Anghus Houvouras on Jim Carrey's decision to publicly withdraw his support for Kick-Ass 2 due to concerns over the level of violence in the film....
![]()
Less than a year ago, an armed gunman walked into a crowded Aurora, CO theater and opened fire killing twelve people. It was a difficult time. The movies had always been a place for those to get away from the problems of the real world. An escape for those in need of entertainment. This tragedy kick started the long dormant debate about the impact of violent movies on society. Its a discussion that has been going on for decades, and one that never really comes to a definitive conclusion. Some strongly believe that the fictional violence perpetrated in film and television desensitizes us to actual violence. While others write it off those assertions as the overzealous ramblings of a fearful minority who place far too much impact on works of fiction.
These arguments are nothing new. Some believed Catcher in the Rye had the potential to instigate violent behavior. Taxi Driver was called 'disturbing' and there was concern that the violent actions of Travis Bickle would inspire others. Every generation has a movie (or several) that ends up being used as an example of the impact of violence in cinema. The original Kick-Ass was a movie cited as being exploitative and pointlessly violent. The character of Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz) was a pre-pubescent killing machine who indiscriminately murdered the bad guys. The character was loved by some and loathed by others. The idea of a little girl being used as an instrument of murder and suffering seemed perverse. To others, infinitely amusing. And like all films, the criticisms lobbed could be negated with one simple statement:
If you don't like it, don't watch.
For some, that answer isn't enough. There are those who court controversy. Enter Jim Carrey and Mark Millar.
![]()
Jim Carrey made waves this week by announcing he won't be supporting Kick-Ass 2 because of an epiphany he has had regarding gun violence. This might be surprising to some since he's one of the stars of the film. It might be less surprising considering it's Jim Carrey who has never shied away from speaking his mind no matter the circumstance or the consequence.
The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary late last year had a profound impact on Carrey who courted controversy with the release of the satirical single "Cold Dead Hand" which openly mocked the passionate gun toting members of American society. It's hard not to appreciate the efforts of Carrey to put his money where his mouth is. The money in this case is the potential box office that is lost when an actor makes a stand on an issue that greatly divides a society. In America, standing up to the right to bear arms turns a hearty percentage of the populace against you. This complicates matters when you're a marquee actor and your job it to put asses in seats.
Carrey doubled down this week on his stand against firearms by publicly stating that he could not support Kick-Ass 2 because of the violence it portrays. The typical arguments quickly came to the surface. "It's just a movie." "It's simulated violence." "It's a work of fiction." And like all fiercely contested topics, there are those who admire Carrey's decision, and there are those that think it's a little melodramatic. One of those people is Kick-Ass 2 executive producer Mark Millar.
![]()
Millar is a shameless huckster. Almost to a fault. The man actively looks for a reason to put himself in the spotlight. So it was no surprise that he quickly took to the Internet to defend the movie and question Carrey's decision. His very public response to Carrey's very public statement was the kind of face-saving common sense appeal you would expect from someone with financial ties to the film. Carrey's issues with violence in film must have been something of a shock for Millar. His indoctrination of the film is just as much an indoctrination of Millar, who has built his career on creating very violent comics which in turn have become very violent films.
I can't fault Jim Carrey for his epiphany. Nor can I fault Mark Millar for trying to put some lipstick on this particular pig. I can however fault them both for being overly verbose on the topic. Jim Carrey is free to do whatever he pleases. And I can't condemn a man for taking a stand on principle. However, to do so at the expense of a movie that he willingly cashed a check for is hypocritical to the point of ludicrousness. The whole thing might be more palatable if he agreed to donate his salary to charity. To condemn the film publicly is an act of aggression which seems ironic from someone advocating a less violent society.
If we're being honest here, it's tough to side with Carrey. A man who made his career talking out of his butt and engaging in juvenile shenanigans for our amusement. The issue of violence in media is a difficult one. And while I admire a man of principle, I can't admire someone who seems hellbent on taking a public piss all over a movie that he helped bring to fruition. Did Carrey need to take this to the public? Couldn't he just have easily said nothing, informed the producers that he didn't want to do press for the movie, and clung to his principles without publicly donkey punching the film? Taking this whole thing to Twitter stains the whole statement. It's wonderful that you feel this way Jim. However, now it reads more like a plea for attention than a plea for sanity. Maybe in the future you could have an opinion that doesn't come at the expense of the movie you were handsomely paid for. Epiphanies are always easier after you cash the check.
Anghus Houvouras is a North Carolina based writer and filmmaker. His latest work, the graphic novel EXE: Executable File, is available from Lulu.com.
These arguments are nothing new. Some believed Catcher in the Rye had the potential to instigate violent behavior. Taxi Driver was called 'disturbing' and there was concern that the violent actions of Travis Bickle would inspire others. Every generation has a movie (or several) that ends up being used as an example of the impact of violence in cinema. The original Kick-Ass was a movie cited as being exploitative and pointlessly violent. The character of Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz) was a pre-pubescent killing machine who indiscriminately murdered the bad guys. The character was loved by some and loathed by others. The idea of a little girl being used as an instrument of murder and suffering seemed perverse. To others, infinitely amusing. And like all films, the criticisms lobbed could be negated with one simple statement:
If you don't like it, don't watch.
For some, that answer isn't enough. There are those who court controversy. Enter Jim Carrey and Mark Millar.
Jim Carrey made waves this week by announcing he won't be supporting Kick-Ass 2 because of an epiphany he has had regarding gun violence. This might be surprising to some since he's one of the stars of the film. It might be less surprising considering it's Jim Carrey who has never shied away from speaking his mind no matter the circumstance or the consequence. The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary late last year had a profound impact on Carrey who courted controversy with the release of the satirical single "Cold Dead Hand" which openly mocked the passionate gun toting members of American society. It's hard not to appreciate the efforts of Carrey to put his money where his mouth is. The money in this case is the potential box office that is lost when an actor makes a stand on an issue that greatly divides a society. In America, standing up to the right to bear arms turns a hearty percentage of the populace against you. This complicates matters when you're a marquee actor and your job it to put asses in seats.
Carrey doubled down this week on his stand against firearms by publicly stating that he could not support Kick-Ass 2 because of the violence it portrays. The typical arguments quickly came to the surface. "It's just a movie." "It's simulated violence." "It's a work of fiction." And like all fiercely contested topics, there are those who admire Carrey's decision, and there are those that think it's a little melodramatic. One of those people is Kick-Ass 2 executive producer Mark Millar.
I can't fault Jim Carrey for his epiphany. Nor can I fault Mark Millar for trying to put some lipstick on this particular pig. I can however fault them both for being overly verbose on the topic. Jim Carrey is free to do whatever he pleases. And I can't condemn a man for taking a stand on principle. However, to do so at the expense of a movie that he willingly cashed a check for is hypocritical to the point of ludicrousness. The whole thing might be more palatable if he agreed to donate his salary to charity. To condemn the film publicly is an act of aggression which seems ironic from someone advocating a less violent society.
If we're being honest here, it's tough to side with Carrey. A man who made his career talking out of his butt and engaging in juvenile shenanigans for our amusement. The issue of violence in media is a difficult one. And while I admire a man of principle, I can't admire someone who seems hellbent on taking a public piss all over a movie that he helped bring to fruition. Did Carrey need to take this to the public? Couldn't he just have easily said nothing, informed the producers that he didn't want to do press for the movie, and clung to his principles without publicly donkey punching the film? Taking this whole thing to Twitter stains the whole statement. It's wonderful that you feel this way Jim. However, now it reads more like a plea for attention than a plea for sanity. Maybe in the future you could have an opinion that doesn't come at the expense of the movie you were handsomely paid for. Epiphanies are always easier after you cash the check.
Anghus Houvouras is a North Carolina based writer and filmmaker. His latest work, the graphic novel EXE: Executable File, is available from Lulu.com.