Matt Damon may seem comfortable with a gun on set, but the star of the Bourne series says that he actually hates guns because they freak him out (photo from ksl.com).
The Daily Caller with slide show.
Famous funnyman Jim Carrey went on a Twitter rant Sunday against his upcoming ultra-violent, superhero flick “Kick-Ass 2.”
“I did Kick-Ass 2 a month b4 Sandy Hook and now in all good conscience I cannot support that level of violence,” Carrey tweeted. ”My apologies to others involve[d] with the film. I am not ashamed of it but recent events have caused a change in my heart.”
Though Carrey is not particularly known for his violent movie roles, Hollywood is full of actors who have publicly decried gun ownership and yet continue to act in films with guns galore.
There's nothing Jim Carrey can say that will endear him to the gun nuts, not after that video he produced. I suppose his presentation of all the traditional jokes and stereotypes hit too close to home for many. I don't think a single pro-gun person admitted it was pretty funny.
But what do they think about his "change of heart?" That sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
On the other hand, aren't the pro-gun, pro-rights folks among the most vocal about the 1st Amendment rights of movie-makers to portray violence without in any way being responsible for real-life violence? Aren't the gun-rights folks the ones who keep saying there is no shared responsibility, that only those who commit violence are responsible for their actions?
Why then do they make such a big deal out of this, even calling actors hypocrites for supporting gun control? First they say, movies don't cause people to act violently, then they denounce actors as hypecrites for disagreeing with their politics. I think that makes them hypocrites.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
One word about Jason Bourne. In those wonderful films, the Matt Damon character often avoided using a gun. Being the CIA's "$30 million dollar killing machine," he was able to inflict incredible violence with his bare hands. Wouldn't that spare him of the hypocrite label?
Please leave a comment.
We didn't call the video funny because it wasn't. We've heard all of the jokes before, often presented as if they were actually the truth. It's just made them tired and dull like Rick-Rolling.
ReplyDeleteAs for the decision he's made, I don't know what the new movie will be like. Maybe it's ultraviolent to the point of poor taste, at least in his opinion, and the massacre has caused a change of heart. Let him follow his conscience.
As for the hypocrisy idea, if the formula is: Bad guy uses guns for mayhem, government agents use guns to stop him, the actors on both sides are not being hypocrites for playing those roles and at the same time saying that only the government should have guns.
However, if the formula involves a civilian using a gun to protect themself, or a self appointed vigilante superhero like in Kick Ass, you're verging on hypocrisy, though you're really only entering it to the extent that you're being serious. The first Kick Ass was intended as stupidity, and as long as you don't compare the dad teaching his daughter to shoot airsoft to Cage's character, I won't call Carrey a hypocrite.
However, when a film is more serious, say the grittier comic book movies that strive to deal with serious issues and put their characters in actual political situations, you're straying more into potential hypocrisy territory.
ReplyDeleteA prime example is Iron Man 2 with the government demanding the Iron Man weapon. Why won't Tony turn it over? What gives him the right to own that suit? I can guarandamntee you that in real life, ATF would declare that motherfucker an AOW, and Tony would be doing 10 years for violation of the NFA unless he used a lot of his money, complied with their demands, and kissed asses.
But setting that lack of realism aside, we have a guy distrusting the government, making speeches that might get him a job offer from Reason Magazine, and this is presented as the right way to go. Sure, the actors aren't the characters they play, but when a major theme in the film is: "This is mine, so keep your paws off of it--yes, it's a dangerous weapon, but it's still fucking MINE," you look like a hypocrite if you turn around and say that all guns are too dangerous for people to own.
(I don't know Downy Jr.'s views on guns, I'm just using a theoretical example.)
Finally, on the topic of the Borne movies, in your discussion of whether he uses a gun, a knife, or his hands, you missed the bigger issue: Why is he the good guy when he's using violence?
He is a rogue agent, so his use of violence has to be justified in one of three ways:
1: When they cut him loose, he became a nationless person, and all such people are laws unto themselves, capable of waging war as their own tiny nation. Somehow I don't see this catching on with anyone.
2: He's justified in this use of violence against the individuals he's up against because they're trying to kill him--in other words because of . . . self . . . defense . . .? Also never mind that this self defense apparently justifies the breaking of all kinds of firearms laws in all kinds of countries.
3: Really, he's not fighting individuals but a rogue government branch--effectively waging war against a part of, and then pretty much all of the CIA until he finds non-corrupt people on the inside to help him bring down the corrupt system. Until the third one when he sees that the whole system is corrupt, and he was too, and flees all of it, only to be replaced with another anti-gunner who also was doing things against the government that had turned on him, and is plotting his next step against it.
Gee, this looks like it supports some kind of insurrectionist idea that if the government goes bad, or a part of it does, you can fight against that government, or fight against that part, even using equally lethal force, fighting either to be left alone, or to expose the corruption and fix it.
If Bourne gets to use violence at all and not be hanged for Treason (or denounced for it by E.N. and electrocuted as he threatens me) then something must justify his use of violence and violation of weapons laws--some type of overarching sense of right and wrong that Laci has told us doesn't exist.
So, if you think that Bourne's actions can be justified by these arguments, but that our government could never ever get bad enough to justify such actions in the real world, then you may be a Pollyanna, but you're not a hypocrite.
However, if you think Bourne is a great guy, his actions are justified, and yet you don't think that anyone would ever be justified fighting their government in real life, then you're a hypocrite.
Of course the third option is that you don't think about the justification of Bourne's actions much, but when pressed you say that he should have gone to the press, and just died for nothing on the way, but that wouldn't have made a good movie, so even though he's not justified in his actions, it at least makes for an entertaining film: fine. I can enjoy the Italian Job (both) and some other heist movies, so I can understand shutting one's morality off to watch the magnificent bastard of the film pull something off, though generally I only find this enjoyable when he's stealing something replaceable, not slaughtering people. If it's going to be the latter, then a farcical tone like Kick Ass's makes the concept less offensive (Though probably not enough for me to watch it ever again).
ReplyDeleteBut Tennessean, you're taking movies too seriously. Sue me. Art matters and it says something. Maybe it just says entertainment is good. Maybe it says: Damn, it's good we don't have crazy wannabe superheroes and supervillains facing off--oh, yeah, and entertainment and explosions are good.
Bourne says: don't fuck with people's minds to turn them into assassins. However, it also tells us that Bourne is good and his actions are justified. If it didn't want to do that, maybe show some development away from the violence, or at least some soul searching and regret. Or have something like in V for Vendetta where we see that V is justified in some actions, but goes too far in other ways, becoming an opposite monster in reaction against the monsters that created him.
Or if you, for some reason, don't think V crossed the line, then look to Law Abiding Citizen where some corruption and some breakdown of the system lead to a lack of justice for the main character, and yet his reaction goes beyond the Steven Segal formula of "I was denied justice, so I'll go mete it out," and the guy crosses WAY over the line.
At first, you may cheer for him, walking in and turning off your brain: It's a revenge flick, let's just enjoy seeing bad guys get their comeuppance.
However, by the end of it, you're either going to feel gyped out of your money since you wanted a good revenge flick, or you're going to feel that your eyes were opened, and maybe you'll think twice about being so callous about just enjoying revenge flicks in the future.
So, yes, it's good to take movies seriously and look at the underlying lessons that must be assumed along with their main theme or entertainment value. Sometimes these assumptions and themes go against the anti-gun position (or some anti-gun positions) and it's valid to ask why an actor would be in that kind of movie since it clashes with his principles.
Anything for money
ReplyDeleteI'm supposed to respect Matt Damon for admitting that he finds icky guns to be scawwy? I respect talent. Damon is a talented actor. Carrey, but contrast, is just a fool. I was giving him a chance after seeing The Truman Show, but he just can't stop being an idiot. I don't like idiots. I don't spend time with them, and I don't watch them, unless they're particularly good--The Three Stooges, for example.
ReplyDeleteSee, Carrey's video was not funny. It was no more funny than a video showing happy slaves would have been. But beyond that, it was a poorly done knockoff of Hee Haw by someone who clearly doesn't understand the south--that must be why you liked it, Mikeb.
Regarding all this talk about hypocrisy, violence is violence. It doesn't matter what tool is being used. These actors are playing another role, the role of the person who feels guilty about how he makes money and has to waffle about with a pretended apology.
Here are some lines for them:
I play heroes. I play characters who recognize that violence will always be used by evil people and who respond with the violence that is necessary to defend the good. Sometimes, I play villians or ambivalent characters. When I do that, I explore the truth of human nature, and showing such a character requires going into the depths of what some will do to others. The real question is whether the story tells the truth about who we are.
As long as I get a writing credit, those words are available to any actor who needs them for free.
Except Jim Carrey. He has to pay.
Eh, I don't fault them so much for the movies they make. I do fault people like Slyvester Stallone who used his celebrity to gain his own freaking CCW permit. Now THAT is blazing new trails through the Hypocritical Mountains.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know Stallone did that?
Deletehttp://blog.riflegear.com/articles/the-hypocrisy-of-sylvester-stallone.aspx
DeleteYou read it on a gun blog. What a surprise!
DeleteOf course. Who else is going to make a stink about it?
DeleteAre you taking the Laci/Dog Gone approach of when faced with documents of proof, claim it must be forgery. The blogger has some pretty hard documented evidence. It's not just "I heard so and so say..."