Stephe96, I was just about to post that myself. Here’s a little more of his tirade taken from tennessean.com:
George Clooney went bananas at the Berlin Film Festival in Germany when a Turkish journalist called his latest film, Solaris, ‘‘boring.’’
‘‘I find you fascinating,’’ Clooney snapped. ‘‘You crack me up, man. You just wanted to get up and be a rat, you know that? You just wanted to get up and say something rotten. What a jerk! I mean honestly, you know, what a (expletive) thing to say!’’
Sheesh…Get panned much, George? Don’t get me wrong, I like Clooney, but he really needs to get a grip.
Yep, Clooney’s a jerk, all right. Making fun of someone’s Alzheimer’s Disease is OK…but criticize the critically-panned, box-office bomb, “Solaris?” Why, now THAT’S a really “(expletive deleted) thing to say!”
I’d suggest that nobody go to see any of Clooney’s movies…but I sense that would be rather redundant.
Stephe96, you do not explain the context of that incident. This was not a reporter expressing an opinion in a column or review. Clooney was holding a press conference and the reporter simply stood up and said he thought his movie was boring. No question, just an opinion. Clooney didn’t object to him having an opinion; he objected to the propriety of the reporter taking a cheap shot at the film in a venue that was designed for something other than Slamming the Movie Star.
If Clooney had no problem with the reporter having an opinion, why didn’t he just say so? Is everyone just supposed to suck up to Mr. Movie Star all day long?
I see, so if I run into Robin Williams at the coffee shop and say, “You know, your movies suck”, then that’s OK. Or I show up at a movie premiere and walk up to the director afterwards and say, “Thanks for the invite–too bad the movie was terrible”, then I guess that’s OK. Or if I get an opportunity to attend a press junket and stand up and say, “You know, I have nothing of value to contribute; I’d just like to say your movie was a monumental waste of time”, then that’s OK.
YMMV, but even though I have a right to say any one of those things in those circumstances, I don’t sound like any less of a jerk for exercising that right.
It was a press conference! Members of the press are encouraged to ask questions! You say the reporter didn’t phrase his comment as a question, OK. Does that really change what Clooney was reacting to? Would you feel better if the reporter had said, “Mr. Clooney, ‘Solaris’ was a HUGE box-office bomb in the US and many critics, myself included, found it very boring. Comment?”
Call me crazy, but something tells me Clooney would’ve reacted exactly the way he did…
What I infer from reading that story is that he got pissed at the guy b/c he was attacking the work of his friend Steven Soderberg, so it falls in line with what other posters have said about he being famously loyal. I don’t see anything wrong with that.
Ignoring for the moment that (i) this isn’t quite what Heston said (Heston’s actual response – essentially, that ethnic diversity can lead to tension and, ultimately, violence – is entirely defensible and, indeed, difficult to dismiss in light of recent events in Serbia, etc.) and (ii) it was the product of a Michael Moore ambush, no, that comment, as you’ve incorrectly stated it, is not okay. No one is saying it is.
I will happily stipulate for the sake of argument that Heston is a great big jerk with offensive viewpoints and who probably kicks cute puppies for fun. The point is that (i) mocking a person based on the effects of a debilitating desease is tacky and low-class, and (ii) mere disagreement over political issues is not justification for those types of remarks. Those points are valid regardless of whether Heston is a saint or an ass.
I thought Clooney’s “head of the NRA” crack was funny, but he should’ve known better than to crack it in public – if only for his own sake. Really, people, is there anyone who has never relished an ill-advised sick joke at a celeb’s expense? …Think hard, now. Princess Di? Rock Hudson? Be honest.
As for his arrogant tirade at the German press conference, that doesn’t reflect well on him, admittedly. [Although it’s quite possible he was suffering from jetlag (at the very least) at the time.] I think a bit of perspective is called for here. Most people say things and act in ways they regret on occasion, myself included. One incident falls far short of an ingrained pattern, after all. At least we’ve learned that he’s a generous tipper.
We’re five pages into this silly argument, and no one’s mentioned Clooney’s work as the principle organizer of the Hollywood-driven fundraising concert for 9-11 rescue workers (and other victims). It was Clooney’s project, people. His idea, his frenetic efforts to make it happen, and his friends (like Julia Roberts) pitching in. And anybody who initiates a public discussion or debate over Clooney’s character in such a blatantly one-sided fashion, without referring to that fundraiser, deserves to be suspected for his motives, IMHO.
I think Clooney’s a great guy, funny as hell (who usually comes across as grounded and, if anything, coolly self-deprecating), politically conscientious, and a very good actor and a magnetic personality who, refusing to rest on his laurels, continues to push himself to further as many varied and interesting projects as he can. Long may his standard wave!
Finally, this has to be one of the least worthy “tempests in a teacup” I’ve seen in quite awhile, both on these boards and in the [tabloid] media. I’ve observed that Clooney’s most pointed and determined detractors (in both arenas) are known for their ideological enthusiasm for right-wing stances.
Their campaign – dare I say, conspiracy? – to take Clooney down a notch or two is all the more mystifying, given the abundance of more deserving, powerful, and socially relevant targets for public scrutiny within the Beltway and the Fortune 500. I couldn’t venture to guess whether the mentality of Clooney’s shrillest critics is more fairly defined by willful blindness, ignorance, or historical amnesia, but I think there’s definitely something wrong with them.
No, what’s definitely wrong is the hypocricy rampant among Clooney’s gosh-aw-gee-ain’t-he-a-wonderful-guy defenders. Had a right winger made a crack at a public gathering, before the press, about Sarah Brady—something along the lines, say, of “You know why Sarah Brady has lung cancer? Because she deserves it.”—you and the others here who are writing apologetics for Clooney would be crucifying them.
The difference between Clooney and other targets isn’t his political activism or his target, the difference is his CHARACTER.
The fact you don’t think his character is defined by his actions tells me there’s something wrong with you.
Stephe-because he wasn’t there to give his opinion. He was there to interview. There’s a difference.
I do NOT agree with what Clooney said about Heston-although, if what the other cite says is true, he didn’t say he deserves whatever he gets-he said he’s going to get hit because he’s a public figure.
I say with Clooney, the good outweighs the bad. Someone else may disagree. Such is life.
Clooney defenders: Imagine if your grandfather or grandmother had this horrible disease and some stranger on the street or in a bar said that about them, what would you do? Would it depend on how handsome they are or the twinkle in their eye?
The proper thing to do would be for one of Heston’s children or grandchildren to go find Mr. Clooney and and teach him how to show some respect.
Ha ha. But seriously, Skillet, you might not be aware, but editing quotes to make it sound like someone said something they didn’t is agains the rules around here.
I don’t care-I think it’s funny, just saying that the mods might say something.
(I’m just saying I’m not convinced that George is a complete and total asshat on the basis of a few snarky comments. If that were the case, some of the things I’ve said in the Pit would definite land me the title of Queen Asshat.)
Quite right. Sarah Brady – who I suspect you’re using as an example for her political activism for the cause of gun control – became famous through tragedy (the gunning down of her husband, who continues to suffer from his brain injury from Hinckley’s attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan) and subsequently used her social clout to rally support for a modest reform of handgun-related laws.
Since she’s a public figure and all that one certainly has the right to disrespect her in print, but who would want to? My guess is, only the most rabid of NRA gun nuts – who have to take their lumps in public fora, such as it is, when the insults directed at them related to their political activity and high public profiles. Such as Heston’s. (Caveat: I don’t think Clooney’s joke was called for. Funny, yes, but inappropriate and “sick”.)
That is where you are 100% wrong and both distort and elide my argument. Perhaps I should have been more clear: Clooney’s sick joke and press conference outburst were unfortunate, but, ultimately, merely regrettable. Certainly nothing worth dragging public stockade and pillory into the public square for. Whereas Clooney’s post-911 fundraising and his (to me, anyway) most welcome career as an actor/producer/director (sometimes of projects attempting artistic merit, with no realistic commercial expectations whatsoever) are the stuff of his actions, and (that Batman sequel excepted) entirely laudable.
And you didn’t answer my implied question from before, RikWriter: how can anyone fashion a “debate” over the merits of someone’s character without taking all we know of his character into account, and not just the selectively culled incident or two that you dredge up? You are simply going too far with your character assassination efforts. It is one thing to say, “this incident happened, and I didn’t care for it at all” and another to use said incident to argue that the person in question has no character altogether. It is a question of perspective, fairness, and honesty. And it is worth repeating that the incidents you guys are debating consist of a few ill-chosen words – namely, a sick joke and a public tantrum. Words, not deeds.
Perhaps, in an effort to gain some perspective on the Clooney character issue, it would be worthwhile to run down an over-the-top list of unquestionably immoral, problematic, and (mostly) legally actionable misdeeds (in no order whatsoever) that George Clooney has, as far as I know, avoided thus far, but which have their Hollywood and music-industry exemplars, most of whom currently as free as a bird:
Beating up a woman.
Beating up on paparazzi.
Settling out of court, for reportedly molesting a child.
Being a drug addict.
Being an alcoholic.
Going into court-mandated rehab, only to fail (often repeatedly).
Collecting child porn.
Killing a girlfriend, spouse, ex-spouse, mistress, or casual acquaintance.
Committing vehicular homicide while under the influence.
Seducing underage girls or boys.
Rape.
Treating people like used Kleenex; i.e., rapidly cycling through a number of short-term marriages.
Failing to meet his obligations as a father.
Cheating on a spouse.
Treating the woman in his life with generalized disrespect.
Cheating a business partner or client.
Hey, I said the list was over-the-top. And yet you can probably think of at least one celebrity for (most, or even all) of those categories. And again, it’s a question of perspective.
Somehow, in a world where celebrities like O.J. Simpson, Matthew Broderick (vehicular homicide, from the late '80’s, I think) and God knows how many drug-using actors manage to avoid jail altogether (when their non-famous ilk get slammed by the federally-mandated minimum sentencing laws for the same drug offences), the Hollywood celebrity who gets singled out for allegedly having no character is… George Clooney? Because he cracked a sick joke and a lost it in a public tirade? You must be kidding.
