and not forgive.

More has been made about Tom Cruise and his religion then Victor Salvia's rape of a child. Holywood has some crazy morals.

 

[DouglasMcc]

Well said.

Gibson has gone on record as saying that much of his anger at the time toward the Jews was because of the crap he took during and after he made Passion of the Christ. He was called names and was told his film would start anti semitic behavior in people (does anyone remember him going on show after show and defending himself, his religion, and the film?). After the film was released and none of this happened Mel never got an apology, all was quiet. NOW does that make what he did right? Not at all. But it makes some sense.

Now the RAPE of children never makes any sense.

It amazes me that Roman Polanski gets fogiven and given an Oscar - I don't care 13 is 13 and it's rape. And I beleive that the girl that this has happened to has said that it was not a good experience and she has not forgiven Roman. And what Victor did to the 12 year old is also unforgivable. Both of them RAPED children. Something that will effect the victems for the rest of their lives in one way or another. I am always amazed at what Hollywood is willing to forgive and not forgive.

More has been made about Tom Cruise and his religion then Victor Salvia's rape of a child. Holywood has some crazy morals.

Okay, not sure if the Polanski part was aimed at my comments. I was not saying that what he did was acceptable. If he had sex with a 13 year old girl, which I would assume he did, since he ran, then he deserved to be punished. And, if this was either forced or coerced intercourse, it's that much worse. However, I still see a conceptual difference between forced and consensual. Consensual is still a crime, and it's still deserving of punishment ... but I, personally, would not group it in the same league as forcefully sodomizing a child.

So, what has the general consensus been concerning the Polanski case?

 

[gdb]

I was thinking about something the other day when Scientology was first brought up in this thread. Many actors are members of the group now (sorry, I will NOT call it a church). And, many, like Jason Lee are not people you would typically associate with the beliefs. So, could Scientology be the new Andy Warhol/ Club 54 of the 21st century - a trendy fad stars hook onto because other famous/ bigger stars are associated? I have a feeling many of them might not necessarily believe the tenets (come on ... who could REALLY believe mankind came from an interplanetary prison ship ... God, I feel dumber for even typing that) ... but see it as a "foot in the door" to Hollywood's elite. And, per your example, Jason Lee's career certainly took off once he joined.

P.S. I love the delicious irony of this possibility - with some many "fake" people in Hollywood, is it really that surprising that they would be drawn to a fake "church"? ---->

I do believe you're on to something.

 

[rw23]

Everyone knows Hollywood is filled with "crazy's" so if I cared what actors or directors did I wouldn't see many if any movies ever!