The internet is melting down because Fox News commented on cinematic gun use. Except they were correct.
The young set of America thinks they have dominated the cultural discourse today. It started when Fox News put out an article noting that actress Jamie Lee Curtis, who is an avowed gun control advocate, uses guns in the upcoming “Halloween” reboot. Sure, it is another example of celebrities telling us how our guns are bad as they perform on screen with the same, but there is some deeper obliviousness at play here.
On twitter, and various sites like HuffPo the millennial demographic launched into the kind of blowback that gets described as “flamed”, “dragged” and any other manner of mob aggression. (Yep, I used “mob” – won’t even apologize for it.) The young set feels as if they are making a valid stance when they point out that “IT IS JUST A MOVIE!!!” Numerous examples of other actors portraying questionable characters opposing their views are trotted out. This somehow is regarded as pithy, and deflating the thrust of the article contents.
The comments are implying that even though Curtis is shown with guns in a film that in no way diminishes the import of her anti-gun messaging “in real life”. One of the moves by this group was to bring up the films where actors seemingly contradict lifestyle choices. They have brought up “Silence Of The Lambs” and declared that Anthony Hopkins should be called a hypocrite in kind, because he portrayed a face-eating sociopath on screen while opposing cannibalism in real life.
That they think this is a trenchant comparison shows the lack of introspection in play, but to indulge them on this sees the attempt unravels with the barest of thought. Anthony Hopkins has not made political stances based on cannibalism, and it would be ridiculous for him to do so. No one is suggesting he needs to make a statement against the practice. This is specifically why comparing him to Curtis is folly, because the actress HAS made statements in public. Additionally (as asinine as this seems, it still needs to be stated) cannibalism is not a constitutional right that is threatened. So, Hopkins aside…
Fox News, and anyone else mentioning the gun use by Curtis, are not flummoxed by the unreality of film. What is being pointed out here is that while she sees a benefit professionally and artistically in her personal life, she decries citizens employing guns in a fashion of their personal choice. It is a classic example of it being acceptable for her derive a benefit from gun use, but not others — that is to say, it IS hypocritical.
In saying that you or I should have limited access to guns in our personal lives she bypasses that it is just fine for her to profit personally from using them. “But they are fake guns, it is make believe” does not in any way excuse this. It is promoting, glorifying, and/or fetishizing gun use. It is the very thing that gun-control celebrities speak out against, yet as venal as those concepts are said to be it is somehow acceptable for them to profit off of those same ideals.
In the film she employs her weapon in order to neutralize the violent threat of Michael Myers, but to suggest that citizens desire the same chance at protection in their lives is out of the question. This is a stance of convenience for some in Hollywood, where their professional acts should not be measured against your personal desires. But those taking to social media to exclaim how Fox, and others, just don’t get it, are missing the entire point.
This is no reflection on the film, and further it is not even an attempt to silence Curtis and her views. But when she personally benefits from gun use and then takes to social media to decry others for doing the same it does become something worth questioning.
The main point in the end is this simply this: Can Jamie Lee Curtis use guns in a movie? Sure she can. But then her vacillating stance on guns means she has voided herself as a voice worth listening to on the subject.