Faux News, er, excuse me, Fox News apparently can’t differentiate the content of a horror movie and, well, reality.
They’re roasting movie star and Golden Globe award winner Jamie Lee Curtis over her role in the latest movie in the Halloween franchise, which opens this Friday. She uses firearms in the film in her bid to finally dispatch Michael Myers. That’s the fantasy in the movie.
Curtis, however, is an advocate for gun control. That’s the reality in her life .And Fox equates them.
In the Fox News article, “Jamie Lee Curtis wields firearms in new ‘Halloween’ movie despite advocating for gun control,” the report attacks Curtis’s for her advocacy on gun control since her character in the movie — named Laurie Strode — uses multiple firearms.
As a result, the article reported Curtis is being a hypocrite by playing a character that goes against her own personal views on the matter.
Now, that’s twisted.
It’s important to know the difference between dramatization and reality in cinema and to figure out where that line is. With film in particular, people should be aware that majority of what is being shown is for dramatic purpose but has elements of reality to make sure the movie or the shows plot is still realistic.
In the case of Halloween, its entertaining story telling.
When covering important or touchy topics in film, dramatization should be significantly small and should focus on the reality of the matter, which is what makes movies or shows so compelling. What people tend to do, however, is attack the actors who are playing fictional characters and accuse them of either showing the topic in a bad light, glamorizing the topic, or in Curtis’ case, partaking in a role that contradicts her own personal views.
And she certainly didn’t let this get brushed under the rug.
In an article from USA Today titled Jamie Lee Curtis swings back at Fox News on guns: “I fully support the Second Amendment,” she said. Curtis has “absolutely no problem with people owning firearms if they have been trained, licenced, a background check has been conducted, a pause button has been pushed to give time for that process to take. And they have to renew their license just like we do with automobiles.”
Having an opinion on the Second Amendment is a whole other situation, but to criticize an actor’s ability to perform in a movie based solely on the contradictions between the actor and their character is complete bogus.
It’s comparing apples to oranges: an actor and their character cannot be compared.
Now if the film was portraying guns in a negative way, maybe there would be some wiggle-room for criticism. But why watch a horror movie if there wasn’t any gore or violence?
Curtis explained that in the film, the firearms used are weapons intended for self-defence for the character and their family. The Fox article states “before shooting the latest installment, it was Curtis who steered production away from Strode stockpiling automated weapons, like machine guns.”
This is where the film has done its part on making a dramatic, yet very realistic appearing scenario, for entertainment based on Curtis’ influence. To argue the actor in the film – who is simply doing her job – is a hypocrite. Indeed, it is a lie.
According to the USA Today article, Fox News did not even contact Curtis and she said “they were trying to make a point without ever asking me what I really think.” To smear an actor based on few little facts (or none at all) is just wrong. There was no criticism about the movie, or suggested feedback on what to change, but instead the article seemed to be pushing a different agenda.
Criticism is highly encouraged with film but remember to criticize from a cinematic perspective. If the movie lacked romantic scenes in a romance movie, call it out. If a movie has an actor whose ideology differs from the character they are playing, that is not criticism. It’s slander.