Perhaps I'm missing something, but what exactly is the logic here:
Quote:
O'Reilly Boycotts Penn Films Over Political Stance
30 March 2009 5:11 AM, PDT | From wenn.com
Controversial TV pundit Bill O'Reilly has vowed to boycott Sean Penn's movies - insisting he can't watch the actor's big screen projects due to their conflicting political views.
The right-wing commentator, who fronts his own show The O'Reilly Factor on America's Fox News, is well known for his criticisms of liberal celebrities, and has openly mocked left-wing stars Jessica Alba, George Clooney and Rosie O'Donnell.
Now, in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, O'Reilly has admitted he wouldn't pay money to see Oscar-winner Penn's movies due to his involvement with controversial politicians, including Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.
When asked by the publication if there are any actors whose political opinions disturb him so much he wouldn't see their films, he replied, "Just Sean Penn."
And when pushed on the response, O'Reilly explained, "He's a great actor, and if you hire him, you'll get a good performance.
"I'm just not going to give a guy who gives aid and comfort to people like (Iran president Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and Saddam Hussein, when he was alive, my 10 bucks. That's my right as an American."
In 2005, Penn visited Iran acting as a journalist on an assignment for the San Francisco Chronicle and has defended Venezuelan leader Chavez by claiming the U.S. was "becoming increasingly gullible to the demonising of foreign states or leaders".
|
Now, I'm not trying to say that Bill O'Reilly should be held in any high esteem or even be expected to give rational decisions. Rather, I'd just like to use that little article as an example of something I don't quite understand: why must people attribute an actor's opinion with their films?
I might not agree with everything Penn does, but I still watched and enjoyed
Milk. I think Tom Cruise is a laughable dipshit most of the time, but I still thought
Valkyrie was badass. I think Victor Salva is a disgusting human being, but I still find the
Jeepers Creepers films enjoyable. Why? Because I don't expect actors to do anything other than act. Whatever they do outside of the movies I could care less about. If Kurt Russell decided one day to throw a baby out of a window whilst raping a kitten with the American flag, I'd still consider Jack Burton from
Big Trouble in Little China one of the coolest characters ever.
I'm curious what people who won't watch a movie based on an actor's behavior are thinking.
And before you say "well, I don't want to give money to that asshole", consider this:
Quote:
Director Slams Joaquin's...Whatever That Is
SATURDAY, MARCH 28, 2009 AT 2:53PM
Remember when Joaquin Phoenix went on Letterman to promote his new film, Two Lovers, and the only thing peopler were taking about the next day was how Phoenix had gone off the deep end? His erratic behavor and unkempt appearance was suddenly the only headline, and Two Lovers faded into the background.
The disappointment is that Two Lovers is actually a really good film (read our review), and if Phoenix isn't in a frame of mind to properly promote it, then he shouldn't go on talk shows, particularly ones where the host is famous for ridiculing guests. You had to wonder how all of that impacted the cast of the film and director James Gray, especially since the film has failed to attract a lot of box office attention. And now, Gray is questioning Phoenix' state of mind and calling the whole transition to a rap career and the documentary apparently being filmed by Casey Affleck a "circus."
"It’s like, Letterman was trying to get the movie out there, but the only thing that’s out there now is a crazy person with a beard making a fool of himself,” Gray seethes in an interview with The Times. Calling Affleck a "clown," the writer-director adds, “I have no idea what the hell that guy is shooting. The whole thing is not to my taste, and I’ve let Casey know this.”
There are plenty of opinions on both sides of the debate over whether or not this is all a hoax. Gray doubts it's some elaborate scheme, like the one cooked up by Andy Kaufman in the early 1980s that also entered the zeitgeist courtesy of Letterman.
"Towards the end of the movie he kept saying, ‘I’m tired, I’m tired, I don’t want to act any more. I’ve been doing this for 30 years and I can’t take it!’ And I thought, at the time, he was just tired. But I must say, I’ve seen him in his house, and he has his own recording studio that he built right there. So if this is a hoax, then it’s the most elaborate thing that I have ever seen.”
“If it is shown to be a hoax, then that’s great, because Joaquin will come back to acting. And he is something special. But if it isn’t, you know, I think he needs, well, help.”
If you can find it, Two Lovers is still playing in over 100 theaters nationwide, and it's actually fairing better overseas, where it has made about 70% of its total box office.
|
Believe it or not, it's not the actor who benefits most from the movie. Sure, they get a little more on top of their salary if the movie does well, and they might get more parts, but that really doesn't help those other working people whose livelihoods rest on the success of the film.
I feel bad for James Gray. I don't think
Two Lovers was ever going to be a huge success by any means, but I don't doubt that plenty of potential box office receipts were lost thanks to the current public perception of Joaquin Phoenix. It's a shame.
... And that's my rant for the day.