I'm an American tired of American lies

kamobe

A friend of mine pointed this article out to me earlier today. Well worth a read.

mike65

Bleugh! :rolleyes:

Mike.

pro_gnostic_8

By any chance, would the peacenik author of this Guardian piece be the same Woody Harrelson who played lead in Natural Born Killers? And the same man who justified this sociopathic portayal as a Fair Comment on the "human condition"

Woody, gimmeabreakwillya,.................... this pimpage of your show in London might be tolerable(just about) were it not for the sheer hypocracy.

amp

Ah yes, the classic "You once played a baddy therefore you're opinion is wrong" argument.

pork99

dont know what you're bitching about I think George W is on top of the situation

http://www.theonion.com/onion3838/bush_on_economy.html

Sand

Well Woodys their going on about how much money the warmongers are wasting that could be wasted on "good things" tm instead. Grand, but he was happy enough to play a part in a movie about media glorification of violence, which ironically glorified violence itself - gets bums on the seats after all. Wonder how many children could have been saved with the money spent on that ( a delightful little romp ) movie? Or the money Woody personally earned for his work in it?

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by amp
Ah yes, the classic "You once played a baddy therefore you're opinion is wrong" argument.

Never said he was "wrong"..........................only that he's a hypocrite!

The Woodster, showboating in NBK (the most notorious film since Clockwork Orange) for financial reward (see above post by Sand ) is one thing -- but then justifying this glorification of violence and disregard for human life as "fair comment on .............." etc., is sickening when he comes across all love-humanity mode to promote his London show.

Like a Porn Star advocating celibacy as a lifestyle.

zenith

I might not agree, at least entirely, with Harrelson, but I'm not sure that there's any justification for accusing him of being a hypocrite.

I saw the piece in the paper, and found it naive, but did at least attempt to present an alternative world view. Maybe a little too alternative, but ...

I'm also pretty sure that Woody didn't have to resort to pimpage in the papers to sell tickets for his short run in the West End, and the Cheers star - if financial reward was his aim in acting in London - could have made much more by doing something, anything else than a bit of theatre. Like TV.

Personalising the argument to him isn't a rebuttal, pro_gnostic_8

What?...because he portrayed a serial killer (in a film) he's a hypocrite for coming out with this statement?...you cant really be serious...did you expect him to advocate mass murder?...please

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by CQD
did you expect him to advocate mass murder?

Well, 'least that would have displayed honesty and integrity, not to mention a certain consistency!

Look, I never intended this to become an issue, okay? I can only repeat a 3rd time -- it is not just that he starred in NBK but the fact that he justified this movie as a "valid statement" etc.

Gimme any day the likes of Sid Vicious or Eminem who spit on the world in their "Art" but at least have the decency not to insult us by vacuous and hypocritical contradictory statements in an effort to shift tickets for some show/performance.

bonkey

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
it is not just that he starred in NBK but the fact that he justified this movie as a "valid statement" etc.

Well, lets consider for a moment the fact that the movie is creditd as being written and directed by Oliver Stone - also culpable for being involved in JFK, Born on the Fourth of July, Platoon, Reversal of Fortune, Murder: Diary of a Killer.....

The film, while gory, was far from shallow. It does raise several points about the nature of man - the glorofication of the slaughter by the media, the insensitivity to the value of life that the two main characters have.

Just because you dont like the medium doesnt mean the film was without message.

I would also suggest that you try and seperate reality from fiction. Woody Harrelson is an actor. He passed professional comment on some of his own work. I think that if you actually look at the film, you can mount a very persuasive argument about how valid a comment on certain aspects of human life it is.

Regardless of this, his belief in the validity or merit of a piece of art has absolutely nothing to do with his political beliefs. His art is fiction. His political beliefs are real world.

jc

mike65

Originally posted by bonkey
Oliver Stone - also culpable for being involved in JFK, Born on the Fourth of July, Platoon, Reversal of Fortune, Murder: Diary of a Killer.....

Whoops, "Reversal...." was by Barbet Schroder.

Film ed, Mike.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by bonkey
His art is fiction. His political beliefs are real world.

jc

Very true, but if the artist is a person of integrity then he/she will not compromise his worldview for mercenary gain. If Harrelson is so committed to the sacredness and value of human life isn't his fulsome applause for NBK a hyprocritical inconsistency?

Ajnag

Well if ya dont like woody, michael moore presents the same case.Now would you be intresed in the facts presented or are you gonna track down all moores school friends to show hes a blatant hipocrite for monopolising the school candy market.


Or maybe we cant write off all argument hence forth reguardless of consistensy with................... wait for it ...........................




One of These :rolleyes:

Sand

Im just curious how Woody reconciles his distaste with the amount of money being spent on the warmongers, when it could be spent on saving children etc etc- with the amount of money he earned for the ultra violent NBK ( good filim btw, not dissing it - but its hard to see it as anything other than what it claims to lampoon ), how come he didnt give all that money, and the rest of the money he earned to good causes like he advocates as a political policy? Thats the hypocrisy im talking about.

I remember reading a piece, in the Irish Times by some fellah who usually writes complete left wing waffle - theme went along the line of "if youre an eglatarian, how come your so rich?" It was a great piece because the columnist (whose name escapes me) was talking about the conflict between his own political views and the amount of wealth he possessed - he pretty much came to the conclusion that people like him needed to be forced to be eglatarian by the government, that their own personal views- no matter how strong- werent enough to get them to follow through on their own without the need to satisfy enforced public morals.

Maybe Woodys the same - talks about his burning desire to save the world but is not going to do much about it himself ( and with his cash hes got a lot more to do even something small than any of us do ).