Hollywood Hypocrisy at its Finest

This is called writing fiction and acting out a story... the same principal that makes it possible for Matt Damon to speak out against guns, yet use them religiously in the Bourne series, or Sir Anthony Hopkins to not condone cannibalisn, but play one at the same time. It is a movie, relax and enjoy ylthe show.

For some reason movies are always from the point of view of middle and upper income people. The concerns of low income people are apparently irrelevant.

Yes, this is a form of hypocrisy. However, it has the slightest redeeming value that it brings the issue to society's attention.
In truth, no one, CEO's, musicians, athletes, bankers, etc. should be allowed to accumulate such ridiculously large amounts of wealth. Much as communism was not executed as it was theoretically described, neither does our "free market" function without its internal manipulations.

[deleted]

I often wonder about that, too: The corporate big earners are greedy vs. honest and supremely talented and kind artists who 'deserve' every penny they make ie millions and millions narrative. Your friends response is exactly the response that I often hear and read when others play devil's advocate. I think it has to do with art - just the concept of art - and "creating" something (not like a bridge, a building or a house ... or even kids) but the whole ego boost of being an "ah-tist" and creating culture. It seems, deep down, if they don't make movies the entire Western civilization will implode, because, goodness forbid, the world will be starved of culture (like Monet paintings, ballets, operas and symphonies don't exist). It's hugely funny and at the same time quite sad.

I have family who work/have worked in corporate America and it isn't an easy job, at least mentally and psychologically. No one "hates" their job as well; some may be indifferent to it, but I haven't known anyone who looks out the winder wants to fly away. For the most part they're good at what they do and there is more devil in the details in their job than what most actors put into their acting.

What I liked about this movie is that at certain scenes the dialogue brought out the truth about the conditions of corporate work conditions. My brother is in financial consulting and what was explained about traveling out of the country 5 out of 6 weeks is pretty much accurate. It's a different type of "killer" job than construction (where I also have some family members and friends). The traveling, time zone adjustment on the body and working practically 6 out of the 7 days of the week was not at all glamorous. At times he was so tired that he just wanted to lie in bed on his days off, too tired to explore whatever city he was in. He then had to get on a plane, fly back to the States to update whoever for a week then fly back to the foreign city. No "I'm going to Tokyo!" talk could beat the stress that was accompanied with the responsibility he had.

EDIT: What a bunch of apologists. A good number of these comments are hilarious. You either prove the OPs point - "Well they're talented actors! And it's a small amount of them making millions!" to "I'm insulted. You're saying all actors are hypocrites!" to "CEO fat cats don't really sacrifice that much." - or you just prove that you fell for the narrative that capitalism needs to be thrown out for a "better" system.


2014: Whiplash, Cold in July, that Terrence Malick project set in Austin

No, what we've got here is the usual whiny, crybaby right-wing hypocrisy at work. What these wing-nuts are so mad about is that the rest of Hollyweird doesn't think and act like their once & future Hollyweird hero, the feeble-minded, barely with-it Ronnie Reagan. The Reagan presidency was in fact the Peggy Noonan presidency, who did the majority of his thinking for him. One inconvenient fact is that he raised taxes as much or more than the Democrats.

The wing-nuts love to toss one of Reagan's favorite words, 'liberal' around, as if it were some type of shame-label. In fact, it is the opposite, but they can't see it because they have always been and will always be on the wrong side of history.

The reality is, Christ was a liberal, the Buddha was a liberal and Gandhi was a liberal. They have Hitler and Franco, among others.

It is 'conservative' thumbsucking and aggrievement which knows no bounds.

Without a box-office draw like Ben Affleck all those crew people would have no work at all.

OK so if I'm following your logic we should only make movies about rich people ?

They are actors, for *beep*'s sake. Their job, is to portray people who are not them. Tom hanks got an Oscar for portraying an AIDS patient, Meryl Streep got an Oscar for potraying a nun and Sir Anthony Hopkins got an Oscar for his role as a cannibalistic serial killer !

Welcome to Hollywood.