One of the greatest aspects of the Internet is its ability to bring people together. My goal is to make Civilian Voices the premier place for discussion and debate for people from different cities, states, even countries. The past two editions of the column have featured comments about the trials and tribulations of Robert Downey Jr. On Thursday, I posted an e-mail submitted by B. He was responding to a letter submitted by roughcut.com reader Ellen, who was, in turn, responding to an article by roughcut.com contributor Alli Joseph. What is so exciting to me, and I hope to all of you, is that here we have two people living in completely different parts of the country who are able to share their thoughts and feelings on a subject. Ellen returns to clarify her position about Mr. Downey...

"I think B missed the point of my comments... by a rather wide margin. "It was not about Robert Downey Jr.’s drug problem. His addiction is real. His problems are real. His pain is real. I think it’s sad that he hasn’t been able to shake his addiction. I think it’s sad that a talent of his magnitude is wasted. I think he deserves all the help he can get to kick it. And, as a long-time fan of his work, I hope like hell he does. "What I don’t think is that it’s unreasonable for the media to report on it. Alli Joseph’s article was not about addiction, it was about her feeling that the press, by following Downey’s struggle with drugs, was mean or unfair. That, somehow, the media not only reports on but can sometimes be blamed for a star’s problems...To quote Joseph: ‘The press killed Billie Holiday. It warped Judy Garland so badly that she married not only gay actor Mark Herron but also disco manager Mickey Deans...’ "The reality is that being an actor, choosing the profession, means taking the press along for the ride. It isn’t unfair -- a star chooses that reality when he chooses the job. And no, Downey’s drug habit wouldn’t go away if he walked away from acting. But, chances are, his interest to the press would lessen considerably. The teacher on methamphetamines still has an addiction problem, but rarely is it reported on Entertainment Tonight or CNN. "This is not a glib -- or otherwise -- comment on addiction. It’s about living in the public eye and choosing to live that way. The personal responsibility is accepting that you’ve chosen to be an actor. You choose that over a more anonymous existence where, when you do drugs, it isn’t front-page news. It isn’t a comment on the difficulty of being a drug addict, the seriousness of addiction, or being born with a silver spoon. "That said, I don’t think anyone wants to be a drug addict. Addictive personalities are part of the genetic roll of the dice. But the reality is that you can choose to take the first drink or take the first pill. You can choose to not get the help you need. You can choose to walk away when help is being offered. You can choose to ignore the positive influences in your life. You can choose to put yourself in situations, or with people, that are certain to add to addictive behaviors. "Is Downey a victim of his parents and an early start on drugs? To a certain extent. But he’s an adult now. He may have started on drugs as an impressionable 10 year old. Today, he’s a man in his mid-30s with adult choices available to him. That doesn’t diminish his problem. If anything, it amplifies it...he doesn’t get to blame his parents or anyone else for his problem today. It’s his alone to face. It’s his demon to fight. "Does the pressure of living in the public eye make life more stressful for him? Does it drive him (or any celebrity) to self-destructive behavior? Only he knows. But if it does, he has the choice to walk away for the sake of his health and, ultimately, his life. "Celebrities aren’t immune to the problems of the ‘common man’...they live those problems with a higher profile is all. There are few of us who haven’t been shaped either by unpleasant childhoods, traumatic events, or personal tragedy. And, for many, adulthood is a daily struggle to overcome the past and make choices for yourself that move your life forward. It’s no easier for celebrity to do that than it is for anyone else. "But an argument can be made that those with the highest profile also (for the most part) have more resources to work with in combating those problems. The power of economics alone is amazing. Rehab facilities, people to manage the other details of life, not worrying about time off work or the bills piling up, not wondering if the streets will be the only home available when rehab is over. And the reality is that there are quite a few drug addicts -- on the streets, in jail, in state-funded rehab -- who can’t claim the same depth of resources. "And, in the end, it’s still about making the right choices. If you’ve chosen the path of celebrity, you can expect the media to report on the choices you make." -- Ellen

Thanks to both B and Ellen for such insightful e-mails. I invite the rest of you to join in this discussion. What is the media’s role in the downfall of a star? Do celebrities have more opportunities to turn their lives around than the average man or woman? And how much is too much? When do journalists and photographers cross the line with their coverage of celebrities? I’ve certainly enjoyed reading Ellen and B’s comments. I hope the rest of you will provide our readers with your thoughts.

Mark E. has a question about one of the year’s best movies...

"It is a common lament: ‘Why isn’t (insert movie here) playing in my area?’ But when the movie is Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, one of the best-reviewed movies of the past six months, the problem becomes even more frustrating. It’s not as though I live in Algona, Iowa (my hometown). I live in Seattle, a city with a vibrant and active film community. Will the studio be providing a wider release of this film? Or is their target audience limited to L.A. and N.Y.?" -- Mark E.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon should be coming to a theater near you. It will be in limited release in New York and Los Angeles before spreading across the country. There has been much talk about whether Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon will be able to cross over and become a mainstream box-office success rather than just a much-lauded art house movie. It will certainly be interesting to see what happens in the coming weeks.

Just when you thought Adam Sandler was safe, jayapple writes in with his opinion of the actor’s latest film...

"I think Little Nicky is the worst movie Sandler could have done and then actually let be put out. I was so disappointed when I left the theater and felt so cheated that my friends and I felt we needed to sneak into another movie afterwards to get our money’s worth. Sandler, if you’re reading this, I wanna let you know that I’m not hatin’ on you. But if I were you and had your comedy skills, I would not have let that movie be put out without it being done over again. Sorry dude, but we all learn from our mistakes, so make the next one better because I know you can." -- jayapple

And frequent contributor EMHA should think about becoming a casting director. Her picks for the live-action Scooby-Doo are on the money...

"Quills hasn’t come to Chicago yet, but you can bet I’ll be the first in line to see it, along with Before Night Falls. I can’t believe you dared to disagree with David on your assessment of Quills (I actually dared him to write a column and not mention it -- heh!), so I’m very curious to see where I net out between your two views.

"On to the Scooby bashing...

"I agree with David Poland’s theory that a remake of Scooby-Doo would be great as a gay porn flick! My own personal theory is that, aside from the gay subtext of the Velma, Freddie, and Daphne trio, Shaggy and Scooby were really stoners. It does explain why they both had a chronic case of the munchies and never wanted to leave the safety of the back of the Mystery Machine! Joe C is dead-on with the suggestion that Rachel Dratch play Velma! I’d cast Alicia Witt as Daphne, Chris Klein as Freddie, and Joaquin Phoenix or Skeet Ulrich as Shaggy. Scooby, well, he’d have to be animatronic, or maybe they could get Jim Carrey to put on another costume! Bottom line: Unless the script and casting is killer, this movie should not be made!" -- EMHA

How would you cast Scooby-Doo? Let us know, won’t you? Also, which new flick will you be seeing this weekend: Vertical Limit, Dungeons & Dragons, or Proof of Life? Word on all three has been less than stellar. Be sure to send in your reviews about these or any of the other films currently in release by Monday so they can be posted in Tuesday’s column.

As promised, I’m dedicating a second page of Civilian Voices to the discussion of the film Quills. The movie is currently in limited release, and many of you won’t have an opportunity to see it for a few weeks. Once you have, I hope you’ll use this forum to share your thoughts. As I mentioned before, I am not a big fan of Quills. I enjoyed the film, and I can’t not recommend it, but I’m still not sure what I was supposed to take away from the movie. Yes, the performances were strong. Yes, I appreciated the humor. But what did it have to say? Censorship is bad? Censorship is good? The world needs pornographers? The world doesn’t need pornographers? I’m sure the film was trying to say something. Some of the more over-the-top shot selections certainly implied this, but what was it exactly? This is a film ripe for discussion, and I hope many more of you will write in.

And now, on to the civilians...

"I just had the great pleasure of seeing one of the year’s best films, Quills. It truly lived up to all the hype. It is sad and even slightly pathetic that some people are choosing to dismiss Quills and praise mediocre fare such as Unbreakable. I find it ludicrous that Quills and Gladiator can be tossed aside or ruled only okay while Unbreakable is viewed as something original and wonderful. Quills has an engrossing story, and it is intelligently written, brilliantly acted, and well directed. I was hooked from beginning to end. Geoffrey Rush is outstanding, and Michael Caine makes a great villain. Quills looks spectacular as well. And at least it has something to say. I hope the same people who find Unbreakable so wonderful will give Quills a chance. The former is Hollywood crap disguised as an art film and Shyamalan defines pretension. There’s just no comparing the two films." -- Paul Doro

"I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of Quills. Perhaps I was expecting too much, having read David Poland’s gushing comments about the film, but I found it to be light on true wit and heavy on easy ironies. The subject matter is worthy and timely, but ill-served by a tone that blends pseudo-sophistication with ripe melodrama. I saw it at a WGA screening, which was followed by a Q&A with screenwriter Doug Wright. He seemed like a perfectly smart, nice guy, and I wasn’t about to spoil the post-screening love-fest with any critical questions. But it just didn’t work for me, despite impeccable production values and generally fine performances (especially the great Kate, who manages to bring a sketchy role to full life). And now I see that it’s just won the National Board of Review’s Best Picture Award. I’m sure other award-givers will follow suit: nothing garners laurels quite like a period piece that fancies itself a ‘statement’ about controversial contemporary issues. Not that there’s anything wrong with trying to make a statement, of course. Kaufman and company definitely rate an ‘A’ for ambition and effort, but Quills is strictly middlebrow stuff. That’s why it may be hard to beat come Oscar time." -- JJ

"In a year that has been anything but great for films so far (I have yet to see many of the winter releases), Quills is easily the best film I have seen all year. First of all, I feel it is not a film you can pass judgment on easily. I’ve only seen it once, and I cannot wait to get in and watch it again. Here are the most important reasons why I liked this film: 1) The best ensemble acting I’ve seen in a long, long time, gloriously led by Geoffrey Rush, who deserves Best Actor once again. 2) Director Kaufman never takes a side. He never glorifies the Marquis for writing in the face of censorship. When the Marquis does this, he always hurts other characters who are trying to help him. Kaufman never totally denounces the Marquis. He allows the audience to make the final decision on who is right and wrong. Of course, that is not a very easy decision to make. There are many shades of gray in this film. 3) Quills is thoughtful, moving, excellently written, acted almost without flaw, and -- imagine this -- it is extremely fun to watch." -- Paul

Once again, I ask those of you who have seen Quills to write in with your comments. For those of you who haven’t seen the movie yet, send me a review of another flick. Or let your fellow readers know how you feel about the plight of Robert Downey Jr. Or share your thoughts on any other movie-related topic. Thanks for reading! Have a good weekend at the movies.

 

Send your submissions to civilianvoices@roughcut.com

No purchase necessary. Void where prohibited. Must be age 16 or older to submit a story. Stories will be edited for length and content by representatives of Roughcut. Not all stories will appear online. By submitting this story you agree that Roughcut has the perpetual right to use the submitted story, in any and all media, without limitation, as Roughcut may determine in its sole discretion. You also acknowledge that you will not receive any monetary compensation for the use, if any, of your story.