There, now, see? See the power of creative thinking? This would absolutely work, and has no moral downside. THIS is the way to work things out!
Hmm… You know, after a little reflection, I realize just how pervasive the dislike of a person’s image could be.
And movies are about images. I mean, literally, there must be hundreds of thousands of images in there. Movies ARE images, or groups of them.
If you tend to partition your images effectively, it’s fine, but if they tend to bridge gaps between the partitions, the whole suspension of disbelief thing just fails. I don’t mean to boycott Tom Cruise movies; it’s just that there’s too much in them that reminds me of Tom Cruise.
I think it’s subconscious. I mean, really, you can’t seriously say many of his EARLY movies were any good. “Collateral” is a hell of a lot better than “Days of Thunder.” His most famous pre-Scientology work, “Top Gun,” has been justifiably described as the worst hit movie ever made.
Will Smith is not a Scientologist.
Acting is about pretending. Actually, acting is pretending. As long as the person is what I consider a legitimate expert pretender it really doesn’t matter to me if they’re the biggest commie-pinko-douchebag in the universe. As long as they don’t let their personal opinions slip into their performance, because that is a total betrayal of their craft, then I can accept them as actors.
Sometimes its over before it begins. Denzel Washington, who I think is an excellent, Oscar-deserving thespian, so too often takes roles that basically consist of ‘black guy gets shafted by whitey and gets revenge’. I can’t even begin to consider his performance in such films knowing that he took the role specifically to make a political statement.
Tom Cruise doesn’t bother me one bit. I just find Scientology such utter nonsense on the order of a Dr Seuss story that I don’t consider it meaningful. Anyone stupid enough to fall for it doesn’t deserve fear or ridicule, just pity. Same goes for Travolta.
I though Cruise’s performance in Spielberg’s War of the Worlds was fantastic. And even Tim Robbins’ performance, with it including that line about occupations always failing, didn’t bother me because it fit into the story and his character (i.e. a nutcase).
The only films I would refuse to see would be things like Michael Moore documentaries, which are such biased, lying, treasonous, shams that they insult the intelligence of anyone with half a brain.
I’ve always separated the two. I don’t care if Ted Nugent supports the NRA, or if Tom Cruise supports Scientology, or if Tim Robbins supports outlawing handguns.
Likewise, I don’t care who Sandra Bullock’s soon to be ex-husband is fucking, or what Brangela is doing today.
I don’t know these people, and I will probably never go out and have a beer with any of them.
They provide an entertainment service to me which is the extent of our relationship. I care about their personal lives exactly as much as they care about mine.
I think Morgan Freeman had some advice for Denzel in this movie(at 3:30) about that 
If Ann Coulter and Michael Moore both wrote novels, would you buy them both, helping them both get richer and enabling them both to spread their message more?
I have no interest in giving my money, even a miniscule part of it, to someone who’s views I abhor. Why would I want to support them financially when I don’t support them morally?
I think that is the point for those who share the view in the OP. If Ann Coulter and Michael Moore each wront a novel that I was interested in, I’d buy them. I wouldn’t buy them to balance the two views, the views are irrelevent.
Exactly!
The only time I get upset about a performer’s political views is when it is shoved down my throat without my permission.
If I go to a concert, I want to hear the music. Or, see the performance.
I paid for that.
When an “artist” decides to make a political speech instead of give me what I have paid for… I get cheesed off.
Big time.
If a patient pays money to see me, get my opinion, have me do what I am trained to do, and paid to do, I would never in a million years presume to take their time to wax lyrical about MY politics.
While I don’t see Cruise films anymore because his Scientology craziness/couch jumping, merely being a Scientologist doesn’t elicit a boycott.
Cruise has lifted the curtain to such an extent that I can no longer buy him as a character (or opened the door to the closet as the South Park guys might say). Even if the script is good, the director is right, if Cruise is in it, I will probably pass. I still haven’t seen Valkerie despite loving the work of Bryan Singer. Hard enough picturing Cruise as a character…but add on a German accent? WOAH!
But I know it is not his belief in Scientology that has affected me, but rather his behavior in promoting those beliefs. He’s such a smug know it all. I keep picturing his lecturing Matt Lauer or bashing Brooke Shields. What an ass.
Yet, I enjoy the works of other who are part of Scientology. I loved “My Name Is Earl” and that was a veritable grabbag of LRons.
Hell, if Travolta came out with a good movie, I’d see it. He starred in two of my top 25 films of all time (Primary Colors, Get Shorty). Sure, Travota is as big a part of the cult as Cruise, but I’ve never seen him wag his finger or be offensive about it. He seems like a nice guy. He seems to love his family. He’s always pleasant on talk shows. I’ll leave his spiritual life to him.
He simply believes that some alien polluted the world with evil and machines can suck it out. Big deal. Personally, I believe that an omnipotent deity impregnated a virgin with a child who lived without sin, died, and was resurrected to act as salvation for all the sins of mankind. There were even some demonically possessed swine and wine bashes along the way.
Who am I to judge the faith of another?
I have friends with a wide range of beliefs. I would not sooner blame a Catholic for the pedophilia of priests, so why would I blame a Scientologist for the wrongs of their organization? It’s when they carry the banner that they lose me.
The only boycotts I have in place are on Barbra Streisand and Freddie Prinze, Jr. Streisand is so incredibly unlikeable; in her politics (I even vote Democratic most of the time) and her behavior (she seems to think she is a goddess on Earth). As for Freddie? Well, I was just tired of watching bad films.
I won’t watch documentaries by directors whose views I don’t like, but the only actors I boycott are ones I find obnoxious personality-wise, not for their beliefs.
I saw it but I don’t think he did an accent. His character heiling with a tiny stump was incredibly over the top though…
I feel sorry for people like that, they’re missing out on some damn good movies. To be frank, hearing someone say they’d refuse to watch Chinatown or Repulsion for such a reason would just make me think they don’t care much about cinema.
Me, I don’t get this in reference to any given movie star’s politics: knowing Juliette Lewis is a Scientologist, for instance, doesn’t diminish the pleasure of seeing her in Husbands and Wives (oh darn, another of those pesky verboten Woody Allen films). Directors and writers are different, though, given the way their views of things can permeate a work more than a single performance could show.
Is that even possible??**
I don’t get it either. I know some people who refuse to eat at Chick-fil-A because the owners are devout Christians who close all their restaurants on Sundays. That’s it. Seriously.
He drugged and raped a child. I cannot in good conscience give money to such a man for something as petty as a few hours entertainment. If that means I “don’t care much about cinema”, so be it.
There are a handful of celebrities who I refuse to support with my money. Simple as that. Roman Polanski is one, because he’s a disgusting child-raping bastard. Sean Penn is another, because he was abusive to Madonna during their marriage (whatever your feelings on Madonna, no woman deserves spousal abuse).
But it’s not as simple as that.
Your friends have some problem with this Christian attitude, I assume.
Well, if your friends continue to eat there, that means they are giving the owners money. The owner’s wealth will increase, thus giving them more discretionary income to spend on lobbyists. Lobbyists who might push a law urging that no fast food place can be open on Sunday. CfA owners can push the law on 2 fronts and feel good about it: it helps them financially by shutting down their competitors 1 day a week just like they shut down 1 day a week, and it promotes their Christian ideology, which offends your friends so. They can spend more money, thanks to your friends patronizing their business, on elected officials who espouse views much like their own fundamentalist Christian views (the same views that your friends don’t care for much).
Giving someone money to spend on promoting views you find abhorrent is stupid, IMO. I try not to do it.
Do you donate to the presidential campaign of the guy you aren’t going to vote for?
Well, so long as you own up to it, that’s fine. (Though of course you could just, y’know, rent the films from a library. As I understand it, that wouldn’t mean giving him any significant amount of your money.)
I guess some people are just more concerned about child rape than they are about cinema. Heartbreaking, I know.
As for me, I’ve seen a couple of Polanski’s movies on TV or from the library but I’ve never paid money for one, and I don’t think I ever would. If he’d done his time then I might feel otherwise, but I’m not going to support him as a fugitive from justice. I can understand how others might find his crime so repulsive and upsetting that they not only refuse to pay Polanski their money but would rather just not watch his films at all, because knowledge of his behavior would ruin whatever enjoyment they might otherwise get out of them. In the case of Chinatown I think it would be particularly difficult to push Polanski’s crime out of mind, since the rape of a teenage girl is an important plot point.