Jim Carrey Repents His Gun Violence


kick_ass_2Kick-Ass 2 is a uniquely violent film. The original Kick-Ass, starring Nicolas Cage, Mark Strong, Aaron Johnson and Lyndsy Fonseca, focused on a teenage boy without super powers, who decides to take on the mantle of superhero and battle crime. This ends with predictably brutal results, including one character being burned alive, several being shredded by a pre-teen girl, and another discovering the business end of a bazooka.

Kick-Ass 2 will likely surpass that. One of the new heroes is Colonel Stars and Stripes (Jim Carrey.)  Carrey’s salary for Kick-Ass 2 remains unknown, but he is one of the highest-paid stars in Hollywood, and has a net worth well in excess of $100 million. He’s also a gun control advocate – a few months back, he put together an incredibly unfunny parody for Funny or Die! in which he played Charlton Heston and mocked Heston’s genital size as payback for Heston’s support of the Second Amendment. “His immortal soul may lay forever in the sand, the angels wouldn’t take him up to heaven as he planned, cuz they couldn’t pry his gun from his cold, dead hand,” Carrey sang in that classic piece of pop culture.

But that wasn’t enough. After completing filming for Kick-Ass 2, Carrey has now decided that he will not involve himself in the marketing for the film. He tweeted, “I did Kickass a month b4 Sandy Hook and now in all good conscience I cannot support that level of violence.” He added another tweet moments later: “I meant to say my apologies to others involved with the film. I am not ashamed of it but recent events have caused a change in my heart.”

The creator of the Kick-Ass comic books, Mark Millar, fired back at Carrey, writing, “As you may know, Jim is a passionate advocate of gun-control and I respect both his politics and his opinion, but I’m baffled by this sudden announcement as nothing seen in this picture wasn’t in the screenplay eighteen months ago. Yes, the body-count is very high, but a movie called Kick-Ass 2 really has to do what it says.” He added, “Ultimately, this is his decision, but I’ve never quite bought the notion that violence in fiction leads to violence in real-life any more than Harry Potter casting a spell creates more Boy Wizards in real life.”

This is the conflict that Hollywood currently experiences on the issue of violence. Hollywood likes to believe it has outsized impact on the world around it. That’s why Hollywood rewards films with “something to say” – films that push the environmentalist agenda, no matter how ridiculous (The Day After Tomorrow), films that forward the gay agenda, no matter how boring (Brokeback Mountain, Boys Don’t Cry), films that push corporations as evil (virtually every film from Hollywood). Hollywood thinks it makes a difference.

On the other hand, Hollywood wants to pretend it doesn’t make a difference in the social sphere when it comes time to pick up the check. That’s how Hollywood lives with itself for churning out pornographic nonsense, degrading misogyny, and glorification of demented behavior.

This psychological schism results in the bizarre bipolar nature of those in Hollywood. They’ll do anything for pay – or virtually anything – but they feel the necessity to excuse their riches by then pushing a social message. Carrey isn’t willing to sink tens of millions of dollars into producing a movie against gun violence, but he’s sure willing to take a check for shooting folks, then condemn the movie in which he stars.

In truth, Hollywood material does have an impact on the culture. Studies tend to show a greater linkage between sexual material in film and popular behavior than with violent material in film, although Hollywood would prefer to think the opposite (or simply doesn’t care about damping  down sexuality to change the behavior of younger and younger teenagers). In any case, Hollywood is a business. Those in Hollywood should either put their money where their mouths are, or they should take their checks and stop complaining about the evils of the very films in which they star.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • charles simmonds

    Sorry, I strongly disagree with you there Ben
    the parody of Heston was indeed incredibly funny

    “a few months back, he put together an incredibly unfunny parody for Funny or Die! in which he played Charlton Heston and mocked Heston’s genital size as payback for Heston’s support of the Second Amendment. “

    • fritzidler

      I checked it out. It was too long and slow to be funny. Except for that Gandhi character playing the big gourd. But Jim did sing the song very well. Maybe he should try music. Or comedy.

  • poptoy1949

    His acting was nothing but satire and it seems his Political ideas are the same. Who cares?

  • Demetrius Minneapolis

    It’s not just his salary for participating in the movie, there’s also the royalty checks afterward.

  • garyhope

    Carrey is creepy and has been for a long time. What makes all of these actors think that their pronouncements are important, relevant or of interest to most Americans? Their enormous narcissism or hubris?

    • tagalog

      People pay attention to them and that causes them to think that their ideas must have some weight.

  • tagalog

    No doubt Mr. Carrey, when considering his role in Kick-Ass 2, reflected on the title and was deceived into thinking it involved a number of sequences in which the characters smelled daffodils and picketed the state capital for an end to war and violence.

    How surprised he must have been when he read the screenplay! Oh well, but then a paycheck is a paycheck, isn’t it?

  • NAHALKIDES

    To accept a salary for playing a part in the film and then refusing to participate in its marketing is to say, “It’s o.k. for me to make a lot of money doing this but it’s not o.k. for the businessmen and investors who risked their money to pay my salary to make any money themselves.”

    Malignant narcissism marinated in hypocrisy – that’s Jim Carrey.

  • garyhope

    Has anyone noticed how mean and nasty many “comedians” are? It’s so easy to be mean and nasty, it doesn’t take that much talent.

  • Profit

    Don’t be fooled. This is just a publicity and marketing stunt to get more people to watch his movie and line up his pockets with even more money, and its working. Let’s be honest, a Jim Carrey movie is not something you stand in line for on the first showing at midnight; he’s been washed up for years.

    • cathy

      BINGO!!

  • Aizino Smith

    I am done with Jim Carey.

  • jogotyree69

    two-bit piece o’ sh*t

  • johnnywood

    I wanted to comment on Carrey`s babbling foolishness but I decided, Why bother?

  • Seek

    Jim Carrey is under no moral obligation to give back his money. He performed work on a movie; he earned his pay; and he is not a “hypocrite” for wanting to keep it. I’ve worked at think tanks where I didn’t agree with any number of articles. That doesn’t mean I’m going to hand back my salary because of the acts of others. Ben Shapiro, as usual, is cherry-picking to “prove” the perfidy of the film industry. And as usual, he’s desperate.
    Carrey remains a brilliant comic. As the bad-guy magician in this year’s “The Incredible Burt Wonderstone,” he showed he’s still got the right stuff.

    • tagalog

      Well, it depends on whether or not his employment contract included (as many do) the obligation to participate in the marketing campaign for the completed film.

    • megaf

      no moral obligation to give the money back to the producers, but probably a moral obligation to take that money and help those who he is so righteous for. I can’t really agree with you’re position on him not being a hypocrite. I think you are a hypocrite, I think I am a hypocrite. I think there are very few out there who can claim they really stand for what they believe in. Just because we all have an accepted level of hypocrisy does not excuse us from that term. Jim is just a very public hypocrite that has set his own acceptable level of hypocrisy.. possibly higher than most.

  • The7Sticks

    Actually, I find violence that doesn’t show bloodshed or agony to be worse than violence that does. Case in point, I saw “Man of Steel”, where basically, hundreds of thousands of people are, from what I presume, killed because Superman and General Zod keep beating each other up throughout Metropolis, knocking down entire skyscrapers and leveling the surface to dust. Presumably, not everyone would have been able to evacuate from those skyscrapers, so we, as an audience, are left wondering what happened to all those people. But most audience members in the theater are not going to think about that, which I find unfortunate. That’s why I thought what was remarkable about the first Kick-Ass movie was that there are severe consequences when it came to the violence. You understand clearly the agony and the suffering that affected the characters in that movie.

  • Marek Stolkoff

    “Studies tend to show a greater linkage between sexual material in film and popular behavior than with violent material in film”

    ?????????????