Jim Carrey, not fooling as much as we thought…
There are no rule, laws, or principles of ethics that requires that an actor who usually portrays an ass actually has to be an ass, but if there were, Jim Carrey would be in complete compliance with them.
Jim Carrey announced via Twitter that he now objects to “Kick-Ass 2,” the soon-to-be-released movie he stars in, citing as his reason the December, 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, which he apparently thinks will be made worse by the movie, or would have been caused by it if the film had come out earlier, or, well, something. “I did Kick-Ass a month [before] Sandy Hook and now in all good conscience I cannot support that level of violence,” Carrey tweeted. “I meant to say my apologies to others [involved] with the film. I am not ashamed of it but recent events have caused a change in my heart.”
The film’s producer, artist Mark Miller, reacted predictably to this business betrayal, saying, “I’m baffled by this sudden announcement as nothing seen in this picture wasn’t in the screenplay 18 months ago. Yes, the body-count is very high, but a movie called ‘Kick-Ass 2’ really has to do what it says on the tin.” He might have added that when a film company pays many millions of dollars to a movie star for a project, it is unethical, unprofessional and a likely breach of contract for the star to set out to undermine the film’s success. There is one way Carrey’s turning on his employers and colleagues like this would be barely excusable, and that is if he sent his fee back in a big cashier’s check.
He did not.
What a surprise.
This stunt is repugnant politically-correct grandstanding on Carrey’s part, as he is willing to harm the careers and bank accounts of his co-stars, some of whom probably have percentage deals, to suck up the anti-gun zealots. I can respect an actor who refuses to take on roles that clash with his principles. An actor who accepts a role that offends his principles, accepts large amounts of money to do so, and then says he can’t “support” the project is contemptible, however.
Bulletin to Hollywood studios and producers: you never know when Jim Carrey might have a “change of heart” and decide to screw you and your movie over, once he has cashed his paycheck first, of course.
In an industry stuffed with the self-centered, untrustworthy and ethically challenged, Jim Carrey is still a stand-out.
Not in a good way.
And an ass.
___________________________________
Facts: Rolling Stone
Graphic: Daily Mirror
Ethics Alarms 
How does this man even have time to do movies? For some reason I thought he was busy doing scholarly research regarding the link between vaccines and autism.
Yeah, if it were me, I’d give him the Ethics Dunce for the anti-vac stuff first. But I agree with this.
That ED more or less went to his girlfriend, lovely Jenny, instead: https://ethicsalarms.com/2012/05/31/ethics-quiz-the-jenny-mccarthy-body-count/
I can respect an actor who refuses to take on roles that clash with his principles. An actor who accepts a role that offends his principles, accepts large amounts of money to do so, and then says he can’t “support” the project is contemptible, however.
What if his line of thinking and principles have changed somewhere between doing the movie and it’s release? That’s not an unlikely scenario. Or what if doing the movie is what caused his principles to change in the first place? He completed the contract, and therefore should be paid, but if asked about how he feels about the level of violence or gunfire in the movie, should he lie? Unclear.
Apples and oranges. No one was asking him how he felt about anything here. He made a gratuitous tweet that was going to harm the business interests of others and he did it to morally grandstand.
I agree, well said!
I should have been more clear, I agree with “deery”. If the movie flops in the box office Carey is negatively impacted as well. He did not breach his contract. He simply rethought what he wanted to involve himself with and made it clear that he does not condone such violence. If anything I see his tweet as ethical. Extremely, even!
That’s nonsensical. Did Carrey ask his fellow cast members permission to trash their mutual project and hurt their income and careers? The studio? Exhibitors? If he wants to take a hit himself for “noble purposes”—stupid and naive as this one is—that hsi choice. He has no right sabotaging everyone else. He is already in the film—his role in furthering violence (by his own infantile logic, at least) is complete.
“The tweet is ethical.” Amazing.
I don’t like Jim Carrey, but how is this different from Mandy Patinkin publicly saying that he wished he never did Criminal Minds because it is too violent? I think people like to bash Jim Carrey because he’s obviously an idiot, but I haven’t heard anyone criticize Patinkin for his comments.
I don’t know who Patinkin is so I have no clue if it’s the same thing or not. Even if it is the same thing, why can’t Carrey be called out on his behavior without having to acknowledge anyone else who might have engaged in the same behavior? If Jack wants to write about Patinkin, that is up to him…but this particular post was about Carrey.
I’m not commenting on Jack’s post — I agree with him. My comment is that the public generally loves some actors but criticizes others for the exact same conduct.
Mandy’s method of leaving “Criminal Minds” (which was before EA began, by the way) was outrageous and unprofessional, and he knew it. He has said that expected never to work on TV again. He essentially walked off the show without fair notice, and broke his contract. I could be wrong, but I don’t recall him explaining his weird exit as anything but for “personal reasons” until several years later.
In any event, the differences are pretty material:
1.) Carrey is trashing a product while he is currently in the cast of it, and thus jointly responsible for promoting (actors typically agree to participate and cooperate with promotion.) Leaving a TV show, in contrast, means someone else is taking over the role (in Mandy’s case, Joe Montegna) so what Mandy thought of the show while he was in it but is no longer is very different from trashing a product while you are part of it.
2) Mandy never said that CM was a bad show or that people shouldn’t see it—he said that it was too dark for him, and a mistake for him to undertake in his state of mind. The show is about serial killers—damn right it’s dark! This is like a cast member in a horror movie saying “I’m afraid to watch films like that—it’s too scary for me!” That’s not trashing the product. That’s not saying “I don’t support the success of this project that I am part of.”
Doesn’t it still hurt residuals though? His conduct is not as egregious as Carrey, but I think you could say that Patinkin’s comments still hurt his fellow actors financially if it turned people off from watching the show.
I think any current cast member saying that he or she disapproves of an entertainment product is disloyal, whether it actual hurts the show or not, and has more credibility, and thus is more harmful, because it calls into question the integrity of the enterprise. I can’t imagine anyone’s criticism after they leave a project is taken seriously by anyone. Mostly it reflects poorly on the actor, is taken as sour grapes, and unprofessional conduct.
The show is still in production – they replaced the character and you can still watch new episodes every week…
Because he actively left the show and ceased his participation while not actively stating his reasons. He left the show, the show continued on, and then when asked specifically he answered. He didn’t say the show was wrong, he said that he couldn’t be a part of it.
Jimmy, however, is crapping on something that hasn’t come out yet, and his statement might damage the box office returns.
Mandy did not seek to damage the IP he had been a part of, Jimmy did.
Thanks PP…you said the same thing I did at almost the same time, but more succinctly!
If this is the case, then Mandy also did not have the same narcissistic motives as Carrey. Mandy may have walked away, but he didn’t disengenously try to make himself look like a hero while throwing others under the bus.
Yeah, that was me. Sorry about that…
Personally, Beth, given some of Carrey’s desperate publicity stunts as his career has faded, I’d doubt his sincerity on this to begin with. Remember this, too; Carrey was making a sequel to a film that had featured a then 11 year old girl involved in acts of extreme violence and mind-blowing obscenities… by her! Carrey must have known exactly what to expect on that set before Chloe “Devil Doll” Moretz and her pandering stage mom even set foot on it. And now, Carrey has a conscience attack? I doubt he has one that COULD attack!
What if his line of thinking and principles have changed somewhere between doing the movie and it’s release? That’s not an unlikely scenario. Or what if doing the movie is what caused his principles to change in the first place? He completed the contract, and therefore should be paid, but if asked about how he feels about the level of violence or gunfire in the movie, should he lie?
********
If he feels bad about it, he should not benefit financially from it.
It’s like taking blood money.
I might manage to muster a tiny bit of respect for him if he gave the paycheck for the film to the Sandy Hook Victims’ Fund.
Since he didn’t do that, his remarks are worthless.
He’s just another gas bag celebrity.
Also, he has proven with his past douche comments regarding gun control / violence that he can’t be taken seriously.
He needs to get back on his meds or FO.
His movie is going to fail no matter what, anyway.
I haven’t heard anyone criticize Patinkin for his comments.
********
Well, maybe people still have respect for him.
Maybe he hasn’t become a target because of his big, stupid mouth.
JC has managed to make himself grossly unpopular.
You reap what you sow.
Jim can really make a statement by refusing to accept his Oscar, and instead sends one of his ex gfs children to protect.
*protest
Jim can really make a statement by refusing to accept his Oscar
****************
Bwahahaha
Talking about what was in the script when Carrey accepted the role, given that Carrey explicitly says that his views changed AFTER he finished shooting, is unfair. There’s nothing unethical about changing one’s mind about gun control, violence in movies, or any other issue.
Nor do I think anyone is morally obligated to shut up. An expected norm that people involved with a movie will pretend it’s good no matter what they really think creates a climate of routine deception. Admittedly, it’s routine deception about a trivial matter, so I don’t think there’s much at stake. But I don’t find “he should shut up about his opinions that I disagree with because other people might make less money if he doesn’t shut up” to be a very compelling argument, to say the least. I think encouraging free discourse – and a norm in which people who work together on a project are allowed to act like grown-ups in public, rather than having to childishly pretend to agree on everything – is more important than money. Nor is it likely that Carrey will reduce profits for the movie (By increasing controversy, he will increase publicity for the movie. And it’s hard to imagine that anyone who was going to see “Kick Ass 2” is going to be deterred by the news that it has lots and lots of violence.)
I think Carrey is wrong on the merits, by the way. There is no evidence at all that movies with tons of graphic violence increase violence in the real world. But being wrong on the merits is not unethical, and changing your mind about the issue of violence in movies is not unethical, either.
(There is one way Carrey might be obligated to shut up – if his contract says so. But I don’t know for a fact what his contract says, and neither do you.)
This may be an ignorant view, but I see the producers signing of Carrey to the film as an investment of sorts. They’re paying him a set amount (I assume), banking on the fact that that his “star power” will lead to a large return on investment for them. Carrey took the money, and now knowingly is making comments that will likely have a detrimental effect on revenues. And to what end? It’s fine that Mr. Carrey has changed his views on gun violence in the aftermath of Sandy Hook…but why the grandstanding? Why the Twitter announcement? This wasn’t an honest response to a legitimate question…this was an out of the blue statement, that cannot help but to have a detrimental effect on the movie’s revenues, made at time when (in theory) is contractually obligated to help promote the movies in as good a light as he can. If his current beliefs are interfering with that, then darn right he has an obligation to return a portion of what he was paid.
I’d be curious to know when filming wrapped up, and when he collected his last paycheck….his stance on gun control is certainly not a newfound one, judging from the video he put out months ago…
What a refreshing contrarian take! Unfortunately, leaks abound:
1. It’s highly unlikely, given the original Kick-Ass, that the script of the sequel at any stage was not full of gun violence, or that Carrey didn’t know what he was accepting his paycheck to do.
2. Sure he can change his mind, but that doesn’t make an ambush trashing of a collaborator in a risky financial project ethical. It’s both gratuitous and without the possibility of good results, whatever Carrey, in his muddled egotism, may think. Jim Carrey isn’t going to reduce gun violence by undermining the film, hurting his colleague’s chances to make closer to the money he is making on the film, and betraying their trust. The act fails any utilitarian balance at all, because Carrey is hurting others to make him feel better and, he thinks, look better in the eyes of fellow fools who “changed their hearts” about guns based on one unprecedented incident.
3. I don’t know what his contract says, but I know enough entertainment law to know what most such contracts say on this score: the performer is required to perform reasonable promotional duties, and not to undermine or embarrass the project as whole. What Carrey did is taboo in the performing arts, meaning a violation of professional ethics. For a star to use, or attempt to use, his notoriety to undermine a fellow artist’s work is bad, for him to use it to undermine a collaborator’s work in a joint project is awful, and for him to do this while walking away with the biggest chunk of cash of anyone is despicable. You don’t think so? Ask Millar. Ask Cloe Moritz. Ask the studio. If I have an actor in a play who I learn is trashing it to friends and colleagues, he’s not working for me again, and I will put every other theater on notice. An actor who has wrapped a film is exactly like a cast member of a running play.
4. Whether Carrey’s stunt in FACT hurts the movie is irrelevant….that’s consequentialism. His intent was to hurt the movie and to wish it ill, to see it fail and help it fail—that’s what withholding support means. He gets no ethics points for failing in his effort to be disloyal.
5. This is a breach of TRUST, and obviously so. If the filmmakers didn’t trust Carrey to join with everyone else to make the project successful, they obviously wouldn’t have hired him.
6. So let’s see: the conduct fails a utilitarian test. It is a Golden Rule breach, as any breach of loyalty and trust is. And it fails the Rule of Universality—if everyone did it, all collaborative commercial and artistic efforts would fail. It fails a key Kantian standard: Carrey is using, or abusing, others to make himself look good (he thinks.)
7. And, on top of all this, as you correctly point out, the conduct harms or threatens to harm and intends to harm others without a valid or coherent reason. This is incompetence.
8. Disloyal. Unfair. Breach of trust. Abuse of power. Reckless incompetence. Selfish. Unprofessional.
9. Unethical. Easy, easy call.
If his actions breach his contractual duty to publicize/not harm the movie, is there any possibility of a breach of contract suit? Or is this one of those things where he can get away with it, because any legal action or aggressive criticism by Millar or others involved ends up getting turned around as “Oh, so you don’t care about THE CHILDREN?”
I’ve seen similar lawsuits. I’d have to see the contract to know. Usually studios avoid such things with major stars, which I suppose Carey still is.
1. Irrelevant. Carrey never claims that he wasn’t aware this film was violent; he is saying that since making this film, he has changed his mind about the morality of screen violence. As you’ve agreed, it’s not unethical to change one’s mind.
2. It’s clearly not “without the possibility of good results,” at least for the film’s investors; the continuing news on this story is making it clear that Carrey is (ironically) generating enormous buzz and attention for Kick-Ass 2, far more than he would have if he just did the usual celeb smile-and-nod routine. At this point, the only thing that can kill Kick Ass 2 is if the movie gets terrible word of mouth on the first weekend.
The theory that this harms the movie’s prospects assumes that Americans – or at least, those Americans who buy tickets to low-budget action satire film – are mindless drones who make filmgoing decisions based on obviously irrelevant criteria. In contrast, I think many Americans – and in particular, the geeky/alternative crowd who supported the first Kick Ass movie – are capable of both hearing that an actor in a film questions the film’s morality, while simultaneously deciding for themselves whether or not to see the film.
3. Millar clearly doesn’t think that Carrey is despicable (if we take Millar at his word); his response to Carrey is quite admirable for being civil and friendly to Carrey while disagreeing with Carrey on substance. I wish all of our political discourse was like Millar’s response to Carrey, although I disagree with some of the particular arguments he made.
That’s fair. Carrey has no ethical right to be hired, and future directors can and should take this incident into account.
But suppose that someone does hire Carrey, and he once again talks honestly about how he feels about that movie, rather than doing the bland “everything’s great and swell!” shuck-and-jive routine that you think he should do. Will you make the same complaint then? Or will you say “well, the producers knew in advance that Carrey speaks his mind, so they really have no reason to complain”?
4. You yourself frequently invoke consequences when you’re attacking views you dislike (i.e., citing fictional harm to ” the careers and bank accounts of his co-stars,” saying Carrey’s statements are “without the possibility of good results,” etc.). Your recent post about immigration law is chock-full of appeals to alleged bad consequences. Apparently appeals to consequence are fine and dandy when they support your views, but verboten when they support a view you disagree with.
But more importantly, I reject your rejection of consequentialism. I think there are valid objections to be made to the most extreme versions of consequentialism, but what you are doing is extreme in the other direction, by utterly rejecting the consideration of the predictable effects of one’s actions.
Any reasonable system of ethics must take both means and ends into account; if we don’t take ends into account at all, we wind up saying that it’s wrong to lie to the Nazis searching for the Jews hiding in the attic, because lying is wrong.
Regarding Carrey breaking the expectation of his co-workers, this is by far your strongest argument. You’re right about the current expectations of Hollywood, but those expectations are childish and wrongheaded. They are based on three false premises:
1) The false premise that intelligent adults cannot publicly disagree about an issue without it being some sort of personal betrayal.
2) The false premise that it’s reasonable for an employer to demand that workers never, ever speak publicly about their political opinions if those political opinions might hurt the bottom line. (There are some exceptions to this rule – you can’t be a guidance counselor if you’re constantly in the press trashing Christian teens – but acting is not such a job.) Money is not more important than a culture that encourages a free exchange of ideas.
3) The false premise that the American movie audience is so incredibly vapid that we’re going to refuse to see a movie we’d otherwise enjoy, unless every single person associated with it makes the same bland, boring “gosh, I was so lucky to be able to help make this swell film” public statements that we’ve all been tuning out since we were ten.
In all three cases, instead of lowering our views to match the dismal status quo, we should raise our expectations. We can disagree like reasonable adults (again, Mark Millar did a great job demonstrating what this looks like). We can value free expression over the bottom line. And we can recognize that Americans don’t actually base their movie-going decisions on Jim Carrey’s political opinions.
*Surely you see the distinction between basing an ethical call on before the fact predictable and intended consequences, and justifying conduct based on unpredictable, uncontrollable consequences after the fact. Because your post wouldn’t indicate that.
Carrey intends to harm the movie–that’s what “I don’t support it” means—, and that’s part of his ethical equation whether he succeeds in his designs or not. The fact that his disloyal behavior may have the exact opposite effect that he intends doesn’t affect the ethical verdict on his conduct at all.
**THIS statement: “The false premise that it’s reasonable for an employer to demand that workers never, ever speak publicly about their political opinions if those political opinions might hurt the bottom line. (There are some exceptions to this rule – you can’t be a guidance counselor if you’re constantly in the press trashing Christian teens – but acting is not such a job.) Money is not more important than a culture that encourages a free exchange of ideas”—confuses rights with ethics so thoroughly I don’t have the time to unravel it. A worker whose public statements hurts the bottom line gets fired, and deserves to be. he has no right to work at that job. He has the right to choose expression over loyalty and job obligations, but that’s usually an unethical choice.
***It doesn’t matter whether people pay attantion to Carrey or not. Presumably some anti-gun nuts do, and if he loses the film one ticket, he’s caused harm…and he’s intended harm even if he doesn’t. That makes it wrong.
**** Your question in #3—I’d still feel the same way. The fact that someone allows you to misbehave toward them doesn’t justify the conduct, does it? If a woman takes back an abusive spouse and he beats her senseless, would you say, “Well, she agreed to it, so he’s in the clear?” This is the frog-scorpion (or snake) story—and the scorpion’s “you knew what I was” argument is just a ratioanlization, nothing more.
I hate that story. One more reason I thought “The Crying Game” was crap.
1. That Carrey’s tweets aren’t going to tank, or cause significant harm, to Kick Ass 2 is entirely predictable. That controversy creates publicity is also entirely predictable.
2. “I don’t support it” doesn’t mean “I intend to harm it.” That’s not what those words mean, Jack.
3. I didn’t use the word “rights,” and I didn’t mix up rights with ethics. (I have a legal right to fire my nice, hard-working, capable intern because she’s a Republican and I disagree with Republicans; but to do so would be unethical. See? Perfectly clear distinction.)
4. “A worker whose public statements hurts the bottom line gets fired, and deserves to be. he has no right to work at that job. He has the right to choose expression over loyalty and job obligations, but that’s usually an unethical choice.”
The idea that Carrey “hurt the bottom line” is based on dubious – and I’d say, flatly wrong – assumptions of what controversy does to a film’s bottom line. I agree he has no “right” to that job, but in a good society people could disagree with each other politically (including disagreeing with their employers) without their jobs being threatened.
I can think of exceptions – if someone’s opinions were threatening to put their place of employment out of business, for example – but in general, a more ethical society is one in which people feel free to state their opinions, when not on the clock, without fearing loss of livelihood. Our bosses should judge us on how well we do our jobs, not on what we say on our own time. We’re employees, not serfs.
Finally, disagreeing with gun rights advocates isn’t “misbehavior.” (Neither is agreeing with them, of course).
In spite of what he says, it’s just as naive to accept that Carrey changed his mind about gun control because of Sandy Hook as it is to believe that President Obama “evolved” on the issue of gay marriage just when it was convenient to do so. Does anyone believe that Carrey’s political views about violence in media and/or gun control laws were substantially different before this particular shooting happened? Either
1. Carrey saw Sandy Hook as a chance to grandstand publicly about his long-held gun control opinions, just as most others are doing, or
2. Carrey never gave much thought to the issue at all before, and got caught up in the post Sandy-Hook hysteria along with everyone else.
In either case, Carrey realized that he’s going to look like a grade A hypocrite when this movie releases. His tweet claiming that “oh, I made the film before my heart changed” is just an attempt at image control, nothing noble about it.
I vote for 2. He is, after all, a dolt.
Actors are like lawyers, however—what they appear in isn’t a personal endorsement of the character, the film or play or the writer’s sentiments, and only the ignorant believe otherwise. Lawyers are permitted under the professional ethics rules to have whatever public opinions they choose, as long as it doesn’t harm their representations of current clients. The same applies to actors. If Jamie Foxx wants to make a PSA decrying the gun violence in the culture while anyone can rent movies of him mowing down dozens with semi-automatic weapons, that makes him look silly and undermines his credibility on the issue, but its not strictly unethical—until he starts saying “Don’t watch my movies.”
Issac, Carrey was on record about gun control before Sandy Hook. If I understand Carrey’s argument, he’s saying that Sandy Hook caused him to have a change of heart about violence in media.
Suggesting that Carrey couldn’t be telling the truth about having a change of heart is a purely personal attack, and not one that you’ve supported with rational argument. By making such arguments, you are participating – in a very small way – in an ugly culture of discourse in which personal attacks are the norm. Instead, why not make arguments that attack Carrey’s policy views without attacking his character?
Well, one reason would be Carrey’s offensive statements on the subject:
“Over the weekend, once-superstar comedian Jim Carrey announced he’d be releasing a new song, titled “Cold Dead Hand.” He also announced the gist of the song via Twitter: “‘Cold Dead Hand’ is abt u heartless motherf%ckers unwilling 2 bend 4 the safety of our kids.” …He stated in early February, anyone “who would run out to buy an assault rifle after the Newtown massacre has very little left in their body or soul worth protecting.”
[The video] was a rip on dead former movie star and NRA president Charlton Heston. Carrey played Heston as a moron, a crazy person. Then, posting as a character on Hee Haw, Carrey sang, “His immortal soul may lay forever in the sand, the angels wouldn’t take him up to heaven as he planned, cuz they couldn’t pry his gun from his cold, dead hand.”
Carrey also attacked Heston—who is dead, by the way—by the juvenile attack on his masculinity— “You’re a big big man with a little bitty gland, so you need something bigger with a hairpin trigger.”
And then…“It takes a cold dead hand to decide to pull the trigger. It takes a cold dead heart and as near as I can figure, with your cold dead aim, you’re trying to prove your dick is bigger, but we know that your chariot may not be swinging low.”
And more: “Imagine if the Lord were here and he knew what you’d be thinking, would his sacred heart be sinking into the canyon of despair. And on the ones who sell the guns, he’d sic the vultures and coyotes, only the devil’s true devotees could profiteer from pain and fear.”
Carrey then shows Heston trying to work a rifle in a simulation of masturbation.
Nice. That certainly contributes to a civil debate.
I think it is completely fair to pronounce Carrey a vile child with a big megaphone, and designating him deficient in character and intellect based on the content of his speech is both fair, accurate, and diagnostic. It’s not that his argument is poor because he’s an idiot, but rather that the quality and civility of his argument proves he’s an idiot.
That’s not a personal attack, but a relevant and accurate disgnosis.
I both agree and disagree with you.
I agree that Carrey’s “Cold Dead” video was rude and uncivil (and also – and more damningly, in my view – it wasn’t funny). It certainly doesn’t contribute to a civil debate.
I disagree that we should judge it (or any work of political art) the same way we judge a serious discussion of public events. There’s an ethical obligation to treat people with civility in a face-to-face debate, and in a blog debate, that doesn’t apply to sketch comedy, especially sketch comedy aimed at public figures. (I’d say the same thing about right-wing comedies like “An American Carol”.)
Returning to the argument, however, nothing in that video indicates that Carrey couldn’t have had a change of heart about violence in media between finishing work on KA2 and when he released those tweets. Nor do I believe that because someone has been uncivil in the past, that releases us from all obligations to treat them civilly. (If that was the standard, how many of us could honestly claim we’d never been uncivil, or made a jackass argument?)
You are kind to give that video rant the benefit of an “art” designation, and I’d say unduly so. It was just name calling. The fact that Carrey, a comedian, chose a particular way to send his message doesn’t mean we have to excuse the implications of the message (that is, the guy who mad this is an ass), any more than an obnoxious and unfair political cartoon is any better than the equivalent editorial. I see no reason why we can’t judge Carrey’s character from the fact that he uses gutter level arguments and insults, and attacks a man who can’t defend himself (and who never had any position regarding the response to Sandy Hook, obviously) rather than actual facts here and elsewhere. TThat it was done in the guise of satire doesn’t mean it’s not serious.
I don’t see why it is important to you whether Carrey changed his mind or not. He’s in the film, it’s being sold, he’s unethical to try to undermine it. There’s nothing wrong with an actor performing in a movie, play or role that he disagrees with personally, but trying to sabotage a project Carrey’s been paid to enhance is wrong regardless of his position on gun violence.
Of course there is no reason not to judge it. Even if it is art.
All art is is message communication, sometimes more artful and less direct, sometimes less direct and more artful. Carrey’s song of Charleton Heston is far more direct than most and this easier to discern the message. An obviously uncivil one.
Art doesn’t get a pass on commentary.
I think it’s really, really lousy art – I see absolutely no worth in it – but it’s art. For me the designation “art” has nothing to do with quality; that something is art doesn’t mean it’s any good at all.
I didn’t say that because something is art means we can’t judge it. I did say that I don’t hold satire to the identical standard of civility I’d hold an op-ed, and I’ll stick by that. For an op-ed to call Gerald Ford a stumbling idiot would be a silly personal attack; for Chevy Chase to do the same thing in sketch comedy is quite a different matter.
Yeah…
I’m not sure if the lyrics of Carrey’s song quite equate to a silly personal attack like Chevy Chase portraying Gerald Ford as a stumbling idiot in sketch comedy.
The level of incivility somewhat outweighs the abstraction of this being a comedian doing a ‘routine’.
True enough. Lord knows I’m largely bereft of the finer things, like civility or humanity…
However, my HOME has a number of things worth protecting, so if you folks don’t mind I’ll go back to shopping for an AR-type weapon to go beside my 9mm S&W pistol and my semi-auto 12-gauge shotgun.
Suggesting that Carrey couldn’t be telling the truth about having a change of heart is a purely personal attack, and not one that you’ve supported with rational argument…”
Ampersand, regretfully I stopped taking you seriously after this. I did not, and cannot, say for certain that Carrey isn’t telling the truth about his conveniently-timed change of heart. He always has the benefit of a doubt. A tiny, tiny doubt.
However, I am not required to be stupid in order to be civil. Carrey has brayed about how even the nicest, noblest people who own guns are violent and evil. This role makes him look like a hypocritical fool. He has a convenient explanation for this, which no one has asked him for. He almost certainly did not have a sudden change of heart, and suddenly feel bad about the movie that he spent months filming.
It is not uncivil to point out the most obvious reason for a thing.
Incidentally, Carrey loved the 1st ultraviolent Kick-Ass movie so much that he cosplayed it on television. This was before he even had anything to do with the sequel. But sure, he hates violence in movies now. Because of Sandy Hook. Not because to do otherwise subjects him to mockery because of his anti-gun rants.
From Deadline, more on JC:
http://www.deadline.com/2013/06/opinion-jim-carreys-refusal-to-promote-kick-ass-2-is-a-cop-out-even-if-it-has-elevated-interest-in-an-underdog-sequel/
Jim Carrey was quite vociferous in his opinions regarding the vaccine issue…a serious issue with life or death consequences. I have looked for any comments he has made pertaining to his continued study and research of this issue since the break up of he and McCarthy. I could be mistaken but I can’t find anything suggesting that this is a cause in which he still finds important. This leaves me to believe that his real interests had much more to do with McCarthy than any true belief about vaccines. Vaccines then…guns now. I think he will take up a cause (wrong or right) which he feels will end up benefiting him.
Ya think??
Yep! I do.