Something on my Mind: They're Only Acting (2)

I suppose I could criticize any number of careers and be justified doing so. I have issues with parts of some of the ones in which I have been employed these past forty years—mailman, preacher, teacher, and writer. But none set themselves up for such legitimate criticism as the acting fraternity.

I have suggested some issues in my previous column. I will repeat them and add a couple more:

1. saying things they don't mean or didn't even think up (via a script);

2. pretend to be someone they are not;
3. assume a significance in society that is not deserved or earned;
4. once they are on the way to "success," they throw out morality and propriety;
5. and are abject failures in their private lives (continuation of #4).

I alluded to some good actors a few columns ago. I know little about their respective personal lives, so I can't claim them as paragons of virtue.

From what I can tell, though, in addition to their great acting, they were also great people away from the camera. I see those actors as a different breed than the current roster. They weren't as empty as the ones we have now. I don't recall any of them taking "centre stage," about "this issue" or "that controversy." They had the liberty to do so, but common sense to not.

I am trying to recall movie that the aforementioned have been in in where there was unnecessary sex, bad language or gratuitous violence. I don't recall where life was portrayed in a false, empty way, where it was always wonderful, the grass was always green, and everyone lived always happily ever after.

Hollywood has its place, I suppose, in some quarters. I like entertainment as much as the next person, but I have to remind myself that they're only acting. I must take everything with a grain of salt. The last thing I need is Hollywood instructing me about religion, sex, inter-personal relationships, economics, the law and such.

I am cutting Hollywood some slack, because every now and then they actually come out with some terrific scenes that are very, very good. Roma, I hear, is a good example of that.

In a general sense, though, we must watch for these characters becoming role models or beacons of instruction for our children...and even for us old guys! And that includes the "good" ones I just referenced.

I don't know what goes on when the camera is not rolling. All I know is what I see when I am watching.

I get weary is when these guys and their liberal bedfellows are anarchistic, defiant, and, well, stupid, when it comes to expressing their opinion. There is hardly a day where some member of the Hollywood cult isn't attacking the aforementioned institutions.

Ponder this: Given an opportunity to speak their mind, ie., not use someone else's words, they come up empty-handed (or would that be empty-headed?). Many of them, who are on their last dollar, or their last gig was years ago (hello, Darryl Hanna or Lindsay Lohan), feel they have to shoot their mouth off repeatedly (but are "firing blanks"). Or feel the need to get involved in some social or environmental issue, without doing the research and knowing what they're talking about.

Surprise, surprise.

These guys are way in over their heads. They're just against anything that resembles law and order, conservatism, or a well-ordered society. Or worse, there's enough truth in what they're saying that they sound credible.

Hollywood is a mess and is overrun with these sorts of people. I am thankful to say, there are some solid, sound actors—though few and far between—who also have strong, rational conservative views.

In the main, when it comes to actors and actresses, my advice is to stick to the script. The script may not be them, but it's better than what they could offer off the set.

Please keep the acting where it belongs.

Something on my Mind: They're Only Acting (1)

I have found that one of life's greatest pleasures for me has been acting. Over the years, usually through grade school, I have played some interesting roles. In recent years, I have had a part in two movies: In one, I am old Isaac from the Bible in a western; and in the other, I am a Roman centurion, without a name. I think "Delirious" would have been a good one.

But acting is one thing, being an actor is another. Actors (and I include actresses; I just don't want to write both words repeatedly) may do well in front of the camera, but it's their lifestyle off site that I have massive issues with. Re-stated: in front of the camera they're somewhere between "okay" and "good"; outside, in the real world, they are out of control.

Like the antics of athletes that I wrote about recently, I think many actors are over-rated, mostly for off site persona. I have heard of many who are terrible to work with. I wonder where they get this sense that the sun rises and falls on them.

Only in Hollywood can an employee say things they don't mean, be given god-like status for any number of reasons, but mostly because of their acting prowess or the shape of their body. And get filthy rich (more filthy than rich) while they're at it.

They can be as promiscuous as possible, something seen as good thing by the general populace. And while they are at it, they can be as defiant or irreligious as possible, too, all simply because of their status.

And these are the same heroes and heroines that our kids look up to. And it's not just the kids that have created a cult following among Hollywood's elite. Are these healthy role models?

As stated three paragraphs ago, I like acting, but I like good actors (and by extension, good movies). There are many of the latter, though once they are involved in unnecessary sex, bad language, or gratuitous violence, I'm out.

I struggle with what goes on in front of the camera (see above). But I also struggle with what goes on off site. It gets worse when they start giving their opinion about any number of issues, most of which they know nothing about. And even worse yet, they're given some sort of credibility by the unthinking public.

It is so hard to believe how many people are duped by these dupes.

For people who never have an original line in their profession, how can they actually express an original thought about anything significant, issues such as pipelines, the oil patch, economics, abortion, or gender issues.

If you ever waste your time trying to listen to these people when they get in front of a mic, you'll hear them always bashing anything conservative. Their targets are values, families, worldviews, and, of course, the usual whipping boy, governments. This makes them very popular with their snowflake fans.

We are all entitled to our opinions, no problem there. I'm expressing mine here. This is what marks a free society, and that is why many of us conservatives are alarmed at the growing muzzlement (not a word, Maurice) we feel these days. That's why it is so ironic that those with really nothing positive or substantial to say are not muzzled.

Many of the actors and actresses have so little content, yet generate so much talk. And that's only when they are not reading other peoples' lines for them.

There's a lot of bad actors out there, in more ways than one.

Something on my Mind: Karate Kid, You Not

The most recent buzz around our house is a brand-new, weekly karate class. My youngest got it in his head that he wanted to try it, so he's trying (and liking) it. It calls for a quick trip to Lethbridge every Saturday, but it's worth the ride...so far.

He has just started, so there's a bit of a pattern of what happens for the hour-long class, and it runs something like this (with a touch of hyperbole added):

1. I drop my son off, then flee to do some necessary shopping, before the violence starts;

2. that is, of course, after I bowed to Master Suzuki, and grunt appropriately;

3. I return in time to pick him up (my son, that is), and head back to the sticks.

I don't know if my boy is being groomed to be my bodyguard or my assassin. Or neither. Maybe it's just for the exercise and to get out of the house.

There was some talk there about different degrees in a black belt. Or something like that. Big deal: I have one degree and about four black belts. Apparently I misunderstood.

Master Suzuki is an interesting study. He's a working stiff by day (electrician, if I recall), but a karate instructor by weekend. I wonder how he reacts to a client not paying his bill? A chop here or there? I'm sure he bows when he gets his cheque.

I applaud (now I'm serious, not wisecracking) anyone who works at a real job, then adds a hobby to help others. And I can assure you, he can't be in it for the money. He's hardly covering his gas to get to and from the centre, plus its rental.

In fact, it's really admirable that he puts himself out for so few kids, because there are only two kids in my son's class, and only one in the next one.

Word is out that they will amalgamate the first two classes, which makes sense, but that will still mean there are only three kids in the class. At that rate, the money is still the same, but he will save time and rent for that unused extra hour.

My son will be given his kimono the next time he shows up. To me, it's a bland housecoat, but I'm not taking the class. If I were, I would have preferred one with Donald Duck figures; even "Frozen" would have worked for me.

And I use my housecoat for lounging, reading, or watching a movie—vegging, if you will. The kimono that Suzuki has his students use is for the complete opposite purpose, namely, moving, thrashing, twisting, and other karate-type gestures. I think that if a kimono had a lion or gorilla silkscreened on it, it would be fitting.

And the belt: Mine usually holds my pants up, whereas the karate one holds the kimono in. The colours are the difference: black, I get; I'm just not sure what my brown belt means—that I can't find my black one?

People like me think there's a lot of damage to be done if one becomes an accomplished "karate kid" and loses control. That hardly happens, I understand. Apparently there's a lot more to it than that. I don't know what it is, but it has a philosophical and traditional element to it, one that involves honour and respect, accomplishments and success.

My black belt represents relief—that my pants won't fall down.

I'm not sure if the contact (fist on chest) feels any softer if Party A thrashes the you-know-what out of Party B. Who actually gets hurt when A touches B? Maybe that's where the expression "this hurts me more than it hurts you" came from, though I doubt it.

I am hoping my son will learn some self-defense tricks for the years to come. He doesn't really need them for his older brothers, as most have moved away. I just hope he doesn't use them on me when I ask him to do some chores:

"Son, wash dishes please, especially the ones with mould." Whack to the knee. "Son, pick up those socks that have been there for a week." Chop to the neck. "Son (if I'm still breathing), shut the door on your way out." Thrash, as he tosses me through that door.

Maybe if I could get him to bow to me like he bows to his instructor it would be worth it all.