Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Jodie Foster: A Gun-Toting Revenge-Killer?

John Hawkins brings attention to the disconnect that actors have between the message they send with their art (are we to believe that Foster's portrayal in The Brave One of a vigilante was ironic?) and the message they purport to live by. She actually said this:

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.
To which John Hawkins says:
Moreover, Foster grew up with bodyguards, undoubtedly armed bodyguards, who were protecting her from crazed nuts like John Hinckley, Jr. If you were looking for a celebrity who's a perfect example of why people should be allowed to carry guns, Foster's experience with John Hinckley, Jr would make her one of the first people you'd point towards.

In a way, you almost have to feel sorry for celebrities like Foster because they live in such a bubble that there probably isn't anyone that they talk to on a regular basis that will have the courage to tell them that they're spouting complete nonsense.
Ms. Foster is a mother now. I simply cannot believe that she would deny her homicidal feelings should her child be purposefully hurt. That's perfectly natural. The most docile cow will become fearsome to a bull when protecting her calf. I'm not saying she would pick up the gun, but to deny that instinct? And she would claim it immoral to protect that same child? Or would it be moral to use a gun in self or family defense?

In Hollywood, the brain is on autopilot. I don't think that these people even think about what they're saying anymore.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

And the Islamic takeover they helped to bring about will relieve us of their braying CELEBRITY(!)existence.

kal said...

Their brain is on autopilot OR they are in massive denial of their own basic instincts.

This post kind of coincides with Texas' new "Castle Law" which expands the right to defend one's self and property.

The law also coincides with this very type of defensive killing here in Dallas that is gaining a lot of media attention - even the New York Times.

Curious, especially since it involves an FDA approved anti-addiction drug, what you thought of this matter. (I have two posts on my blog summarizing the story).

sandy said...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H e l l o . . . N i c e . . . B l o g . . . P U S H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .