Totally wrong. Movies like Silence of the Lambs, The Birdcage, and Road to Perdition weren't "activist" movies. They were only meant to entertain, not to advocate anything or make some kind of social statement. Only a fool would think Silence of the Lambs advocated serial murder.
Originally Posted by Musketeer
However, only a fool would think that Death Wish was mere entertainment, and wasn't making a statement about self defense.
Lots of movies are more than just entertainment, and are trying to influence public opinion. Michael Moore's movies are an extreme form of this, but lots of other movies make statements as well. Even the Terminator series had a small statement to make about nuclear weapon proliferation, though it was rather minor.
This movie is just a modern day clone of Death Wish. Therefore, acting in it (as the star, no less) is nothing short of showing support for the statement that the movie is trying to make.
When you're the lead star in a movie making an obvious statement such as this one, you are most definitely a spokesperson.
They are not paid to be role models or be spokesmen (unless that is their actual function like in infomercials and such), they are paid to ENTERTAIN. Actors are nothing more than dancing bears or trained dogs. What they think does not matter one bit.
***? Working as a construction worker is nothing; that's like asking what the janitor at Halliburton thinks of the Iraq war. If your father were the President of the modern art museum, and thought it was all crap, that would be something significant. It was also be quite hypocritical. But if he was just a construction worker, that really doesn't matter. It especially doesn't matter since it's an art museum, not something trying to influence public opinion on something that can affect people living or dying. I'll happily do some engineering for an art museum showing Jackson Pollack's (sp?) "art", even though I think it's all crap, as long as they pay me. But I'm not going to help out on a movie condemning gun owners and portraying violent criminals as "victims of society" or somesuch.
My father thought the majority of Modern Art was nothing more than trash yet he worked as a construction worker on a museum which was dedicated to modern art. That does not mean he supports it, it just means he did his job. Actors are the same but for some reason our celebrity obsessed culture seems to think what they say is important.
Huh? Scientology is most certainly a religion. A wacky one perhaps, unconventional certainly, but still a "religion". A cult is very similar to a religion; the only real difference is that a cult centers around a single charismatic leader, like David Koresh or Jim Jones. When there's no more leader (he eventually dies), and it becomes more of a faceless organization, and gains more followers, it becomes a religion. Every religion started out as a cult. Scientology used to be a cult, but L. Ron died some time ago. It's now a worldwide religion with over 10 million followers. It shares all the other normal traits of other religions: has a bunch of mythology that must be accepted as "true" (except that in Scientology they don't tell you all the mythology until later), asks for your money, requires you to follow certain rituals.
I have little regard for almost any religion but Scientology is not one. It only claimed to be one in order to gain tax exempt status, having postured itself and being built on the precepts of anti-religion from the begining. It is also listed as a cult and or business enterprise in multiple nations.
A christian may not agree with a Muslim but he will admit Islam is a religion, likewise with almost any other real religion. If I am going to get banned for calling a cult a cult then we have gone off the deep end of the PC swimming pool at TFL.
If it looks like a duck and acts like a duck...
Maybe Hubbard really was a genius, by pointing out how fallacious religion is, by making up his own that was as wacky as he could make it. The sad thing is that people still don't get it.