In an Entertainment Weekly interview, Jodie Foster explained her views on guns, “I don't believe that any gun should be in the hand of a thinking, feeling, breathing human being.”
She also said it is “shameful” that the “unsophisticated people who see a sophisticated movie” will cheer when she goes after the bad guys who kill her fiance in her new vigilante movie “The Brave One”
(emphasis mine throughout):
ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: There's a rallying moment in The Brave One when you stick a gun in a bad guy's face and say, ''I want my dog back.'' How are you going to feel about the audience cheering on your character as she starts hunting people down?
JODIE FOSTER: It's shameful, but that's human and that's who we are as human beings. There will be unsophisticated people who see a sophisticated movie. Just like there were in The Accused. And thank God I only went to one screening of that movie with an audience.
She really equated the idiots cheering the rape in “The Accused” to the people who cheer a heroine getting revenge in a payback movie? Poor Jodie; all of those “unsophisticated people” sullying her movies. Maybe they should stay home until they learn to ignore those adrenaline-pumping, feel-good parts where the writer and director deliberately try to get the audience to react.
Foster, who was protected by bodyguards while would-be Ronald Reagan assassin John Hinckley harassed her and said in 2002 that she does not have security now, addressed the issue of guns:
EW: What do you think is the larger social commentary of The Brave One, which in some ways plays as a straight-up Dirty Harry revenge movie?
FOSTER: Here's my commentary: I don't believe that any gun should be in the hand of a thinking, feeling, breathing human being. Americans are by nature filled with rage-slash-fear. And guns are a huge part of our culture. I know I'm crazy because I'm only supposed to say that in Europe. But violence corrupts absolutely.*
One would think those tense years dealing with Hinckley would have opened her to the issue of personal protection, but instead she just voiced the unrealistic view that no one should ever have guns, which is easy to have when living in exclusive or gated communities with the option of hiring others for protection.
Do the "thinking, feeling, breathing" human beings exclude law enforcement, military, park rangers and the people who guard her and her children on red carpets and movie sets or are they too busy being corrupted by “rage-slash-fear” to think and feel?
Then she alienated even more potential moviegoers:
EW:Your performance in Taxi Driver kept coming up during the mini media frenzy over news that Dakota Fanning had a rape scene in the [yet-to-be released] movie Hounddog.
FOSTER: ...she is spectacular in [Hounddog]. The movie, ehh, but that's a brave, brave performance that she should be very, very proud of...I think it was a wonderful move for her and it's setting her up to not be a Disney bimbo. I think the [uproar] was just a bunch of Christians who didn't see the movie.
Industry media media like Premiere and Cinematical, gossips like Dlisted along with blogs and message boards weren't “just a bunch of Christians.” That's a disingenuous way to dismiss legitimate criticism.
It wasn't just the rape. The screenplay called for Fanning's character to appear “naked or clad only in 'underpants.' ” After the uproar over the original script, writer-producer-director Deborah Kampmeier edited and released a revised version (here), but even that was still “creepy,” wrote Cinematical.
Premiere described the final cut, which had Fanning's character “making a boy drop his jockeys by promising him kisses, sleeping beside (her) naked, brain-addled father...and forcing two children to strip at gunpoint and embrace as she wraps a snake around them.”
Kampmeier bragged her movie was about “the power of female sexuality.” For a 12-year-old.
Well, I guess I know what Foster's definition of “sophisticated” is now.
*EW's formatting altered
Contact Lynn at tvisgoodforyou2 at yahoo dot com
Comments Policy
another hollywood eliteist, eyecare would swoon
September 3, 2007 - 07:37 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsI wonder how Foster would explain the millions of law abiding citizens who own guns (for a lifetime) and have never even used or brandished them.
I guess she just sees 'the masses as asses' and herself as the enlightened elite.
Sheesh.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Who would Jesus shoot?
September 3, 2007 - 14:42 ET by M J BWho would Jesus shoot?
Shootout at the JC corral:)
September 3, 2007 - 15:16 ET by TruthMongerI think liberals would make a fine target for one...
But of course the Bible says Jesus will essentially "shoot" anyone who has not accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior...
Thats alotta people
actually getting shot would be alot better than eternity in Hell...
Wicked!
September 3, 2007 - 17:53 ET byHello? Aren't any of you going to come out of the woodwork and say how bad this is?
These people honestly think Jesus would be a gun freak.
But no... I bet you don't. That would require solidarity, and you have none.
Who Would Jesus Shoot?
September 3, 2007 - 16:48 ET by Lame CherryLuke 22:36, Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Revelation 19:15, And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
The answer according to the Bible Jesus would shoot anyone placing another person's life in danger........and when He comes back as the Warrior King in Revelation, there is a 200 million man army at Armageddon which is going to die.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Truthmonger and Lame
September 3, 2007 - 17:35 ET byTruthmonger and Lame Cherry, if not for religious fundamentalists, the twin towers would still be standing.
Well, Eye.You are the
September 3, 2007 - 17:40 ET by BlondeWell, Eye.
You are the master of the obvious statement.
if not for religious fundamentalists, the twin towers would still be standing.
That would be correct. Islamic fundies. And what was your point again?
Now....why don't you comment on the fact that the only posters you are responding to here are ones who are currently not around?
You're just running around, sprinkling your little turdling posts here & there. Despicable troll tactic. Leaving little bits of rubbish all over the board.
I, for one, have had quite enough of your Eurotrash a**.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde
September 3, 2007 - 17:51 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsBlonde, didn't you know the fascist, war-mongering, chickenhawk, Hitleresque, eeeeevil, Republican NewsBusters staff banned eyecare?
You do know there is no free speech allowed here, right?
I mean, he/she/it said so, so it just must be.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
DFTT
September 3, 2007 - 17:59 ET by BlondeOh yes, certainly. When the Eurotrash was posting under another name.
Notice the crickets chirping each time he's confronted with something substantitive? A turdler...just like takingmyconstitutional. Search on "Lysol" for a further explanation.
P.S. I wish I could take the sage advice of your screen name. I try. I really, really do.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
...come on eyecare, don't
September 3, 2007 - 17:51 ET by TruthMonger...come on eyecare, don't forget to credit the airplane builders and the jet fuel companies:)
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
lol
September 3, 2007 - 17:59 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsWait till ThoughtPolice hears this blasphemy.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
No, not at all. It's all
September 3, 2007 - 18:03 ET byNo, not at all. It's all down to "My invisible friend is more powerful than your invisible friend."
Here, now, in the HERE AND NOW, we free thinkers have to deal with the sh*t of so called world powers waving dicks and books they call holey.
F*ck that. This is 2007. That kind of stuff happened 1000 years ago...... 5000 years ago..... or even; oh, hang on.... that's going to wipe out more than half the NB's isn't it? Better stick to under 5000!
now you're starting to make
September 3, 2007 - 18:09 ET by TruthMongernow you're starting to make sense - keep babbling!
BTW we can still bail you out of another world war or two - but after that if you still don't get it then you're on your own:)...
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
Pathetic
September 3, 2007 - 18:10 ET by BlondeTruly, truly pathetic, Eye.
(1) Dodging every single post I've made to you today. You know, because I've continued to point out your inanity and trollishness, utter lack of any points, etc. I can only infer that you are scared to death of me. Typical troll.
(2) Reverting to DKos language.
(3) If your down to complaining about waving....you are actually even beyond pathetic.
Troll.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Well, Mrs. Jodie Foster,
September 3, 2007 - 07:39 ET by FedUpWithPCI guess this "unsophisticated" guy here will just have to stay away from your "sophisticated" film. You've just popped yourself onto the "unwatchable" list for me- a list populated entirely by people whos very presence in any movie makes me avoid it. You'll join the likes of Alec Baldwin, Jane Fonda and a few others, free to stew about in your arrogant, self-centered egotistical little bubble.
One last thing, "Jodie"- why don't you go pop into a place like D.C, where they've had a total handgun ban for something like 30 years, and ask them if it's dropped the crime rate any.
What a miserable sod.
Free Speech
September 3, 2007 - 07:44 ET by saw the lightBlacklisting! You are blacklisting Foster simply because she speaks her mind! This is the kind of totalitarian repression that has been going on since Bush was selected president in 2000.
That's about as far as I can get with left ideas before I become totally nauseated and spew over my computer. Guess I have to buy another one now.
"There is a tendency for the world to say to America, 'the big problems of the world are yours, you go and sort them out,' and then to worry when America wants to sort them out." - Tony Blair
Free Speech
September 3, 2007 - 09:51 ET by Steve08080You're right, she exercised her free speech right, but as I tell my son every action has a consequence good or bad. I don't agree with her philosophy on guns and I especially don't like her holier than thou attitude. We as a consumer have the right to choose what we spend our hard earned dollars on.
For me, I am totally disgusted with film industry. They're just not original anymore. They seem to rewrite the same story line. Just put violence, a sex scene and blow something up. As far as the Dakota Fanning film goes.....I think it's disgusting. Our society is continually exposing our children to sex at a younger age more and more. Way to go liberals, you are destroying this great country.
I'll leave you with this my fellow NB readers. A short interesting read.
“When Will Their Objectives Be Met?” “Corrupt the young, get them away from religion – get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, destroy their ruggedness. Get control of all means of publicity and thereby: Get the people’s mind off their government by focusing their attention on athletic, sexy books and plays, and other trivialities. Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance. Destroy the peoples’ faith in their natural leaders by holding the latter up to contempt, ridicule and obloquy. Always preach true democracy but seize power as fast and ruthlessly as possible. Encourage government extravagance, destroy its credit, produce fear and inflation with rising prices and general discontent.Foment unnecessary strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorders and foster a lenient and soft attitude on the part of the government toward such disorders. By specious arguments, cause breakdown of old moral virtues: honesty, sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness. Cause registration of all firearms on some pretext, with the view of confiscating them and leaving the population helpless.”
Excerpted from confiscated papers found in pre-World War I, Dusseldorf, Germany, alleged to have been written by then an underground communist organization.
saw the
September 3, 2007 - 11:30 ET by msh1973saw the light,
Blacklisted...are you serious? Jodie Foster can say what she will, but I have the right to not go see her movies or any other movie starring a liberal who at every turn attempts to limit my rights as an American. I don't happen to own a firearm, but I still have that right, at least for now.
umm
September 4, 2007 - 19:20 ET by UndercoverConservativeI think STL was being sarcastic.
saw the light
September 3, 2007 - 11:36 ET by botgyou want blacklisting, try Dr Laura you hypocrite, all people have the right not to go to movies for whatever reason they choose. You are the one pushing for outside regulation of personal choice, and it is reprehensible. In this case individuals can choose for themselves in the Dr Laura case it was a special interest forcing it's view on the people. Hypocrasy simple and plain.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Stl, are you trying to be
September 3, 2007 - 12:19 ET by MikeBStl, are you trying to be provacative, or are you truly stupid? Blacklisting? Surely you can come up with a better argument than that. There is no blacklisting going on. Neither the industry, nor the government has said that we can not see a particular movie, nor have we been told we cannot see a particular performer. Jodie Foster's first amendment rights have not been violated. She spoke her mind, and certain people have decided that they will not spend their own money to view her films. The film is still available for those people who wish to see it. Those who wish not to see it because they disagree with Ms. Foster's blatant stupidity are also expressing their first amendment rights with whom they wish to associate or not associate. The logical conclusion of your post is that it doesn't matter what a performer says or believes, we the great unwashed must go see their films or shows, or read their books or go to their concerts. Jodie can shoot her mouth off all she wants. We, on the other hand, can decide whether or not we wish to spend our own money on her.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
mikeB
September 3, 2007 - 12:33 ET by botgbased on the sentance where stl says spew over my computer i would say he's playing liberals advocate
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Attention, msh, botg, Mike, and LilyPearl!!!
September 3, 2007 - 12:37 ET by RJTURN ON YOUR SARCASM DETECTORS IMMEDIATELY!
I think Saw the light was being facetious. ;^>
RJ
September 3, 2007 - 12:39 ET by botglook one post above yours
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Saw it, botg
September 3, 2007 - 12:44 ET by RJI was responding to your original post, and must have been typing while you posted your second. ;^>
RJ unfortunately
September 3, 2007 - 12:54 ET by botgmy Sarcasm detectors seem to only block Ron Paul plugs lately but they do seem overwhelmed with that task
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Stl, et al., yep, see that.
September 3, 2007 - 12:48 ET by MikeBStl, et al., yep, see that. My apologies, light. You ought not channel liberal stupidity so well. I read your first paragraph, and assumed you were being serious. Unfortunately you read just like some of the marxist-socialist trolls around here. (No, bal, not you.)
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
saw the light
September 3, 2007 - 12:32 ET by LilyPearlSTL,
It seems to me that you are the one who wants to limit free speech. If a person does not want to go see a film because they dislike the views of the actor, that is their freedom just like it is the actor's freedom to state their opinion. STL, it seems like you are saying an actor ought to be able to say whatever they want and everyone should still pander to them. Well, that is not freedom. That is liberalism. Liberals like you think as long as we conservatives agree with you, then free speech is being exercised, but as soon as we disagree with you we are taking your free speech away. Grow up you three year old!!!
Hello?
September 3, 2007 - 14:19 ET bySaw the light, you quote Blair and he is a Liberal. That's funny in itself, but what is funnier is that NB posters don't come and jump on it!
Except me.
you have a strange sense of
September 3, 2007 - 15:27 ET by TruthMongeryou have a strange sense of humor Eyecare - must be English humor...
No, just humour. Irony,
September 3, 2007 - 16:30 ET byNo, just humour. Irony, etc.... oh that's right! You don't understand that, do you?
...hmmm, I really get the
September 3, 2007 - 17:55 ET by TruthMonger...hmmm, I really get the feeling you're still kinda humiliated and bitter about us American idiot fundies having to save your appeasing euro-liberal ass in WW2? Let it go man...
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
Truthmonger, I'll take you
September 3, 2007 - 18:20 ET byTruthmonger, I'll take you up on that.
I'm not the slightest bit afraid of you extremists. It's true; the world is threatened by extremists, and they only win if you change your life and let them think they've won.
You haven't won.
I'm not as stupid as you would like. I know that 30,000 US service personel died in WW2 just defending Britain. I can never repay that. It is tragic, and I thank you.
I know that without their help, I probably wouldn't have been born; let alone what language I would speak.
You have my thanks for that, and my parent's thanks for that; for what your grandfathers did, for all of us.
I've always made that clear. It's just got nothing to do with the "war" right now.
Thanks eyecare!
September 3, 2007 - 18:43 ET by TruthMonger...well good - I'm not afraid of you progressive extremists either! Glad we can be friends...
Sorry I had to rub your nose in the WW2 thing but that's what happens when a brit shows up here and behaves like an asshole - so lighten up and lets learn together shall we?
The most extremest dude I know is Jesus, met Him when I was an extremist progressive like you - and yes he's already won everything - so what we do now is just kinda hang until He comes back for the party...
Do you have any questions or comments in the meantime? I'd be happy to help out...
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
Sarcasm
September 3, 2007 - 16:26 ET by saw the lightOK, OK, next time I will add that I was being SARCASTIC!!! For the love of Pete, people!
"There is a tendency for the world to say to America, 'the big problems of the world are yours, you go and sort them out,' and then to worry when America wants to sort them out." - Tony Blair
STL
September 3, 2007 - 16:35 ET by BlondeYou must admit it was pretty funny.
I thought so....your original post (which I thought was perfectly clear, BTW).....and the reactions.
But then, someone inscribed my high school yearbook to "Sarcastic Blonde"....takes one to know one, I guess.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Actually...
September 4, 2007 - 13:51 ET by TheDeuceThis is not leftists! Did the poster call on everyone to boycott this loudmouth? And, if such a boycott were called for, would that not also be an exercise in free speech?
In other words, I support Foster's right to say whatever stupid f'n thing she'd like, but I reserve the same right in stating that I will no longer support her career.
If you can't handle free speech, get yourself a boat and paddle your ass down to Castro Land, where the cars are all antiques and the health care is free.
Why is it that lefties believe that 'the people' noted in the 2nd are different than the 'the people' mentioned elsewhere in the Bill of Rights?
Likewise
September 3, 2007 - 09:16 ET by Seabeach4348I have a list of "Forbidden Films" and the sophisticated, enlightened, and well-informed Ms. Foster's name has been added.
Ms Foster apparently feels comfortable with the amount of money she made that is was OK for her to pack heat and use it in the film. I see her as an arrogant, ignorant hypocrite.
Some of my friends think I'm nuts for, like you, avoiding films with big liberals or with people who have gone out of their way to trash this country with liberal rot-gut politics.
Yes, Ms Foster needs to seriously visit DC and then maybe England to see how well her no-guns-for-anyone idea works.
Do you spend a lot of time
September 3, 2007 - 14:20 ET byDo you spend a lot of time in England, then?
I do - lotta break-ins
September 3, 2007 - 15:18 ET by TruthMongerI do - lotta break-ins there - of course the crooks know the homeowners are defensless - and also even the cops don't carry guns...
Its criminal heaven:)!
Yee Haw!!!! Lookit who's
September 3, 2007 - 16:32 ET byYee Haw!!!! Lookit who's here!
...ready to be busted by a
September 3, 2007 - 17:59 ET by TruthMonger...ready to be busted by a traveling fundie again? Yeah, been to your overcrowed and crumbling socialist paradise quite a few times my friend...
I love it there actually - gas $8 a gallon (80% of it is taxes), income taxes at 50%, the natives leaving in droves to Spain and elsewhere, it's a great model of success...
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
I just saw her last night
September 3, 2007 - 08:04 ET by FairlightI just saw her last night in the wonderful movie "Foxes". Her acting is brilliant. Over the years though, she has been sinking deeper and deeper into her closet, making bizarre statements, and descending into the Hollywood abyss. The last thing she needs is her career to be exposed, examined, and exterminated. What a shame.
"Foster made a number of
September 3, 2007 - 08:30 ET by Nortonalec"Foster made a number of Disney movies, including Napoleon and Samantha (1972), One Little Indian(1973), Freaky Friday (1976) and Candleshoe (1977)"
"I think it was a wonderful move for her and it's setting her up to not be a Disney bimbo."
What a hypocrite. I bet Miss Fanning is pretty happy with the work she has done for Disney.
Nortonalec
Perhaps Ms. Foster was
September 3, 2007 - 18:47 ET by drillanwrPerhaps Ms. Foster was commending Fanning for actually "growing" as an actress/performer ... as opposed to a few gals who got their starts on Disney ... and seem to have become ... well, bimboes (IMHO):
Britney Spears
Lindsy Lohan
Christina Aguilera
Justin Timberlake
Anyhow, Foster's ire toward Disney might be a little of this:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000149/bio
As a youngster, was mauled by a lion and carried briefly in its mouth after a day of filming a Disney movie
Was first choice to play the role of Princess Leia in the original "Star Wars" trilogy but could not get out of her contract with Disney. George Lucas then decided to make Princess Leia older.
P.S. -
I know J.T.'s NOT a gal ... But the bimbo title still works.
Jodie, Jodie, Jodie.
September 3, 2007 - 08:21 ET by CrashI think it's shameful that Jodie plays a straight white female who shoots up the town and makes money premeditating it. All the while she is repulsed by men, firearms and the protection of personal property.
I'll bet that her bodyguard is male and is packing heat ... maybe he's an android.
I think she's a little
September 3, 2007 - 18:01 ET by TruthMongerI think she's a little confused about who she is right now, happens to actors alot I'll bet...
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
-
September 3, 2007 - 08:40 ET by dahliatraversSo she's criticizing and denigrating the people who are paying her money.
Her views on gun possession, while unrealistic, seem to be sincerely held. I'd be more impressed with these views if she hadn't just made a movie that involved a gun, thereby in a way glorifying guns (at least, presumably that's how she and like-minded people would view a gun being featured in a movie), but more to the point, enriching herself by that object.
Good point
September 3, 2007 - 09:15 ET by mikejGood point dahliatravers,
Kind of reminds me of Danny Glover's hypocrisy about preaching peace and railing against guns and violence after starring in all the Lethal Weapon movies, where he and Riggs don't exactly read the suspects their Miranda rights and try and talk about their differences so they can understand each other.
“Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened.”
Mush as I dislike Foster's
September 3, 2007 - 14:25 ET by motherbeltMush as I dislike Foster's snotty tone about "unsophisticated people", I have to disagree with you. One could say that the movie doesn't glorify guns, but rather shows how wielding a gun can lead one to the "dark side." And that is actually an anti-gun sentiment.
If that's why she made the movie, she's not a hypocrite. Just as playing a prostitute in a movie wouldn't mean she approved of them, neither does wielding a gun.
My big beef is that Foster thinks Americans in general are too dumb and "unsophisticated" to see the point the movie is trying to make, (that she becomes the very thing she is hunting) and will just be thrilled to see her whacking bad guys.
Danny Glover's "Lethal Weapon" movies are a different story. They portray the gun-wielding and firing and killing as exciting; and those that do it end up victorious, not steeped in guilt or shame. If Glover is so anti-gun, these are movies that glorify guns, and Glover really is a hypocrite.
"One could say that the
September 3, 2007 - 23:39 ET by stratman"One could say that the movie doesn't glorify guns, but rather shows how wielding a gun can lead one to the "dark side.""
I have not seen new Foster's movie, so, I am only replying about the quote above.
A firearm does not "lead" anyone. The person chooses to pick up a firearm in anger, and I am hypothesizing that is at least part of the physhological state Foster's character is in, and chooses to use the firearm on another human being. The "dark side" was already established.
The firearm is an equalizer for many when it comes to self defense or Foster's characater's revenge. Without the firearm, the character would have had to exact revenge in different ways, and there are many. The firearm is just one way to acheive her goal, albeit an expeditious vehicle.
It is sad and indicative of a person very out of touch from reality when someone has plenty of money, enough to purchase security systems and personal security guards (with guns, mind you), has the audacity to declare no person who is "thinking, feeling, breathing" should have a firearm. For some, there would be no more "thinking, feeling, breathing" without a firearm.
It is pretty clear Ms. Foster (and Rosie O'Donnell who has uttered equivalent elitisms) thought she needed the protection of a firearm in her life. Must have worked out OK since we keep hearing from her.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Exactly. If she abhors guns
September 3, 2007 - 09:46 ET by HypocriteHaterExactly. If she abhors guns so much, why does she accept movies that glorify the use of them? Way to take a stand on your principles, Jodie. Does that make her a gun whore? Does she have to take a shower after every scene where she handles a gun to cleanse herself and make herself a "thinking, feeling, breathing human being" again?
She's such a phoney!
And I don't believe for one second that there were people at a movie screening for The Accused cheering while she was being raped. If she can find another source for that accusation, maybe I'll believe it.
This subject came up on NB
September 3, 2007 - 14:36 ET byThis subject came up on NB the other day. I asked how someone could love the film "Apocalypse Now" and still hate liberals. The backtracking reply was "I like Silence of the Lambs too, but I don't eat human flesh."
So, can't the same apply? I know Union Jack Bauer lists "Full Metal Jacket" as a favourite movie, and he loves war.
Maybe there's more anti war sentiment here than we think.
At the end of the day, I haven't seen her film yet. Maybe it doesn't glorify guns at all, and uses irony.
I certainly wouldn't strike it off my list because of her views, like a few have done here. That's the kind of censorship I am proud to have grown up without.
Eye, Take Your Euro Sensibilities Elsewhere
September 3, 2007 - 14:56 ET by BlondeAnother bunch of non-points from the Euro.
FYI, you don't even know what "censor"means, do you? Please explain for us all, how objecting to Jodi Foster's hypocricy is censorship?
from dictionary.com, censor is defined as:
What about her stupid comments has been removed or suppressed?
I don't know why I'm even bothering, you're just a troll and will reply with a non-response or another stupid question and/or statement.
Later, troll.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Wow! That's fantastic!
September 3, 2007 - 18:34 ET byIf I'm such a useless little 14 y/o, why are you so angry?
The censorhip I referred to was the members here who struck the film because she was in it. That is censorship! Only going to see films with right wing actors in; I think Hitler promoted that too!
Nice one, Blonde. I think I have answered the first rant.
Now.. as for "What about her stupid comments has been removed or suppressed?"... I simply have no idea what you mean.
Eye, obviously you're oblivious
September 3, 2007 - 18:51 ET by BlondeI love it. Now you're:
(1) Putting words into my mouth (please, point out where I called you a "useless little 14 y/o"...besides, had I said something like that I would have called you the Britspeak "yob").
(2) Inferring that I'm angry. Nothing angry about my post. It's logical. Unlike you, I might add. FYI...accusing someone else of being angry is a typical lib troll tactic. If you think I'm going to bite on that one....you really are naive.
(3) Being purposefully obtuse. I posted the definition of "censor", Eye. Can't you read and comprehend (oops....silly rhetorical question...obviously not!). Censorship is to prevent OTHERS from seeing, hearing, viewing something. Not choosing not to see, hear or view something for oneself.
I quoted chapter and verse of the definition, but you are obviously too reading deficient to understand that. Must be that great socialistic ed you got there in GB.
Answered a rant? Hardly. You've just chased your tail around a little more in public for us all to see and laugh at.
As for your last sentence....BAWAHAHAHAH!
Nice try, troll. But you're going to have to do a whole lot better than that. Sheesh!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Trollcare
September 3, 2007 - 19:07 ET by Mica the MagnificentHey Eyecare!
If you decide not to see a movie because Harry R. Brown stars in it (you never heard of him) and choose another movie, does that mean you censored the movie starring Harry R. Brown?
Answer carefully! I'm watching you!
Following this logic I know
September 3, 2007 - 19:13 ET by TruthMongerFollowing this logic I know liberals sure censor the hell out of Rush Limbaugh's radio program:)...
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
Liberals censored Air America?
September 3, 2007 - 19:17 ET by Mica the MagnificentI guess liberals themselves censored Air America, according to Eyecare logic.
Yes - and the Bible! These
September 3, 2007 - 19:19 ET by TruthMongerYes - and the Bible! These guys make the KGB seem like amateurs...
Protest Craig's conservative abandonment - vote Democrat in 08'
Thank you Mica
September 3, 2007 - 19:16 ET by BlondeI was beginning to have doubts that my writing was as clear as I like to think it is.
I know...the trolls are just obtuse!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
More Stupidity
September 3, 2007 - 19:25 ET by BlondeHere's another fine example of liberal leaping of (euro) illogic:
The censorhip I referred to was the members here who struck the film because she was in it. That is censorship! ~ Eyecare
Kind of reminds me of that pesky fact that Pakistan is not an ally because Leon said so.
Is anyone else laughing as hard as I am over this troll's trying to punch his way out of the proverbial wet paper bag? Sheesh!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
I'm laughing still . .
September 3, 2007 - 19:31 ET by Mica the MagnificentI'm still laughing at Leon claiming to be a lawyer!
Maybe that's why the prisons are overcrowded!
Mica, You're Kidding, Right?
September 3, 2007 - 19:34 ET by BlondeSomehow I missed that one....in the immortal words of John McEnroe...."You cannot be serious?".
Please, tell me you made that up. Well, I can imagine Leon trying to get away with it actually.
I'm surprised this site didn't explode over that one!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Leon lawyer, Blonde?
September 3, 2007 - 20:59 ET by Mica the MagnificentI've spent the last 15 mins trying to find that statement by Leon.
On Aug 27 in the 'open thread' I stated to Leon that he claimed to be a lawyer, he responded to another statement I made, but didn't deny being a lawyer.
So, somewhere I read Leon claimed to be a lawyer, I asked him about it, and he didn't deny it.
GUILTY!
That evidence works in some countries.
We are once again treated to
September 3, 2007 - 22:28 ET by EvilRoyWe are once again treated to a bromide from a Hollywood sophisticate on how Americans are just so very uncouth and rude and, well, just so...uh...RURAL, ok I've said it. People like Foster see regular folk as just so many hayseeds who drive pick-ups (the number one selling American vehicle sold in these here United States), eat pork and cheer at football games (it's just so violent doncha know?) I have lived with weapons in my home for over 30 years and to date I've only had to kill, let me see....well, none!! And the worse part of this debate is that people like Jodie Foster will continue to make movies for unclean and slovenly folk (like me) and make untold millions in the process. If she were so clean and pure she would only make small artsy fartsy films that only the brie eating fakes and sopishicated Europeans would watch. Well, it's been a real slice of Heaven but I've got to go and watch "The Incredibles"...one of my favorite movies.
Arrogance thy name is Jody
September 3, 2007 - 09:34 ET by CTI'm Jody Foster, I'm Ivy League, I'm way smarter than you.
French too!
September 3, 2007 - 10:32 ET by River CityJodi not only went to Yale but her mother sent her to a private school in California that was strictly French speaking. I'm sure it was loaded with French culture too. Maybe this Continental attitude includes hypocrisy.
I agree with what some others here have said: If she is so appalled by guns she should refuse all movies that show her in a positive light with a gun. Better yet, she should always be the victim of a gun if she wants to illustrate to the great unwashed how evil they are. Then that would be contrary to her one of her feminist ideals - NEVER play the victim. What's a feminist to do???? Well, a feminist who wants to be a highly paid movie actress and stay wealthy that is.
“Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.” Ronald Reagan
Ivy League Logic?
September 3, 2007 - 09:56 ET by motherbeltIn her new movie, "The Brave One", Foster plays a broken woman out
on a vigilante killing spree after watching her fiancé get beaten to
death by a gang of New York City hoods. -EW
Right, Jodie. Us yokels (we don't say "we yokels, because we're yokels, ya know) are too stupid to "get" the moral of the movie: that Foster's character ends up being just as bad as the hoods.
And Jodie, a sophisticated Yale grad like you should know that the equivalent of cheering the rape scene in "The Accused" would be the audience cheering while your fiance in this movie gets beaten.
Or didn't they teach "logic" at Yale?
Hounddog? What's next?
September 3, 2007 - 09:48 ET by rimskyHounddog? What's next? Think about 20 years down the road. People that produce movies like Houndog are Godless, by choice! They will keep going down this same road, producing what they believe to be top shelf, 'sophisticated' movies, each time going a little bit further until nothing is off limits. These are sick people.
I've always admired Jodi
September 3, 2007 - 09:55 ET by gueinI've always admired Jodi Foster as an actress and performer. Fortunately, I have never read or watched any interviews with her where she details her personal views. I'd like to keep it that way.
“I don't believe that any
September 3, 2007 - 09:57 ET by HumanEvents“I don't believe that any gun should be in the hand of a thinking, feeling, breathing human being.”
That's right, Jodie. We gotta keep the guns out of the hands of thinking, feeling human beings. It's the unfeeling non-thinking people who can have the guns (and would too, in leaps and bounds, if left wing anti-2nd ammendment gun grabbers like you get their way).
And what asinine comments she makes about her own movies. It's always interesting when a liberal actor/actress plays a traditional, hard-working, self-reliant individual with conservative values. They find a way to distance themselves from their own material in order to stay politically correct (in this case by attacking her own paying audience) but yet they sure don't mind making $$$$$$$$$$$$ up the wazoo for the same movie.
You beat me to it!
September 3, 2007 - 11:19 ET by mattmI couldn't have said it better myself. The funny part is that she is so oblivious to the stupidity of her remark...
Pure trash
September 3, 2007 - 09:58 ET by Mica the MagnificentI may be the only one who thinks Jodie Foster is a horrible actress. She over-acts most scenes making it impossible for me to 'get into' her character.
And sophisticated movies? Anyone remember her alien film "Communion?'
Pure trash.
"Contact". I kinda liked
September 3, 2007 - 21:46 ET by balboa"Contact". I kinda liked that movie. Cool ideas, interesting stuff. Ending was lame-o, but...that's OK.
And I liked Panic Room.
bal -
September 3, 2007 - 22:09 ET by drillanwrI like most Jodie Foster movies. As actresses/actors go she is one of the best in Hollywood. Apparently Foster replaced Nicole Kidman in Panic Room.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000149/bio
Contact was extremely interesting, being a sci-fi fan myself. However, I suggest reading the book (library) as the story was way more indepth ... but the ending just as lacking in satisfaction and answers, if not more detailed. (Thanks bunches, Carl Sagan!!)
I especially loved the
September 3, 2007 - 22:21 ET by balboaI especially loved the beginning of Contact, where it started way out in space and got closer to earth. The scene where she first hears the signal is really cool. I'll have to check out the book.
gotta love Contact
September 3, 2007 - 22:29 ET by botgit's where something as simple as a short sequence of prime numbers convinces Sagan of intelligence and yet something as complex as multiple amino acid sequences occurring simultaneously (proteins) does not.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Yeah, simplistic, yet
September 3, 2007 - 22:41 ET by drillanwrYeah, simplistic, yet complicated ... the paradox of the unknown.
Sagan was very resistant to the idea of extraterrestrial lifeforms, let alone anyone actually coming across space to visit Earth.
However, after seeing the movie several times (only reading the book once) I too began to doubt/wonder whether the "contact" was alien ... That S.R. Hadden, mega-rich, smart, corporate dude, had set it all up and had found (studying her over time and career) an eager and gullible subject in lonely Dr. Eleanor Arroway.
Things aren't what they
September 3, 2007 - 22:30 ET by drillanwrThings aren't what they appear in the movie the way they are in the book. I may just head to the library myself this week and pick it up for a second read. I was a bit perturbed Sagan just left you hanging (in both movie and book) at the end. You almost felt there would be a sequel, had Sagan NOT beamed out of the Universe before the flick was completed ... But if the movie grabbed you, you'll be even more immersed in the book. Enjoy.
It was a good book, indeed.
September 4, 2007 - 14:43 ET byI liked the suggestion that pi was a kind of signature. It's a good book.
The last film I saw her in; the one about the plane; was rubbish, but yeah, Contact was cool.
Ahh, it's a beautiful
September 3, 2007 - 10:38 ET by balboaAhh, it's a beautiful morning here at NB.
Bal, ya gotta admit...
September 3, 2007 - 10:55 ET by sarcasmoShe said something pretty stupid about guns, which are just tools. This is another example of a Hollyweird-hypocrite, so of course NB's gonna rightly jump on it. This kind of antigun bigotry rightly scares peaceful gun owners, as you must know by now.
Like others above, I wonder what might happen to all the "diverse" anti-gun actors in Hollyweird -- from Jodie on the left all the way to Aaaaahnold on the center-barely-right -- were to stand up for their principles for once, and just not do any more movies involving guns. I suspect any movies that resulted wouldn't involve much in the way of ticket-sales, either, don't you?
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
So she's anti-gun. So? Her
September 3, 2007 - 11:09 ET by balboaSo she's anti-gun. So? Her comments, a little overly sensitive mind you, come from people cheering an onscreen shooting death. She sees the movie as a serious exploration of blah blah blah. Not everyone takes every movie as seriously as she does. That's all.
Not the point, bal
September 3, 2007 - 11:47 ET by RJIt's obvious that Foster is attempting to create a phony PC rationalization. Typical of these shallow, self-righteous Hollywood types, she's trying to construct a cover for the fact that she's willing to take money and participate in a film that has a character and story that "goes against her (liberal) conscience."
Of course. How silly of
September 3, 2007 - 11:51 ET by balboaOf course. How silly of me.
If you're not capable, bal
September 3, 2007 - 11:53 ET by RJof making an intelligent response, then why get into the subject at all?
Right back atcha.Your
September 3, 2007 - 17:22 ET by balboaRight back atcha.Your response was just as silly.
"Typical of these shallow,
September 3, 2007 - 14:56 ET by"Typical of these shallow, self righteous Hollywood types".... blah blah.
Once again, you try to wallow in this falsehood that there is a "unity" on this site.
Sure, a lot of members here hate actors, and Holywood, but not all. (I can just see a whole lot of them scrambling to their profiles to delete favourite movies)
A lot of members hate Europe and England, and Australia, and well everywhere, but not all of you do.
You're not all mad bible bashers, but those who aren't, don't seem to want to make it clear to the bb's.
Many of you are against the idea of AGW because of pure science, but have you cleared it with the Creationsists, because they think you are on their side.
I know for a fact that you don't have to be Right Wing Extremist, pro gun, pro war, pro God, racist, anti feminist, global denialist or 75 years old to have a discussion on this site.... BUT IT HELPS!
Hell, some are only 73.
...of course a right wing
September 3, 2007 - 15:24 ET by TruthMonger...of course a right wing extremist to a leftwing moonbat like you is simply what most of the world calls "nice normal people:)"
Not being a left wing moonbat HELPS ALOT - in many aspects of life - not just NB discussion:)!
Eyecare, I admit I was wrong.
September 3, 2007 - 15:25 ET by RJI've tried to speak with you as if you are a reasonably intelligent adult. I even ignored your posts the other evening, when you displayed either drunkness or incredible stupidity.
I thought that if I didn't allow myself to be dragged down into your childish communication level, you would try to raise yourself up...at least a little.
But your random ranting response to my post is simply ridiculous, babbling nonsense,and shows that you are either uninterested in...or incapable of...behaving in a reasonably intelligent manner.
Do you seriously believe that your post was a cogent, on point, response to my post? Do you have any clue as to what kind of a bumbling half-wit display that was?