“Tinsel City braveness” may be an oxymoron.
Stars who acquire or drop some pounds for a task are deemed “courageous” in celeb circles. Those that use awards reveals to plug progressive causes, reflecting the trade’s overwhelming groupthink, are equally dubbed beautiful and/or courageous.
But when braveness actually counts, too many stars stand down.
Keep in mind when Gina Carano was cruelly fired from “The Mandalorian” for sharing a social media put up selling empathy? Not even her co-stars rose to defend her, at the very least till months after her dismissal.
What about Roseanne Barr shedding her sitcom empire and profession for one ugly, racially-charged Tweet for which she swiftly apologized? Barr shattered skilled glass ceilings for a era of feminine comedians, but only a few (if any) rallied to her protection.
Typically, Hollywood’s lack of braveness is breathtaking.
Contemplate how few Ladies’s March celebrities spoke out after Hamas tortured and sexually assaulted girls throughout their Oct. 7 bloodbath in Israel. The 2024 movie “Screams Earlier than Silence” recalled these atrocities in heart-breaking element.
A newer, galling instance of Hollywood cowardice?
Few celebrities might spare a sympathetic phrase following the Sept. 10 assassination of conservative icon Charlie Kirk. That they had an ideal alternative to do exactly that on the Sept. 14 Emmys gala.
The nation was nonetheless reeling from the assault that day, a killing captured and shared on social media. The assembled stars mentioned nothing, reflecting the trade at giant.
One outstanding exception? Oscar winner Jamie Lee Curtis teared up throughout an interview with Marc Maron after she introduced up Kirk’s homicide.
“I imply, I disagreed with him on virtually each level I ever heard him say. However I imagine he was a person of religion, and I hope in that second when he died, that he felt linked to his religion … Though I discover what his concepts had been abhorrent to me, I nonetheless imagine he’s a father and a husband and a person of religion, and I hope no matter ‘connection to God’ means, that he felt it.”
Curtis recalled that emotional response in a brand new interview for Selection. And, shockingly, she did so so as to primarily argue she was taken out of context.
Why? Partially, as a result of she obtained a “threatening” backlash, to listen to her describe it.
“An excerpt of it mistranslated [emphasis added] what I used to be saying as I wanted him effectively – like I used to be speaking about him in a really optimistic method, which I wasn’t; I used to be merely speaking about his religion in God,” Curtis instructed Selection.
She added, “Within the binary world right now, you can’t maintain two concepts on the identical time: I can’t be Jewish and completely imagine in Israel’s proper to exist and on the identical time reject the destruction of Gaza. You may’t say that, since you get vilified for having a thoughts that claims, ‘I can maintain each these ideas. I may be contradictory in that method.’”
Two occasions of notice.
One, the media is wholly disinterested in the truth that folks bullied an Oscar winner into retracting her human response to Kirk’s homicide. That displays the fashionable Left’s willingness to dehumanize its ideological foes.
Like Kirk.
Two, the identical media didn’t blink when Curtis retracted her human response to Kirk’s homicide.
Then once more, reporters might have gotten numb to Hollywood’s ethical collapse. Nonetheless, Curtis’ backpedal units a brand new bar for trade cowardice.