Another name added to CelebrityMovieArchive and its ilk. Sorta resembles the "naughty wall" found in skeevy hole in the walls or rooms that only select employees are allowed into.
Predatory Hollywood once again found an actress to shed some skin, or at least wear some lingerie that reveals more than it hides, once they came of age. Of course, this actress is equally responsible for her exposure (no pun intended). She, probably without hesitance, signed her contract that has clauses in it on her acting on what she's willing to do and what not to do. She - and all actresses - with full consciousness accepted being asked to dress in skimpy lingerie, to undress and to hump their co-star.
This actress' filmography, though short, already has a pattern to it: play easily impressionable young girls who are caught up in highly unfortunate situations where they later deal with their bad actions. In one role she was brutally killed point blank. In another she was also killed via poison. Another role her character was almost raped. And another character she makes a choice that can only be said to be stupid, if not awkward, that belies the logic that was ingrained into her.
Because art. Or something.
As I said, actresses are just hired strippers upon request who every now and then do softcore porn scenes. If the scene asked them to jump up and down naked with green paint being thrown at them there's a good chance they'll do it. Just ask Irish actress Sarah Bolger.
Mom, dad, siblings and grandparents must be proud. (I bet they are.) But no judgement, right? Yea right. Their daughter is just a "sophisticated" version of an an actual pornstar, stripper and some girl with an OnlyFans account.
As one person who's familiar with the industry said, and I paraphrase, "Worlds are created when they shouldn't exist. Occasionally there's nudity."
Edit: And like clockwork, I opened my search engine to find this in its newsfeed -
Actresses don't need to be on the casting couch to get a role, but they will be pressured to do things in the name of "art" that they're unwilling to do.
When actors speak about their politics it's often times embarrassing - it's often times embarrassing when they speak about the medium of film and acting, so politics is the semi-deep end of the pool for them. This is one of those cases.
Here's the thought process when voting for pro-same-sex "marriage", or, in a very clever way to neutralize it just change pro same-sex "marriage" to "equality":
1. Marriage is a basic human right.
2. Marriage won't be changed, it'll just be expanded.
Well, if the original definition of marriage is one man and one woman, which has been the standard definition of a millennium to sane people, and to expand that to something that is between two people regardless of their sex, then yes, you are changing marriage. It's a distinct change. It goes from one man and one woman to "two people."
What's interesting is that the actress says other ridiculous things such as, "Wherever you stand on this don't be on the fence about this; don't say you don't know; don't be complacent about it. These are peoples lives we have in our hands, um, everyone should be allowed to celebrate that. Let them have that right." Ronan also says earlier in the video that there is no other option but to vote "Yes." I bet there were two options on May 22, 2015 - yes or no.
How can one deny another person, in Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy's mind "dignity," or in many minds like Ms. Ronan's "equality"? It's a bit of a low jab because almost anything can be said to be a right and if one is supposedly denied that right your against "equality." It's a very easy turn of the cards of "shame on you" but once one looks at the matter with a dispassionate eye, if not discerning and honest eye, this "equality" talk is just that, talk. It's shallow. It's emotive claptrap that many modernists point the same finger as Disney movies or other family movies that they would say are too saccharine.
Also in the video are Eamon Farrel - actor Collin Farrel's brother - and Steven Mannion, Eamon's partner. Mannion goes on to speak,
I would remind people that it is so important to come out and vote on the 22nd of May. If you do not vote, your vote will not be counted and you cannot say you voted for equality. You have to come to vote. Don't leave it up to anyone else. Think of the youth growing up today - 14, 15 16 year old LGBT children who are growing up - we need to support them. We need to tell them that it's okay to be who they are. Treat them equally. Please vote on the 22nd of May.
I don't doubt the sincerity of Mannion says. Both fellows seem like great guys to spend the night pub crawling, but what Mannion said is a common thought amongst those who are for "equality." They use the "what about the (LGBT) kids" card to appeal to hearts of the undecided, and to make the pro-side even more fervor in their quest. I think many in the LGBT "community" and many who support what Ronan and Mannion believe in, that once same-sex "marriage" is allowed and becomes law of the land that a majority of the insecurities that the LGBT face will evaporate - they are, as Mannion implies, be lifted from shame to being "okay to be who they are."
Now, I'm not for shaming LGBT - I won't chastise a person who has same-sex attraction telling them that they aren't human; I won't spit on them or anything like that. I won't file a police report when I see two people of the same sex holding hands as I walk down the street. I don't want to do any of those nasty things. I will say, if asked about my thoughts on sexuality other than being 100% straight, is that same-sex attraction is a disorder. That's not me saying, "It's not okay to be who you are," - if we're talking about ones sexuality and their heart encompassing their entire self - since I believe
that ones sexuality is just one aspect their entire being. I will
criticize the attraction - I will not condemn the person.
The only redeeming thing about Ireland's legalization of same-sex "marriage," er, equality, is that is was by referendum. They dug their own graves for themselves, and like what Mannion said they didn't leave it up to anyone else.
The question that is formed in my mind is this: Will such a legalization be the major turning point into
making the LGBT feel like "full human beings," as stated by actor George
Takei? Will same-sex "marriage" be the breaking of the Berlin Wall for
such a demographic? I'm not sure. Next up is the youth, those in
elementary and high school - to re-educate them and to make their future
kids be the generation that will completely view same-sex
attraction as "just another ice cream flavor besides vanilla and
chocolate." Will there be any use for "safe spaces" for LGBT on campuses? Would the existence of the annual Pride Parade be questioned and later retired? How about the Pride flag? Since sodomy is equal what's the use of both the Pride Parade and Pride flag?
Until a boy brings home a boy and a girl brings home a girl
to the parents, with the parents not blinking an eye to the stranger,
acting as if it's a boy introducing their new girlfriend and vice versa, there's much
work to be done by social activists. As cheers, hugs and tears were shed on June 26, 2015 in front of the Supreme Court of the US, a social activist said to a journalist, "I think we’re the happiest unemployed people in the country right now."
Nope.
They'll be picking up their signs, making new ones in fact, in order to change education. They did it with the APA in the 1970s. They did it to change the tide in order for people to support same-sex "marriage." They'll do it again to re-educate the youth.
It goes from so-called "equality" to complete normalization.
The movie industry, in general, is one industry that deserves an eye roll. Why? Because its actors, especially its actresses, are beyond saving. They love to call "Hollywood" out as sexist even though they have benefited from exploiting their bodies and sexuality in roles and photoshoots. Many of the women who do call the industry sexist are established. Go figure.
These are women, after complaining that there are such few good (read: "challenging," "interesting" - whatever they mean by that) roles for women, sign onto a project that would be deemed prestigious or coveted faster than Speedy Gonzalez running away from Sylvester. An unknown actress would probably cry herself to sleep due to joy if she landed a role with a two lines in a prestige film. These actresses who are vocal about this supposed rampart sexism are making well above six figures, get the better roles for females and have adoring fans.
Now, I bet they'll say that have to keep sexist incidents (apparently it happens so often that they need to comfortably announce sexism during actor roundtables or photoshoots) under wraps for the sake of their careers, and that they love their 'craft' so much that they'd be willing to bite the bullet for it, but I call BS. This entire thing screams of "me lioness hear me roar of courage against patriarhcy" as I accept a deal with Harper Bizarre for a cover spread.
It's like Al Gore warning the world about global warming as
he travels by private jet and lives in a mega McMansion. Or when some
LGBT kid says his small town community hates for his orientation even
though there's no proof of physical or verbal abuse.
You see, the word "Hollywood" is safe to use and safe to accuse because it really isn't an actual thing. Many established actors, when they use the word "Hollywood," are mostly talking about the blockbusters, drug parties exclusive to industry insiders, the paparazzi and plastic surgery. What's amusing is that they see themselves above most of these (drug parties are an accepted norm as well as plastic surgery); the paparazzi are actually hired - for the most part; blockbusters are not seen as "real" art with sexist roles for females. It's a set up. Actors see themselves as artists (a word that is overused as much as "Hollywood" is used in disdain) against these blockbusters, victims of bottom-barrel stalking flashing lights and Davids against "the suits" when it comes to getting roles. Are blockbusters mindless and offer no good roles for women? Sometimes. Are the paparazzi prying rats? At times. Are "the suits" out-of-touch people who no nothing about film and the 'art' of it? I don't doubt that some are. But here's the thing: Many movies that are made are considered "independent" and many roles that most of the established actresses accept are within these "independent"/foreign movies films (because 'art'). They gain respect (and industry noms & awards) by doing these films as opposed to (the much despised, yet extraordinarily tolerated) mindless, sexist blockbusters.
The puzzle pieces from what my observant eyes collect, and from established actresses have in their pile, do not match.
You see, we're just suppose to believe everything they say because they're propped up as heroes - and they see themselves as the enlightened - against the sexist, bigoted and archaic world that is Tinsletown. Who knew that living in LA and/or NY, while jet setting to places like London and Paris, that sexism is rampart. Oh dearies. Wherever is the hard proof? If Bill Crosby can be accused of countless charges of rape then where these "strong, independent" actresses? How come they "confess" of this sexism to entertainment 'journalists' and not to their lawyers? You'd think there is a publicly well-known group entitled something like "Artists Against Sexism In Hollywood" but there isn't, at least to my knowledge. Why? Because most of the accusations of sexism are fictitious, if not exaggerated. Actresses know that accusing "Hollywood" of such things only helps their public image - their careers are safe (because they aren't actually accusing anyone of anything). It really has no leverage besides that, and they walk away with themselves thinking they are throwing that deadly stone in the forehead of Goliath. Such bravery that every young woman should admire. Girl power at its finest!
So established actresses making a living in an industry (add in the music & fashion sects as well), that is probably the most socially "progressive" & perverted, accuse it of being extraordinarily sexist - color me confused. You're able to live your life like such rampart sexism never happened. Color the entire industry the color Irony.
When Mitt Romney was secretly taped for saying "the 47%" and was accused of bullying a high school classmate (who supposedly happen to be gay, how convenient) people went ape sh*t. By "people" I mean all his detractors (those struggling financially, those who think he was a WASP, the LGBT lobby, Mexicans and blacks), the press and most of the entertainment industry. He was the most evil, most despicable man in their eyes.
When it was learned that Obama smoked weed in college he was deemed as cool. When Romney created jobs it was seen as 'boring' or not really note worthy.
Now, compare that to entertainers. They can have affairs, they can partake in explicit scenes in film, they can twerk and stick their tongue out while wearing a hideous costume, yet the media, most likely, will A-OKAY them. These types of things are "normal." If an entertainer does find himself receiving criticism, he'll be seen as maligned and misunderstood.
I would guess many under the age of 25 look up to entertainers (I never did), so whenever their favorite entertainer gets stuck in a sticky situation they'd make excuses for them and help portray them as victims of the masses/mob. (It's not like the mob showed up at their front steps and demanded any apologies.) So if it ain't the "the greedy white CEOs" fault, or the Wall Street banker, it's the "the masses" fault.
I would take this is a way of the press, the entertainment world and its admirers admitting that all things aren't equal. What a bizarre way of admitting such a thing.
If entertainers "inspire" millions worldwide, wouldn't that indirectly hold them to a higher standard? It would be rare for a person to look up to a politician as they do an entertainer (if you're that type of person); certainly politicians are looked in a very low light, yet politicians are the ones who practically run the country (with the aided of entertainers endorsing certain social causes).
Modernity doesn't like A) all the normal people B) rich white "square" guys.
And I'm not white.
I said quietly to myself, back in, oh I don't know, 2004-5, "Being a white, (socially) conservative guy in America must suck."This was when I was all liberal and stupid.
