I’ve noticed that left-wingers tend to get even more bent out of shape by stuff like this than right-wingers do, which is kind of funny considering the lefties are supposedly the “tolerant ones.” I mean geez, Mike Nelson makes some offhand comment about raising his kids in a Christian home and that alone sets off the Creepy Alarm? If even the slightest hint of religion bothers you that much, I’d say you’re just a weeeee bit on the sensitive side.
I’m a pretty conservative guy, so if I let the politics or religious beliefs of celebrities get to me I’d hardly be able to enjoy anything. I disagree with Johnny Depp on pretty much every political issue, but he’s still one of my favorite actors. Why should he not be? And while I think Scientology is a load of crap, I don’t see why I should avoid seeing a movie with Tom Cruise or Travolta if the movie interests me.
An earlier poster made a good point: would those of you who avoid movies based on celebrities’ beliefs extend that avoidance to literature and music? Many great writers and musicians held extreme beliefs or were just assholes in general; should we avoid all their works because of that? Now, if a certain work actively promotes a belief you disagree with, then by all means avoid that particular work. But I don’t see the point in dismissing everything a person does because of a certain political or religious issue.
That being said, beliefs are one thing, actual criminal behavior is another. One poster mentioned O.J. Simpson – while his presence isn’t going to stop me from enjoying my copy of The Naked Gun again, I would never pay to see a new film starring him (if anyone were crazy enough to make one). The only other person I can think of along those lines would be Roman Polanski, gifted director and child rapist. So yes, at that point I do draw the line.
Maybe I over-reacted a tad. Coulda been bad timing, I don’t know.
It’s not like I’m going to torch my MST3K collection!
For many years, you very rarely heard about celebs and their personal beliefs like you do nowadays.
For some reason, I have seen celbes, by the very nature of their celebrity, to be religion-neutral. After all, they are thriving in the very pit of evil.
For the most part, I don’t care. Even for really, really serious stuff, like Polanski. I guess what squeezes him past the cut is that the eight bucks I paid for The Pianist isn’t going to be used to finance his underage-child-sex-ring. At least, not so far as I know. If OJ Simpson were in a new movie that was supposed to be really, really good, I’d probably see that, too, because I’m not supporting his habit of murdering wives with my ticket. I’m not saying that making a good movie excuses anything at all, just that I view seeing movies by evil men to be, at worst, morally neutral.
As for wacky beliefs or politics, I don’t really care. A lot of celebrities are really, really stupid. When I find out that an actor I like is a Scientologist, I feel more or less the same way I do when an actor I like acts like a dumbass on Letterman. Some actors are fools who believe any damn thing. But since I’m not going to the box office to listen to their beliefs, it doesn’t really detract from my ability to enjoy their work.
The one exception was a snippet of an interview I read with the woman who plays Ray Romano’s wife on Everyone Loves Raymond, where she revealed that she was a fairly fervid fundamentalist Christian. Which I have no problem with. But she was also avidly awaiting the Apocalypse. That was something I just couldn’t wrap my head around. I mean, she doesn’t have to wait until the world ends to get into heaven, right? She just has to believe in Jesus and then die. So why not hope that the whole world keeps on spinnin’, and as many people as possible have the chance to be saved? That just squicked me out, but since I don’t watch her show in the first place, it didn’t really affect my viewing habits.
For me it depends on how much I like the movie and weather the artist in question is the star or has a minor roll. OK, I think Scientology is silly, but it won’t stop me from seeing Travolta again. I think Susan Sarandon is way out in left field, but I enjoy Rocky Horror way too much to stop going to midnight runs.
Now I do draw the line on behavior as opposed to beliefs. I will never pay to see Mike Tyson box, nor will I rent a Roman Polanski film let alone see one in the theater. I will not put money in the pocket of someone whose behavior I disagree with. This means I have no problem neither listening to Wagner nor renting Triumph of the Will or Birth of a Nation.
Wagner was a lot worse than just a sexist. He was an anti-Semite and was considered to be the unofficial composer of the Third Reich (although, of course, he was dead by then). He also wore gloves when conducting music composed by Jews.
Hard to say. Wayne’s World feels a lot more like the sketches it was based off of. Same humor, same characterization, just with more (some?) plot. Stuart Saves His Family is not much at all like the sketches it was based off of. Stuart, although basically the same character, is a lot more sympathetic, and the movie spends a lot of its time exploring his family dynamics and why he ended up the pathetic new-age wimp he is today. And, he experiences actual character growth, becoming, by the end of the movie, a new age wimp you can respect. Which is what makes this movie, and both Blues Brothers and Wayne’s World, decent movies: the film doesn’t have contempt for its characters. Most SNL movies treat their stars like circus freaks, who are made to dance for the enjoyment of the audience. By contrast, the Jake and Elwood were clearly the sort of person Dan Aykroyd and Jon Belushi wanted to be: inconveiably cool and laid back blues musicians. Wayne and Garth both seem like exactly what you’d expect Mike Myers and Dana Carvey to have been like as teenagers. And Stuart Smalley is treated similarly. He’s a mess, and a joke, but the film has a great deal of sympathy for how he ended up like this, and you can’t help but genuinely pull for him to overcome his own problems and maybe help his family out with some of theirs.
All of which sounds awfully high-falutin’ for an SNL movie, which I think ultimatly damaged any chance it had at success, because it makes an attempt (succesfully, IMO) to engage the audience emotionally. Generally speaking, I think anyone going to see a movie based off an SNL sketch is going to be turned off by that, and anyone who is looking for that kind of movie is going to automatically disregard anything with the name “Lorne Michaels” on it.
There. I’ve either helped re-vitalize interest in an unjustly overlooked gem, or permanently crippled my reputation as a CS poster.
Since when? Patricia Heaton is a Presbyterian. Pro-life, but otherwise I can’t see what qualifies her as a fervid fundamentalist anything.
As to beliefs, I won’t pay to see a film if doing so means that I have inadvertantly given money to an organization or individual I find abhorrent. First and foremost on that list are the murderers of Scientology. I refuse to see films by Roman Polanski or Michael Moore. It’s been years since I’ve felt moved enough to pay to see Susan Sarandon or Alec Baldwin on film and I don’t foresee that changing.
But then, I uninstalled a really nifty piece of freeware the other day because it came complete with a snarky political commentary from its developer. I don’t tolerate much.
I don’t think “perceive” and “how you see them” are the words you’re looking for. You want to know if it would cause me to like or dislike them? Yes it would. But I can usually separate the art from the artist, so no big deal for me.
Can’t stand Barbra Streisand because she’s so caustic in her politics. I don’t own a Streisand album nor will I ever buy one. I read with glee that she’s been ordered to pay a boatload of dough in legal fees to the environmentalist she sued for publishing photographs of the Malibu coastline. Her grievance? The photos included pictures of HER property and because she’s a celebrity, her need for privacy exceeds that of the common man; coastal erosion be damned! And then she bitches and moans about the special-interest, elitist Republicans. All pigs are equal, Babs.
Well, there’s Shirley MacClaine, the tooti-fruittiest froot loop that ever graced the silver screen.
If OJ ever made another movie, I could not buy a ticket because in some miniscule way, the money would go to him. Ditto Roman Polanski.
Other than extreme loony or criminal behavior, I don’t care who celebrities endorse or don’t endorse or what they believe in. It galls me to no end that a celebrity who becomes associated with a cause somehow becomes qualified to testify before Congress about it. For every celebrity that testifies, there must be a dozen people a thousand times more qualified to speak but Congress likes to gush over celebrities as much as anyone else.
It doesn’t sound that bad. After all, if he were Jewish, he’d say, “We raise our children in a Jewish home.”
I’ve read Mike’s books and essays. He doesn’t come off as a funda-loony or whatever. I think he’s probably Protestant, but his wife, Bridget Jones (no, not THAT one) was raised Catholic.
I hear you there. The “Free Speech” protesters only seem to come out of the woodwork when the material under threat of censorship (by whatever means) in offensive to conservative, family-values types.
I’ve largely recovered from my teenage flirtation with conservativism, and think of myself these days as fairly centrist on most issues. But the hypocrisy of the so-called “Free Speech” movement disgusts me.
Remember the attitudes that came to the surface when conservatives blasted the film The Last Temptation of Christ (which I liked, by the way)? “How dare you try to prevent me from seeing this film! I’m a free American citizen, and I’ll watch whatever I want! How dare you suggest that I’m not capable of differentiating between history, theology, and art, or that simply watching this film might be somehow dangerous! What kind of Orwellian world do you think this is?”
Then when Mel Gibson released The Passion of the Christ, the message was somewhat different. “Movies like this should never be released! This is a film with a bigoted, racist, and inflammatory message! People who watch it might be influenced to do terrible deeds! I saw it with a bunch of people who think just like I do and we were all offended! It will stir up hatred and resentment!”
Double-standard, anyone?
Anyway, to curb this post before it becomes Pit material, I am usually not bothered too terribly by celebrities’ personal lives/beliefs/causes. Just as I am usually not bothered too terribly by celebrities’ off-screen personalities. Some of my favorite actors are people I probably would not like at all in real life. But I can stay just detached enough to enjoy watching them perform.
Everyone in the Madonna web communities divides up into:
People who fantasize about lurking on the steps of the Kabballah Centre and waiting until she emerges, when they will throw a pillowcase over her head and kidnap her to be Deprogrammed;
“OMG I bought The Power Of Kabballah and it makes soooooooo much sense! Kabballah has changed my life! I wish everyone was as rich as me so they could all attain enlightenment!”
The beleaguered who “don’t care about her personal life”;
and the curious who are caught in the middle. It’s a mess.
I’m more concerned with celebrities who push their beliefs on people rather than the beliefs themselves. I’ll overlook the fact that some celebrities (Jimmy Page, for instance) have beliefs I find odd if the person doesn’t run around trying to convert everyone to his way of thinking. Militant crusader types turn me off regardless of their beliefs and I agree that being a celebrity doesn’t give a person special wisdom about social and political issues. And I will refrain from seeing movies or buying music made by someone who offends me (Chrissy Hynde comes to mind here.)
Hell, I don’t know. I couldn’t even remember her real name. All I remember is that she was looking forward to Armageddon. Maybe that’s not “fervid,” but it sure sounds freakin’ bizarre to me.
Funny. I can’t listen to Cat Stevens ever since I listened to Cat Stevens.
It’s only a double-standard if it’s the same people in both groups. If liberal A got pissed about the attempts to ban Last Temptation, and liberal B got pissed about Mel Gibson’s The Passion, that would not be a double standard, because neither liberal speaks for liberalism as a whole. For the record, as a liberal, I was equally annoyed by both controversies.
I do have to admit that the two above cited Christ films at least supplied some basis for the protests they sparked. Although I don’t think Gibson intended his film to be anti-Semetic, I can see how it could be interpreted that way. However, you would have to be pretty stupid to think Life of Brian or Dogma were anti-Christian, and yet many conservative groups (distinct, of course, from all conservatives as a whole) protested both those movies on just those grounds. I can’t think of a similarly idiotic liberal outcry about any movies, though I’d love to be informed otherwise.
