Last week, Lena Dunham joined an online movement to encourage people to deface posters for Jason Bourne by cutting the large gun out of the Matt Damon’s hand. She re-instagrammed a post (which has since been removed from Instagram, but a photo is below) which showed a gun missing from a Bourne subway ad and the caption “Hey New Yorkers, what if we do some peeling & get rid of the guns in the Jason Bourne subway ads?” Lena wrote “Good idea! Let’s go!” It was of course a reaction to all the horrific gun violence this summer, which of course the Bourne marketers could not have anticipated. Lena has also posted about the Black Lives Matter movement and all of the men of color gunned down by police. This summer has been awful and I hope we look back at it as a watershed moment and a time that we all came together for to vote the Republicans out, but I digress.
As far as a statement goes, defacing a poster seems like a juvenile one. However Matt Damon, ever diplomatic (except when he’s caught off guard) had a thoughtful response for E!’s Maria Menounos when she asked him about it. He said he understood.
I totally get it, especially given what’s going on recently. I get not wanting to see a picture of a gun right now. I don’t blame her at all. For the marketing purposes of Jason Bourne, he is a guy who runs around with a gun so it’s not gratuitous marketing, but in light of recent events I understand the impulse to want to tear the gun out of the picture.
E! caught up to Matt at the Las Vegas premiere of Bourne at Caesar’s Palace. I watched E! News last night hoping they would have more from his interview, but he just talked about hard it was training for Bourne, said he was “doughy” when his wife first met him (he was doing Stuck on You at the time) and got a playful dig in at Ben Affleck when Maria asked him about Ben similarly training for Batman. He said that Ben “would put the mask on and then the stunt guys [would] go in” as body doubles presumably. I actually bet that was true in several scenes.
Damon has a new joint interview with director Paul Greengrass in The Guardian. They gush about each other and seem to have a very easy rapport. There’s a lot of background information on the films and what they went through trying to get Bourne Ultimatum made on a half finished script. Damon is diplomatic but vague when he’s asked about the film made with Jeremy Renner, The Bourne Legacy, simply saying “I think in retrospect. I understand very clearly why everyone did what everyone did.” As for whether he’ll do Bourne again, Greengrass says he won’t say “never, like I did before, nut I’m not going to be sitting around. I’ve got other films to make.” Damon guesses that “it will be a while before we’ll even get around to doing another one. They might reboot me before I bow out.” I’m telling you, he wants to get replaced as Bourne.
photos credit: WENN.com and Getty
There are SO MANY ways to channel advocacy. Defacing property which is an ad for a Bourne movie, of all things, isn’t one of them. What next, editing the movie to replace the guns with unicorns? Sorry, I just don’t get this.
+1
I understand why people don’t want to see guns plastered all over the place. But defacing property is not a good idea, IMO.
@Izzy …
I really don’t get it either. And while just ‘this’ film? There are several other films currently being promoted with movie posters featuring guns that Lena Dunham could have gone after as well, if it were only about the guns. If she had gone after other movie posters, her argue/campaign would hold more water with me.
Heck, why not deface “Central Intelligence?”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1489889/mediaviewer/rm1242948352
Why not “War Dogs?”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2005151/mediaviewer/rm3637253120
I want to like what Lena did, but this is major overreach. A better idea would be to discuss these issues on her TV show, and to try to educate people on this issue through entertainment. Guns are part of the plot, it’s an action movie after all and her actions didn’t contribute to anything.
This is my feeling as well. I mean I’m over gratuitous gun violence in movies but at the end of a day It’s a movie! Are people going to start cutting guns out of every movie poster that has ’em?
As you said, this action seems pointless; making a statement without actually doing anything.
@I Choose Me, who wrote: “As you said, this action seems pointless; making a statement without actually doing anything.”
Well, it ‘did’ get her some publicity/PR.
But she’s Lena Dunham and that would have been uncharacteristicly mature for her
He reportedly (according to the internet) earned $25mil for this movie, only 25 lines of dialogue. Must be nice.
@Justine, who wrote: “He reportedly (according to the internet) earned $25mil for this movie, only 25 lines of dialogue. Must be nice.”
Matt Damon is one of the few actors working today who can hold the camera–and the audience–with actions and emoting. His ability to do so is the main reason “The Martian” did so well in theaters. And this is nothing new for the “Bourne” films. He didn’t have many more lines than that in “Bourne Supremacy” and “Bourne Ultimatum” either.
Initially, I get that sounds like easy money. But comes with a hefty price, I think. No privacy, people and family wanting handouts, people using you instead being friends, the world critiquing your body, marriage, parenting, bad moods, etc. I think I’d still pick middle class and anonymity vs being public fodder with millions.
Yes- it seems like it would suck to be a celebrity- especially with all the access people have to social media and everyone and their mother having a camera to snap pics and feeling the pressure to be “on” at all times.
I’m all about being an unknown millionaire, though, given the opportunity to choose exactly what I want.
I can’t get behind Dunham on anything, much less anti gun vandalism. She’s a person that’s perpetually aggrieved.
Perfect description
Perfect description.
Men are so violent. Who does a majority of crime? Men. A French man, American man whatever it’s always men!
They also invent pretty much everything, so I guess we’ll take the bad with the good.
Plus rock music and video games…nothing combats institutional racism like showy campaigns against pop culture.
I don’t like Lena in the least, but I do like that finally, somebody is pointing out the general hypocrisy of celebrities. Damon is an advocate for gun control, but he’s more than happy to take part in violent media. And before you jump in with “People can tell it’s a fantasy, don’t blame the movies!!!” – look it up. It’s not so simple as “Guy sees movie, guy imitates movie.” The impacts are far more subtle and insidious, but researchers can show that they do happen. Violent media absolutely does have an effect. I’d have more respect for celebrities who wish to see gun control if they would do their part by not contributing to violent media. Jim Carrey famously refused to promote Kick Ass 2 because of the high level of violence in it (and not just guns, it was just a super violent film overall). I can disagree with him, but I respect that he just decided to not take part in that anymore. That’s ethical. The rest of them would still rather make money.
@Sam, who wrote: “I don’t like Lena in the least, but I do like that finally, somebody is pointing out the general hypocrisy of celebrities. Damon is an advocate for gun control, but he’s more than happy to take part in violent media. And before you jump in with “People can tell it’s a fantasy, don’t blame the movies!!!” – look it up.”
This is exactly how censorship begins. Matt Damon is only an actor … he is not really an astronaut or the badass, Black Ops elite C.I.A. assassin, Jason Bourne … he is an actor.
Violence and guns have been in movies since they were first shown on screen and ‘shoot ’em up’ Westerns were at the height of popularity during the golden 1950’s, where nearly every boy had a gun holster with toy guys and ran around shouting “Bang! Bang! You’re dead!” and “Put ’em up, Mister!”
Dungeons and Dragons is only a game. People will only do what they are predisposed to do (if that wasn’t the case, everybody from similar childhoods, backgrounds, and abusive relationships would exhibit similar violent tendencies in exact situations, but they don’t). Parents need to pay attention to, ‘spend time with,’ and monitor their children’s behavior. The ‘blame game’ doesn’t solve anything.
No, censorship is from the government, so your point makes no sense. Movies are financed and produced by private entities who can decide what the wish to put on the screen. If a studio declines to make a film because of content concerns, that is not censorship – that is business.
I am not arguing for government intervention in the film industry. I am arguing for calling celebrities out who simultaneously critique gun ownership while taking part in violent media. Research shows that violent media does, in fact, play a role in creating more permissible attitudes towards violence and less empathy for others, strong predictors for violent behavior. It makes perfect sense to question these people on this.
As to your point about Westerns – glad you asked. Researchers believe that the violence of the films of 50s and before did not have the same effect because it was very clearly play violence. Watch those movies. They intentionally almost never used blood for gun scenes. They almost never showed wounds, either. Guy would point gun, bad guy would grab his chest, fall down. That was largely it. It is a far cry from the violence of modern films, which tends to be graphic and realistic. This form of media is far, far more potent on minds than the stuff from decades ago. In addition, they point out that decades ago, violence within films was strongly morally controlled – bad guys got shot, good guys did the shooting. This was in keeping with the strong moral absolutes of the time. Today, violent media is more ambiguous, which has been found to have a stronger impact upon viewers. So please keep that in mind.
Should say “men AND women of color gunned down”… It’s not just men, hence the sayhername hashtag
Yes the point is celebs are hypocrites taking 25 million dollar checks for violent movies than cramming down your throat their pious and opposite ideologies.
And I’m not a fan of Lena just the hypocrisy she highlights.
Bingo! Not a fan of Matt Damon anymore, either.
@Barrett, who wrote: “Yes the point is celebs are hypocrites taking 25 million dollar checks for violent movies than cramming down your throat their pious and opposite ideologies.”
How is responding to a question in an interview “cramming pious and opposite ideologies down” anyone’s throat?
Being British I find the gun issue in America baffling. Our population density is about twelve times that of the US and it isn’t surprising that there is more violent crime, when we are packed in so tightly. But a fight over a fender bender or outside a pub is one thing, losing your temper and pulling out a gun is another. I am truely thankful that guns are pretty much banned here, but at the same time I think I would own a gun if I lived in the US, simply because of the expectation that someone breaking into my house would have a gun or a person I got into an argument with might try and shoot me. So I get why law abiding citizens in the US do not want to hand over their guns. What I don’t get, viewing the US from the TV and internet, is why there seems to be so little tolerance for the middle ground, a gun owner who acknowledges there is a problem with the level gun related crime and wants elected officials to sit down with experts and come up with a plan, possibly one that could be put to the people in a referendum. It doesn’t have to be simply guns or no guns, but surely the rate of gun related deaths is a national disgrace? Sorry for the rant, but if it wasn’t so sad it would be a joke. The UK has Brexit and Boris Johnson, so we know how it feels to a laughingstock.
Jellybean of course it’s baffling. And there’s a different cultural history too, England didn’t have a history of internal enslavement … England profited from the slave system on colonial soil, a slave system that left rich white slave owners perpetually afraid of slave rebellion. Now we have a lot of white people afraid of shadowy “people breaking in.” England also didn’t have a western frontier to rapaciously settle or a native people to subdue, all accomplished with the use of firearms. You probably don’t have much of a gun industry either, and control the influence of money in politics better. The US has factories and the NRA and the allowance of nearly unlimited funds to influence politicians secure in their (gerrymandered) seats. It’s a perfect storm of money, history, political stagnation and cultural violence. Oh, one more thing, you don’t have the kind of archaic language in a part of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights which allows a gun lobbying group (the NRA) to create a purported loophole and argue for “2nd Amendment Rights.” We may laugh about Brexit and Boris Johnson but I think Britishers are appropriate horrified and not amused by the result of all this. And strangest of all, survey of survey shows support for what is euphemistically called “common-sense gun laws,” such as universal background checks. The will of the people has not been reflected in American politics for a long, long time.
it would be great if either one of you understood the meaning of the 2nd amendment. Oy!
Who says we don’t?
Well I am not American so I don’t really understand it, but I have heard an argument that says an American has the right to own any weapon they want in order to defend themselves against their own government. What good is a constitution if it underpins a society that is afraid of its own government, to the degree that it suppresses action over and over again when maniacs with automatic weapons slaughter innocent men, women and children? If I have a problem with my government I use my vote, my freedom of speech and the law.
“If I have a problem with my government I use my vote, my freedom of speech and the law.”
And if those things are taken away from you, what then?
Well the UK did send a bunch of people across the ocean against their will to Australia as well. Same enslavement (although of indigenous peoples) while we subdued our harsh adopted land blah blah blah… You guys literally just have the second amendment and a national gun fetish to hang your hats on. The past doesn’t have to dictate the future.
There was just a shooting in spalding you git
Yes and it is a massive story because shootings are so rare. It is a family murder suicide, they are unfortunately less rare and usually seem to involve knives. I did say the UK is a more violent society. But that being the case, is it at least possible that the availability of guns could in some way be responsible for the fact that the UK has 12 times the population density of the US, with a higher rate of violent crime, but about a quarter (2013) the number of murders per capita? If it isn’t the guns, what might it be? I doubt there are more drunken brawls.
@jellybean ” If I have a problem with my government I use my vote, my freedom of speech and the law. ”
Right, but what if your govt no longer recognizes your vote or cares? Most the world understands this far better than American or Brits, but govts can be very f*ing scary. They can round people up and execute them in a soccer stadium. They can make people literally disappear. That happens. And it has happened before to countries that previously were democratic — see S. America. Eric Snowden said this thing that I have always thought was at once so smart and so chilling about turn-key tyranny. You have the unchecked oversight and meta data being gathered on all American citizens at all time — essentially a surveillance state. Right now we trust the govt (to a certain degree) but what happens in 5 yrs or 10 or 20? What happens if an administration at some point in the future turns that key?
Remember that the reason the 2nd amendment exists is directly because of the founding of this nation. What’s the first thing a govt/monarchy does to a territory it’s trying to control? Make sure those people don’t have weapons. It was extremely important to the founding fathers that the common citizen be able to defend himself against tyranny. Makes sense when you think about where they were coming from, what they were experiencing.
I don’t own a gun nor am I a member of the NRA. I don’t really spend much of any time thinking about guns. But I think the 2nd amendment is important. A lot of things would need to change in this country before I felt comfortable voting to end gun ownership/carry laws.
Everything you say is valid, but you guys are paying a high price for the fear that your government will one day turn on you.
Eh, defacing ads isnt vandalism.
When you force your promotion on people and push your way into people passing attention, people are free to react.
It might not be an adbusters style improvement, but it is still valid to me. There is no permanent damage to any structure, the billboards will be replaced by STD PSA ones anyway.
I bet the studio loves it.
It’s still vandalism. Just because you don’t agree with the subject of the ad, doesn’t mean you get to deface it (unless they’re advocating crime, etc.). What if someone defaces the STD PSA ad because they don’t believe people should use condoms or try to prevent pregnancies because “God wants us to multiply”. Would you defend that?
How ridiculous to scrub guns from the ads because of …what exactly?? Intolerance of guns? Spreading the anti-gun message? If he’s so worried about guns and gun control, why is he making movies where he’s shooting people, WITH GUNS, during the entire film? If he’s SO WORRIED about guns, why keep making these movies at all? Why not make a Bourne movie where he has no gun at all. Do you suppose Jason Bourne would be dead within the first 5 minutes? There goes the end of that series. I get so tired of the Hollywood hypocrisy and the phony actors that always have an ax to grind about the movies they make that make them incredibly wealthy. It’s just a whole new level of stupid to me.
Hollywood always made movies with guns and gun violence but when actual gun ownership was more restricted, there was less gun violence in real life.
That’s not totally true. Gun violence is extremely locale specific and drawing any real conclusions from national or state data is bound to contain inaccuracies. Violent media consumption varies widely by household and even by individual, so it is difficult to link the two. However, research does indicate links between violent media consumption and an eventual propensity to violence, as well as influence on views of things like guns. So there is a valid point there.
“If he’s so worried about guns and gun control, why is he making movies where he’s shooting people, WITH GUNS, during the entire film?”
Because he wants to have his cake and eat it too, just “environmentalist” Leo and his jet-setting lifestyle.