[napscoordinator]

I don’t see why playing a part is such a bad thing. Didn’t Anthony Hopkins play a guy who ate people? Yet he is still beloved. Sometimes we go to far with our craziness.

[Dr. Sivana]

I don’t see why playing a part is such a bad thing. Didn’t Anthony Hopkins play a guy who ate people? Yet he is still beloved. Sometimes we go to far with our craziness.

She is not going to get the "Silence of the Lambs" treatment. I fear this will be more along the lines of "The People vs. Larry Flynt". The difference is that we already knew that Woody Harrelson was a brain addled pothead before he took the part. I had not thought that Sandra Bullock was interested in promoting abortionism.

[winner3000]

(I don’t see why playing a part is such a bad thing. Didn’t Anthony Hopkins play a guy who ate people?)

Playing a fictional character will not hurt an actor. Playing a real person that half the country loves and the other half hates in an obvious positive portrayal, that’s another story.

The same thing works on the negative side. Imagine a beloved actor portraying Ronald Reagan and the script being written by the usual DNC Hollywood types. Wouldn’t you say that the actor would become less beloved?

So far Sandra has stayed away from all politics. This is a mistake for her.

[irishjuggler]

I don’t see why playing a part is such a bad thing. Didn’t Anthony Hopkins play a guy who ate people? Yet he is still beloved. Sometimes we go to far with our craziness.

Well, sure, if this flick (accurately) presents abortion as a gruesome, homicidal practice and Wendy Davis as its callous apologist, then you're right. Sandy Bullock will just be playing a role. On the other hand, if this film is hagiography of Davis (as is ten thousand times more likely), then you're wrong. Bullock will be lending her talents to an evil cause. Hannibal Lecter isn't presented as a saintly fellow, and no one thinks Anthony Hopkins personally supports cannibalism.