On one level I agree with the exec, but on another I do not. If the exec means doesn't want Chris Rock to bring up the war, I can agree with it. I see light hearted movies and talk shows as an escape. While I agree that it is important to have opinions and to express them, there is a time and a place. When promoting his new film, Chris Rock's job is to entertain and sell the film. Personally, I am against using a talk show or movie to express political views unless that is the explicit reason the person is on the show or in the movie. I think most of America doesn't give a damn about the political views of actors and actresses. They aren't watching Letterman or Leno to hear about the war. People are watching to be entertained and forget about what is wrong with the world for a little while. On the otherhand, the studio should not limit a celebrity's views and speech. Making a joke about an individual, including the president, is entertaining. If Chris Rock wants to hold a press conference, rally, or some other event to express his views on current events, I am all for it. Just do it on his own time, not mine.

I think the Dixie Chick backlash may have something to do with their target audience and the spirit of there protest. In general I would say their target audience is very conservative and likely to support the president. (I could be wrong with that statement.) Saying they are ashamed of Bush shows disrespect to the person and not just his actions. People had enough respect for Bush (or less respect for the alternative) to elect him president. I am sure not all of those who voted for Bush are pleased with his current actions, but they may still respect him.

The Us is so much a cult of personality that I don't think you can expect people to listen to people that aren't celebs somehow.
And why should somebody, who is probably being grilled on their sexual prefernces or activities, refrain from voicing a political opinion.
Freedom of speech and all that.

Some of us would love to...

Once you've tied yourself up in a business venture like an entertainment movie that's got nothing to do with the current political situation, you've got a responsibility to those who went along with you not to screw it up.

Virtual Reverie: Videogames as VR.

You don't typically see celebrities defending themselves while promoting movies. Celebrities definitely have the right to express their opinions, but there is a time and place. When they are trying to sell something is not the time.

By simply propogating the Us concept you are basically telling people not to think and follow the celebrity. How is a celebrity "qualified" to tell people what to think? When a celebrity states a political view, they don't back it up with data or some arguement. If a person states a view publicly, they should present some backing to it. How is using people's trust in celebrities any different than never questioning the gov't? Trying to convince people of what you think is one thing. It is another thing to just blatantly say something or someone is wrong without any backing. When you have the collective ear of the nation a person has a responsibility to avoid the latter. In a three minute talk show interview, there is not much time to give a convincing arguement.

Okay, here's the thing. If they believe strongly about something, celebs probably feel it's a moral imperative to say something, to try to influence world opinion. Maybe they aren't qualified, but really none of us are qualified, that's what democracy is all about. Maybe not in direct conjunction with their movies, but in some other public forum they have the same right as anyone else to express their opinion. And because they're household names, people pay attention.

Now to say 'just shut up and act' is kinda odd. news anchors should just shut up and detail the facts, right? and politicians, what should they do? I'm all for open discussion, I suppose. Damn, I'm too tired to make much sense. I'll try again later.

the problem for them is they maybe asked questions....what do you think of the war?

they can either say how they feel or say no comment.....and if your a celeb a no comment means the interviewer/questioner can place their interpretation on that no comment.

for example...Tom Cruise said No comment when asked what he thought of the question on the bombing in Baghdad, another example of how the Americans are not even wiling to consider their options....

or.... Tom Cruise said No comment when asked what he thought of the question on the bombing in Baghdad, obviously unwilling to alienate his pro-peace European audience with his views....


or.... Tom Cruise said No comment when asked what he thought of the question on the bombing in Baghdad, obviously unwilling to provoke a firestorm of outrage as the Dixie Chicks did when they outlined their opposition to the War, and their dislike of President Bush....

It is not only that they, like us, have thoughts on this - their problem is that if they express them millions get them delivered into their homes!!

<i>avatar in action - but who's watching the watchers?</i>

It's a free country, run your mouth all you want. Just don't be surprised if your opinions piss people off and they decide to not purchase your CDs or see your films. That 1st Amendment thing cuts both ways and it really seems to come as a surprise to a great many of these celebrities.

Let the media interpret "no comment" any way they see fit, beats seeing your career flushed down the toilet because you said something stupid! Remember: You have two ears and one mouth, so speak less and listen more!

I applaud Tom Cruise for that. Frankly, I think many people have not made up their mind on these topics. Maybe he is one of them. If US celebrities are looked at as the voice of the American people, then the world thinks a whole hell of a lot less about Americans than I thought. This is another big reason for celebrities to seperate their work and political thoughts when possible. Also what is wrong with him not wanting to alienate potential audiences?

When celebrities take political stands, they jepordize their current and future products. Having a distinct line between their celebrity life and public life decreases the amount of impact on their career. By celebrity life I mean when they are working, such as promoting a movie. This also decreases the hazard for movie producers who invest a lot of money in the films. They do have an obligation to the producers not to alienate audiences. That goes with the large sums they are paid per film.

Open discussion is great in its place. If a celebrity wants to go on Meet the Press and debate, I am all for it. Look at Reagan and Bono. These were two actors who became very active politicians. When a person is entertaining, their political views shouldn't necessarily take center stage.

I'm sure we all recall how Jane Fonda's career skyrocketed after the 'Hanoi Jane Incident'. The key it would seem is to use rational and intelligent argument, as opposed to standing on a stage yelling viewpoints simply to have them heard. The court of public opinion is very harsh, and any 'celebrity' who wishes to have career longevity would do well to remember that.

-----------------------------
I've got confuse on my lingam
You can too.
www.wire-arcology.com