As I said, if I start to judge actors and their movies based on what they do in their personnel lives, there won't be anyone left for me to watch.
It's interesting to see that we expect corporations to maintain ethical standards, but for some reason actors (who are selling something to the public just the same) get exonerated from their activities.
Why is this?
Why is it that we expect companites to be
honest
generous
respect the environment
respect third world countries (don't exploit them for labor)
etc
But actors an run roughshod over other people and we just turn a blind eye to it?
Actors, especially bigtime actors, SHOULD be held accountable not unlike any corporation would be.
The reason actors get a freepass in most cases is likely because they are
charming
popular
attractive
entertaining
And CEO's arent.
Sounds like high school all over gain doesn't it?
If you are part of the "in crowd" you are off the hook.
reply
share
JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies
13 years ago
CEOs (and other corporate higher-ups) should not be given a hard time, boycotted, etc. just because they have controversial opinions--even if they're racists or whatever it might be, or if they have irresponsible behavior outside of work--DUIs, spousal abuse, whatever. We expect them to be honest when it comes to facts about their company and products, to act responsibly insofar as their business activities can affect the environment, the welfare of their employees, etc.
We do expect the same of actors and other artists. However, most actors' work involves little that would affect the environment, they do not directly employ even tens (forget thousands) of people, etc. They can be indirectly responsible for the employment of hundreds of people (since a particular film might not be made without that actor's commitment, although far more often, that's not the case--they'll just get another actor), and insofar as their behavior might affect that--by not showing up for work once they've committed to a job, or by doing things that might make them unable to finish a job they've started, they are criticized and rightly so.
http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies
reply
share
king_maker_1428
13 years ago
CEOs (and other corporate higher-ups) should not be given a hard time, boycotted, etc. just because they have controversial opinions--even if they're racists or whatever it might be, or if they have irresponsible behavior outside of work--DUIs, spousal abuse, whatever. We expect them to be honest when it comes to facts about their company and products, to act responsibly insofar as their business activities can affect the environment, the welfare of their employees, etc.
We do expect the same of actors and other artists. However, most actors' work involves little that would affect the environment, they do not directly employ even tens (forget thousands) of people, etc. They can be indirectly responsible for the employment of hundreds of people (since a particular film might not be made without that actor's commitment, although far more often, that's not the case--they'll just get another actor), and insofar as their behavior might affect that--by not showing up for work once they've committed to a job, or by doing things that might make them unable to finish a job they've started, they are criticized and rightly so
This isn't an argument... you are just saying "don't give CEO's or actors a hard time for controversial opinions"
And for the record I really don't think racial slurs are "controversial" in this day and age.
reply
share
thomas196x2000
10 years ago
That is a great response, and totally true.
It made me think of this big debate we had in high school, started in an english class but became so big the school made an event out of it and a parents' night.
Basically, people were divided into groups and had to pick a topic to debate, and the best debate idea was voted on, and the best debates were decided for the evening.
I remember the top debate as well. It was about censorship and ratings in movies of all things. But the topic did not matter. One side was two unpopular, you could say homely, guys. The other was a very attractive guy and girl.
The debate was a landslide. The two unpopular boys were extremely well prepared, spoke well, and just smashed the other side. The other side had only a handful of good points, and poorly executed their side.
The unpopular boys debate team DID win, but only by a few votes. It should have been, like I said, a landslide. But people wanted to BELIEVE that the other side was better, and they had the looks.
And this continues on into adulthood. This is why we have the President we do.
reply
share