View Full Version : I have loved Jeremy Irons for decades
And now I just rekindled my passion. He made a statement, a theoretical what if, that the thought police despise and in his business it can mean death to future roles. Throw him in chains! Off to the camps!
http://www.towleroad.com/2013/04/irons.html
I guess that he has pretty strong libertarian leanings, but I didn't know that until today. HuffPo handed me a big giant gift today.
And now I just rekindled my passion. He made a statement, a theoretical what if, that the thought police despise and in his business it can mean death to future roles. Throw him in chains! Off to the camps!
http://www.towleroad.com/2013/04/irons.html
I guess that he has pretty strong libertarian leanings, but I didn't know that until today. HuffPo handed me a big giant gift today.
I don't think the equivalent of "What if a man wanted to marry his horse?" is an example of revolutionary thinking, and similar "concerns" to his were expressed to oppose interracial marriages--that the idea "debases" holy matrimony. (Which is ludicrous given the history of marriage--King Solomon, anyone?) I would expect a Libertarian to support the rights of two consenting adults to enter into the binding contract of marriage, although they probably wouldn't want any government involvement at all.
You have to admit, though, it would be a creative way to avoid inheritance taxes.
I don't think the equivalent of "What if a man wanted to marry his horse?" is an example of revolutionary thinking...
Of course you don't! and that's ok.
You don't have to love him, more Jeremy for me! I'm putting Season 2 of The Borgias at the top of my Netflix que.
I think I'll pull out that Die Hard film from the Library's collection with Bruce Willis and Irons as the bad guy and have a testosterone fest of non-liberal actors. DH will join me, he likes Willis a lot.
I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't understand how Jeremy Iron's words reflected strong libertarian leanings. Perhaps you could explain Iris Lily.
You have to admit, though, it would be a creative way to avoid inheritance taxes.
Living in the UK as he does with their confiscatory attitude about estates, he would be a step ahead of us in that thought process.
You have to admit, though, it would be a creative way to avoid inheritance taxes.
Except that the law, as it stands in my state, catches that trick:
RCW 26.04.020
Prohibited marriages.
(1) Marriages in the following cases are prohibited:
(a) When either party thereto has a spouse or registered domestic partner living at the time of such marriage, unless the registered domestic partner is the other party to the marriage; or
(b) When the spouses are nearer of kin to each other than second cousins, whether of the whole or half blood computing by the rules of the civil law.
(2) It is unlawful for any person to marry his or her sibling, child, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew.
...
The code update that occurred when we legalized gay marriage implemented gender-neutral language.
It's academic for you and I to chat about whether other people should be allowed to legally marry. It's not academic at all to our friends and relatives who are gay and want desperately to marry their partners--often partners of many years. They're fighting for rights in courts of law and courts of public opinion just as others have before them.
I would expect a Libertarian to support the rights of two consenting adults to enter into the binding contract of marriage, although they probably wouldn't want any government involvement at all.
As a conservative libertarian, I support the right of any consenting adults to enter into mutually-agreeable contracts, and prefer that the state, if involved at all, limit its involvement to dealing with contractual disputes.
I don't think libertarians, in general, buy the "cats and dogs living together" line of argument against allowing marriages between consenting parties.
I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't understand how Jeremy Iron's words reflected strong libertarian leanings. Perhaps you could explain Iris Lily.
This thought does not, you are completely right. It does reflect non-Hollywood sheep think. I find anything out of that box to be refreshing.
Let's just say that I heard from an expert (haha who shall remain nameless) that Irons is a longstanding libertarian. Perhaps true, perhaps not, but I'd never heard that and baby I LOVE that man! Jeremy Irons may be bisexual as well, hard to know. I don't care, I love him.
Some of his performances were incredibly moving to me:
* The one where he was in love with the Japanese faux geisha
* the one where he played the demented twin doctors
* he was a believable tortured Humbert Humbert in a flawed Lolita film
* oh and Brideshead (the original)
I ran through his IMDB list and these are my favorites
I think there's some old duck in the South somewhere who tried to adopt his mistress--to keep her from testifying or something, and those two creepy lawyers in the killer Presa Canario case adopted an inmate for equally questionable reasons. Stuff happens.
IshbelRobertson
4-5-13, 5:09pm
Doesn't Jeremy Irons live in the ROI? They have quite distinct laws from the UK.
And doesn't he have an unusual personal view on marriage?
IMHO the man's a numpty!
Doesn't Jeremy Irons live in the ROI? They have quite distinct laws from the UK.
And doesn't he have an unusual personal view on marriage?
IMHO the man's a numpty!
What is ROI?
I say, if you aren't going to claim him, I will. yup, where's my claim ticket?
What is ROI?
The Poblacht na hÉireann.
IshbelRobertson
4-5-13, 5:58pm
Exactly, BAE!
And IL? You're welcome to him!
The Storyteller
4-5-13, 6:19pm
Iris, I get what you mean about those who go against the flow being appealing, but I'm curious how this squares with your very pro-gay POV. Does the actual position he takes bother you at all?
Just wondering.
I recognized his name. He was pretty good in that Die Hard flick. Not at all sure why I would care about his politics.
The Storyteller
4-6-13, 10:30am
I've been thinking about this thread a lot, and you know, I have come to the conclusion that I don't care what he thinks about gay marriage. In fact, I don't much care what he thinks about anything but acting, and stuff that informs his acting. Because he is an actor. I watch film and television and theater and watch for good performances of good material.
In fact, I don't care what any of these people think about political stuff. They are just famous because they are actors. Every now and then I will hear something that some actor is doing and applaud it and say, "Oh, isn't that nice. They are using their fame to some good purpose." But that will not make me like their acting any more or less, regardless what it is.
Richard Gere and Kevin Costner are really decent people doing wonderful things, but I can only think two Gere performance that I like, and only like Costner in maybe three (most of them baseball movies). Outside of that, I can't stand them. They annoy me for some reason.
On the other hand, I probably couldn't disagree with Clint Eastwood and Bruce Willis more, yet they are two of my favorite actors. Carlton Heston was an ass, but Planet of the Apes and The Omega Man are still classic sci-fi that I love. And I have been an Arnold fan since 1968 when he first came to America from Austria and was known as the Austrian Oak. Russell Crow is my number one favorite actor, yet by many accounts he is a total jerk in real life. That doesn't make me like his performances any less.
And Iris is right about Hollywood sheep-think. I sometime think of Mel Gibson, once the darling of Hollywood. Is Gibson any less of an actor or producer than he was for Braveheart, just because of his drunken anti-Semitic rant? Yet, he has completely disappeared from the scene.
Yeah, it doesn't matter what Irons thinks, except that there will likely be fewer opportunities to see his acting. But in the end, if we are watching actors for their personal politics, we are watching them for the wrong reasons.
I think there’s a certain streak of neopuritanism running through American politics. It emerges in different ways among left and right. On the right, you see a certain overt religiosity. On the left, you see self-appointed censors attempting to limit speech to certain attitudes or even specific words. Presidents, sportscasters and actors must all be called to account for heterodox utterances.
I tend to agree with what Mark Steyn said on the subject: “The tolerance enforcers will not tolerate dissent; the diversity celebrators demand a ruthless homogeneity. Much of the progressive agenda — on marriage, immigration, and much else — involves not winning the argument but ruling any debate out of bounds. Perhaps like Jeremy Irons you don’t have “strong feelings” on this or that, but, if you do, enjoy them while you can.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/344835/vigilance-vigilantes-mark-steyn
ApatheticNoMore
4-6-13, 12:08pm
In fact, I don't care what any of these people think about political stuff. They are just famous because they are actors.
If I even end up reading their opinion somehow, I care about their argument, whether it makes sense to me. And this argument was ridiculous, by it's logic a sister and brother who were not married otherwise could marry after childbearing age (and if it was done purely for economics, nothing sick going on, it would make a lot of economic sense to do so for healthcare at that age and so on if one sibling wanted to be self-employed etc.). But really I don't think that's legal almost anywhere. Why should same sex related couples be any different?
And Iris is right about Hollywood sheep-think. I sometime think of Mel Gibson, once the darling of Hollywood. Is Gibson any less of an actor or producer than he was for Braveheart, just because of his drunken anti-Semitic rant? Yet, he has completely disappeared from the scene.
yes well, it's unfortunate, mind you in an ideal world it would definitely not happen, but in the world as it is now I kind of think: welcome to life! Cry me a river, you know. If even an ordinary corporate drone with no name recognition posts nudie pics on facebook, do they really think it might not impact their career? What if they do something much more mild and post negative opinions of past employers alll over fb, um it still could still influence the next job they apply for etc.. What if they posted racist rants all over fb? I'm supposed to be crying a river over how things like that influence actors career choices when ordinary working stiffs lack any protection against using what they say online against them!?!
I dont' have strong feelings on the issue of gay marriage either really, never having been married myself anyway, I'm not sure why some priviledges of marriage can't apply to platonic friendships even, though Jeremy Irons argument was completely ridiculous (oh so if a dad has a vesectomy can he also marry his daughter? *facepalm*).
The purpose of this thread is less about the politics of Jeremy Irons than it is about my newly rekindled passion for him, haha. See, yesterday I set off to find more about him and found--he is a restorationist! He spent decades restoring a castle! HE IS A BUILDING HUGGER LIKE ME! OMG.
But Storyteller, yeah, I agree with you. His politics don't matter on the big screen (tell that to HuffPo) it's just such a freekin' surprise to find departure from the norm. And your question about my strong pro-gay stance--umm? Just because I pulled the voting lever in favor of the state referendum to allow gay marriiage well before your President came around to the same position doesn't mean that I'm "strong" it just means I had to go one way or the other in the voting booth. I chose to go "pro" but I have concerns about fallout.
There is a series of books, too bad I can't remember titles or author, about the liberal agenda in Hollywood and what happens to those who go against the flow particularly those in front of the camera. It's unfortunate that they are tedious to wade through with way too much detail much of which is reaching. But edit them down to one long article and it's good stuff.
I dont' have strong feelings on the issue of gay marriage either really, never having been married myself anyway, I'm not sure why some priviledges of marriage can't apply to platonic friendships even, though Jeremy Irons argument was completely ridiculous (oh so if a dad has a vesectomy can he also marry his daughter? *facepalm*).
I don't think his argument is ridiculous at all. We're currently in the process of changing the traditional and legal definition of marriage in order to incorporate a specific demographic. What makes anyone think it will end there?
The Storyteller
4-6-13, 2:54pm
If I even end up reading their opinion somehow, I care about their argument, whether it makes sense to me.
I might care about what they say, but it has absolutely zero bearing on whether or not I think they are good actors.
Frank Sinatra once famously said, "All I owe you is my best performance." I agree with him. Everything else is moot.
IshbelRobertson
4-6-13, 5:34pm
IL
he painted the castle PINK! Many natives were offended. The Irish, like us Scots can be 'thrawn'.
Ps. I'm a building hugger, too!
IL
he painted the castle PINK! Many natives were offended. The Irish, like us Scots can be 'thrawn'.
Ps. I'm a building hugger, too!
Well, in my worldview, painting masonry IS reason to haul someone off to the camps since on our buildings it changes the chemical make up of the bricks and allows water to sit on the brick, promoting decay.
I looked up the saga of the pink castle and it seems that Ireland's building heritage organization gave him the OK to limewash the stone walls to keep out rain. They are the experts on how to treat those old castles walls, not me. So it's just the color that is in question and that will fade over time and besides, the next owner could limewash it another color, it's not there permanently.
Speaking of limewash, DH has some experience with that having limewashed his auntie's cottage in Brodick, Arran.
IL, enjoy J. Irons as I will not compete for him in any way and I am sure that that is a huge relief to you:D
IL, enjoy J. Irons as I will not compete for him in any way and I am sure that that is a huge relief to you:D
haha thanks!
I don't think his argument is ridiculous at all. We're currently in the process of changing the traditional and legal definition of marriage in order to incorporate a specific demographic. What makes anyone think it will end there?
That is the point exactly. We are becoming a nation of minority rule so as not offend anyone (except perhaps the majority). Is it really wise to change the definition of marriage/family structure which is the foundation of the societal structure that has existed for thousands of years? Are we really so enlightened?
That is the point exactly. We are becoming a nation of minority rule so as not offend anyone (except perhaps the majority). Is it really wise to change the definition of marriage/family structure which is the foundation of the societal structure that has existed for thousands of years? Are we really so enlightened?
Didn't we do that with current divorce laws? Maybe we should back those up a bit.
Marital roles and family structures have undergone quite change as well so may be should go back on those as well.
Is it really wise to change the definition of marriage/family structure which is the foundation of the societal structure that has existed for thousands of years? I think we already have.
goldensmom
4-6-13, 10:20pm
Didn't we do that with current divorce laws? Maybe we should back those up a bit.
Marital roles and family structures have undergone quite change as well so may be should go back on those as well.
Is it really wise to change the definition of marriage/family structure which is the foundation of the societal structure that has existed for thousands of years? I think we already have.
Your comment has proven my point. Thanks.
ApatheticNoMore
4-7-13, 12:55am
People are and long have been free to do most anything they want in the bedroom anyway. True some things like getting involved with a minor are outright illegal and should be, but even that happens.
The marriage discussion will not and could never stop people from doing what they want in the bedroom and with thier love lives. It's simply powerless against that. The marriage discussion is mostly about money and benefits. Although it does get intense around things like immigration, hospital visitation (tell me again why platonic friends can't be given that right - some people have LIFELONG friends - sometimes a deeper and longer bond than many marriages), and adoption. But people are and long have been free to conduct their sex lives however they see fit and thank heavens.
Family structures may have existed for 1000 years and may be the best thing out there (I don't know and maybe can't know - at best you do cross cultural and historical comparisons and try to make an argument from there) but they aren't necessarily some wonderful thing. How many people grew up in a family with sexual and/or physical and/or at least verbal abuse. The numbers are staggering, so so many, just taking the sexual abuse of little girls by itself is a staggering number. In the precious family structures ... (yes of course I know not all families are abusive, I'm just saying if you are glorifying the structure itself ... know that that is not the actual lived experience of vast numbers of people).
By the way isn't the ACTUAL traditional family structure not the nuclear family but the extended family? Ok well that died a long time ago, so people could move wherever they wanted. And I don't regard the death of the extended family as at all positive (except again what if the family of orgin is abusive etc.. then it is). Because I believe it's desirable for kids to have a lot more positive adult influences than just their parents and to have good parents. By the way going a bit futher back how many millions of years was the traditional structure the tribe?
I loved him in The Mission. My favorite.
While it's sad that he seems so small-minded, it won't keep me from enjoying him as an actor. Just not important to me unless they devote their life to hurting others.
And personally? I find Hollywood sheep-think and anti-Hollywood sheep-think equally pitiful.
While it's sad that he seems so small-minded, it won't keep me from enjoying him as an actor. Some might consider him, and others like him, to be the polar opposite of small-minded. It takes a much more open mind to question than some may realize as group think is so limiting.
Some might consider him, and others like him, to be the polar opposite of small-minded. It takes a much more open mind to question than some may realize as group think is so limiting.
Referring to those who support marriage rights as "group think" is very telling. There are people on both sides of this issue who have thought it through quite carefully before coming to a position, thank you, and in my view, insisting on seeing thing solely through the filter of the almighty code of law is small-minded and indicative of a personality type in which logic always trumps compassion. I've little use for such people irl, but I can still watch them in films and admire their skill. Jeremy Irons is a masterful performer.
Referring to those who support marriage rights as "group think" is very telling. As is referring to those who may not be as supportive as you would like as being small minded. It seems that engaging in group think is the only way to avoid being labeled derisively.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.