British actor Rupert Everett, displaying either a penchant for gross hyperbole or ignorance about foreign affairs (or perhaps extreme anti-Americanism), compared Hollywood to Al Qaida in an interview with the Times. And no, he was not referring to Hollywood’s authoritarian rejection of viewpoints that are not sufficiently far enough to the left. Everett claims there is a bias against homosexuality and women in Hollywood that parallels Al Qaida’s.
Then again, he may be trying to conjure up some explanation for his lack of significant acting roles.
Making films in America is “like being in Afghanistan”, according to the British actor Rupert Everett.
“Hollywood is a place that pretends it’s very liberal but it’s not remotely. It’s like al-Qaida,” he told the Times, citing the studios’ attitudes towards women, gay people, abortion and addiction.
He claimed he has been turned down for leading roles because of his sexuality and that women are also discriminated against.
“The treatment of women is quite extraordinary,” he said. If you compare being a 70-year-old woman to a 70-year-old man, the old woman will maybe get to play a grandmother. The old man will do a film with a 20-year-old girl.
“On abortion, [the studios] are for it in private because they don’t want actresses to clog up their schedules [by taking time off to have babies]. But in films if you get pregnant you have to keep the baby and end up with the man.
“A 50-year-old male drug addict will be supported. Female alcoholics and drug addicts are absolutely rejected.”
Somewhat surprisingly, we can suffice with the Guardian readers’ refutation of Everett-
So how far would Everett’s career have taken him in Afganistan?
I supect a quick decapitation on YouTube.
Hollywood is quick to embrace gay actors who can *act* and audiences really don’t care about their sexuality.
Ian McKellen has been in six blockbuster movies in the last decade.
People who use hyperbole are worse than Hitler.
Well, let’s check.
How many girls schools have been burned down by Hollywood producers this year?
How many teachers have been assassinated by the Hollywood Writers Guild?
Has Matt Damon shot and wounded a nine year old girl, pursued her into a field and coldly executed her because she had the temerity to seek an education?
Do Miramax have a corporate policy of collapsing walls onto homosexuals to kill them?
Yet another utterly fatuous CiF article, plugging the liberal group-think that Western values are “just as bad really” as groups that kill women, gays, religious converts, adulterers…..
And there is this provocative comment, which is somewhat off the mark but unintentionally nails the issue of movies finding something ‘cool’ in Jihadi violence. It does not come from a love of violence, perse, as the writer claims, rather a love of ‘revolutionary’ violence.
It’s easy to dismiss this as a silly question. After all, are there any examples of Hollywood directors executing girls for going to school?
But I do think there is a commonality that Everett and the question above don’t get at: love of violence. When I read about the Taliban, or note how many columnists at CIF make excuses for radical political violence, or who think expressing solidarity with Hamas is chic and edgy, I think that the morality of Hollywood action movies has taken over the world.
Sometimes, I wish the Anglican Church had some power in this country, as for all its faults the morality it teaches these days puts Hollywood, Islam, and the Seumas Milnes of the world to shame.
(Seumas Milne is a far-left journalist writing for the Guardian. His father, Alasdair, was once Director-General of the BBC.)