Michael Medved blasts Viggo Mortensen

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-12 05:36pm

Claims that Mortensen's antiwar views "taint" his performance as Aragorn.

So... what? Only conservative celebrities can express their opinions in public?

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2004-01-12 05:37pm

Great, now if only I knew who either of those people were.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-01-12 05:38pm

Iceberg wrote:Claims that Mortensen's antiwar views "taint" his performance as Aragorn.

So... what? Only conservative celebrities can express their opinions in public?

It's funny how with some artists we're supposed to seperate the art from the artist and sometimes we can't. UGH. Vigo did a superb job as Aragorn. And I suppose his turn as nuclear weapons officer on teh sub in Crimson Tide should also be considered tainted too? What an ass.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-01-12 05:44pm

"What is unconscionable is that too many of your fellow journalists do not understand how precarious Western civilization is, and what a jewel it is." He went on to warn about the potentially devastating impact of the rise of aggressive, uncompromising Islamism among the growing Muslim population of Western Europe.

Rhys-Davies from the same article...hmmm....I guess his work as Gimli isn't tainted for his pro war stance eh? BTW I completley agree with Davies. Western culture is constantly derided by both our enemies and ourselves yet clearly we know which is the superior culture compared to that Dark Ages Theocratic bullshit spewed by our enemies.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-01-12 06:49pm

Wow, a celebrity expressing his views to the public! SHOCKING!

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-12 06:49pm

All right, this is BS. I agree that Viggo is an idiot but a liberal critic could make the same argument about Rhys-Davies' views "tainting" his performance as Gimli.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-01-12 06:57pm

Well, even actors are entitled to their own opinions, and if I had the publicity and access to the media, I did the same.
But there's a difference between an actor and "tainting" a movie...

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-01-12 07:11pm

People often slam celebs for having opinions which is damn right hypocritical. Just because they earn the big bucks and are obviously more noticed than John Smith on the street doesn't mean they can't express themselves. They are humand and not mindless, acting automatons (though some seem to be).

It's just petty when you condemn an actor for playing a role as he/she would see fit and use politics for justification.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-01-12 09:20pm

I played a catholic priest in the Laramie Project... did I "taint" the play because I am a homosexual atheist? no. I also played a card soldier in Alice and WOnderland, did I somehow "taint" the play because I advocate a cut in military spending? Hell no.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-01-12 09:25pm

I'd just like to exercise this moron's illogic for a moment:

"Sigourny Weaver was TERRIBLE in Aliens, because she is so anti-firearms!"

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2004-01-12 11:34pm

Bah. He was still an outstanding actor. Likewise, Jonny Depp's comment didn't stop me from thinking he was superb in Pirates of the Caribbean

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-13 12:19am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:It's just petty when you condemn an actor for playing a role as he/she would see fit and use politics for justification.

That's certainly true. And it's rather immature and moronic.

But then again why is it celebrities, most of the painfully ignorant and simply adopting the popular line, have the right to act as if their views are any more important than average Americans?

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2004-01-13 12:31am

I played a member of the mob in Romeo and Juliet, does that mean I'm a hypocrite because I don't run around attacking people?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-13 12:52am

Stormbringer wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:It's just petty when you condemn an actor for playing a role as he/she would see fit and use politics for justification.
That's certainly true. And it's rather immature and moronic.

But then again why is it celebrities, most of the painfully ignorant and simply adopting the popular line, have the right to act as if their views are any more important than average Americans?

Because they spend most of their waking hours with microphones and cameras shoved in their faces, that's why.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-01-13 02:43am

Stormbringer wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:It's just petty when you condemn an actor for playing a role as he/she would see fit and use politics for justification.
That's certainly true. And it's rather immature and moronic.

But then again why is it celebrities, most of the painfully ignorant and simply adopting the popular line, have the right to act as if their views are any more important than average Americans?

How does voicing an opinion make that persons opinion more impotant than anothers? sure they may have a wider stage to voice that opunion..but that is all it is, opinion.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-01-13 02:58am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:People often slam celebs for having opinions which is damn right hypocritical. Just because they earn the big bucks and are obviously more noticed than John Smith on the street doesn't mean they can't express themselves. They are humand and not mindless, acting automatons (though some seem to be).

It's just petty when you condemn an actor for playing a role as he/she would see fit and use politics for justification.

Meh, the problem is that people get to have an opinion on a celeb having an opinion. Kinda circular, I know. In this case the rebutting opinion is dumb but they still get to have the dumb opinion if the celeb get to have an opinion.

I don't care if celeberties have dissenting opinions different than mine. You seperate the art from the artist. Only in extreme cases can I no longer seperate the art from the artist but even then they get the right to have an opinion but I reserve the right to have an opinion on his/her opinion.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2004-01-13 04:08am

Stormbringer wrote:That's certainly true. And it's rather immature and moronic.

But then again why is it celebrities, most of the painfully ignorant and simply adopting the popular line, have the right to act as if their views are any more important than average Americans?

Perhaps because he is a Dane?

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2004-01-13 04:13am

Sorta like this from the linked website:

in no way denies Mortensen his First Amendment rights to free expression

No shit? Newsflash! He is a Dane!

Reading this article I seriously think this fact has been overlooked!

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-01-13 09:26am

Isn't this the same Michael Medved who claims to be the same person Ned Flanders was based upon?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-13 09:32am

Medved misses the point:

In fact, the attempts by actors and cultural observers to score topical points with references to The Lord of the Rings clearly contravene the intentions of the movie's creators, and of novelist J.R.R. Tolkien himself.

In his forward to the work, the author insisted that the world of Middle Earth exists as an independent universe, with no connection to current events. "As for any inner meaning or 'message,' it has in the intention of the author none," Tolkien wrote. "It is neither allegorical nor topical."

Tolkien didn't mean for the story to have no message at all; he meant for it to not specifically refer to any current or recent past event. This is the hazard of writing your editorials stream-of-consciousness and then failing to edit them.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Michael Medved blasts Viggo Mortensen

Michael Medved blasts Viggo Mortensen

Re: Michael Medved blasts Viggo Mortensen