Actor Jim Caviezel rose to fame after calling renowned actor Robert De Niro a “awful, ungodly man” and refusing to work with him. This unusual attitude in Hollywood has generated conversations about how to balance one’s personal values with one’s commercial ties.
This article explores the specifics of Caviezel’s bold decision, the reasons he declined to collaborate with De Niro, and the broader effects of his open comments in the film industry. Jim Caviezel is well known for his steadfast moral principles and firm Christian convictions. His portrayal of Jesus Christ in Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” is what made him most famous.
On the other hand, the well-known actor Robert De Niro is commended for his versatility in acting and his candid opinions on a broad spectrum of social and political issues. Caviezel’s reluctance to collaborate with De Niro brings to light the conflict between a person’s moral convictions and the teamwork required in filmmaking.
In a recent interview, Caviezel was questioned on potential collaborations with De Niro. With considerable conviction, he declared, “I won’t work with Robert De Niro.” He is a terrible, immoral person.
The strong language in his message immediately caught the interest of fans and the media, generating questions about the specifics of the alleged falling out between the two celebrities. Throughout the meeting, Caviezel stayed silent on specifics, but it’s obvious that his decision was influenced by a deep moral battle.
Given De Niro’s ardent Christian beliefs and commitment to businesses that uphold his moral values, Caviezel appears to believe that there is a distinction between the man on the outside and his past actions.
Due to Caviezel’s ambiguous comment, there were speculations and a rise in public interest in the underlying dynamics. Entertainers often share their opinions on a variety of subjects, such as why they have chosen not to collaborate with a certain individual.
However, opinions on Caviezel’s bold statement have been mixed. Some commend him for sticking to his convictions, considering it an exceptional example of integrity in a field that is occasionally chastised for its lack of morality. Publicly making such statements, according to others, is a bad idea because it can limit one’s prospects for a future career and perpetuate divisions within the profession.
The fact that Caviezel turned down working with De Niro begs further concerns about how actors navigate their personal beliefs in the sometimes contentious, cooperative environment of Hollywood. Although many perspectives and expressions have historically benefited the industry, there is an increasing tendency of artists placing restrictions on their work according to their personal convictions.
This episode serves as an example of how Hollywood is evolving and how people are willing to uphold their principles even at the expense of their professional opportunities. In the entertainment industry, there have been cases where an actor’s public comments have benefited or hindered their career. Some who share Caviezel’s unwavering commitment to his beliefs may find it poignant that he turned down the opportunity to work with De Niro.
Dad & fiancée exclude his daughter from their wedding after she bought a dress & shoes for it
Reddit is the place where people share stories of their life and ask fellow redditors for advice and opinion on the decision they make.
A teenage girl recently shared that her dad and his wife-to-be excluded her from their wedding and she explained the reasons behind that heartbreaking decision.
“I (f18) was always pretty close to my dad. Closer to my mom but I often visited my dad (about 3-4 times a week). A few years ago he started dating “Anna”. Anna and I always got along when my dad proposed I was happy Anna seemed like she would be a great stepmom,” she started her post.
OP said that she was overly excited and was looking forward to the wedding. She bought a dress and shoes, but then her dad told her that he and his fiancée needed to talk to her about something important.
“Well a few weeks before the wedding after I had bought everything (dress, shoes, etc) my dad and Anna said they needed to “talk to me” Anna and my dad decided to have a child free wedding which I get especially for young kids.
“Well turns out child-free means no one under 18. On the day of the wedding, I was still going to be 17 so, therefore, I’m not allowed to be at the wedding because Anna wants to stay true to the child-free rule even for the daughter of the groom and her about-to-be stepdaughter.”
Devastated, OP told her mom what her dad and Anna said to her. The mom was as heartbroken as her daughter and decided to take her on vacation so that she cheer up. At the same time, the mom told the rest of the family what her ex-husband did to their daughter. Understandably, most of them were shocked and angry.
Later, OP posted birthday pictures on Facebook and wrote, “I’m so glad my dad and Anna didn’t allow me at their wedding since I was under 18; I feel more mature since yesterday.”
“The family was freaking out asking if that was true and bashing my dad and Anna. I later got a bunch of texts from my dad and Anna calling me immature and a selfish brat and that’s why I was too immature to be at a wedding. I was talking to some friends and they said I was kinda an AH for doing that and I should have just let it go.”
Fellow redditors shared their opinions and agreed that OP wasn’t an AH for telling the family what her dad did to her.
“NTA. What kind of man doesn’t have his own child at his wedding? Anyway, they made the choice, if they believe it was the right choice they should have no issue about it being publicly known. Plus, people might well assume you weren’t there because you disapproved of his new wife or chose a vacation instead. Ensuring people know WHY you weren’t there saves your own reputation,” one person commented.
“The no children was made for you. I’m sorry but let that sink in. She made that rule to keep you out. You now know where you stand in their marriage…you don’t. I’m so sorry. NTA. I personally think it was EPIC. Harsh but epic. They deserved more than that. I would even update it with pictures of their texts,” another added.
A third wrote, “I can’t help but wonder if she purposefully pick a date before OP birthday just so she couldn’t go. If the dad & step-mom wanted to make it child free but make sure OP was there they could have made sure the date was AFTER OP birthday but to make it just 2 days before….. nah they didn’t want her there & was just trying to use that as an excuse.”
We believe the dad was not right for excluding his own daughter from the wedding.
What are your thoughts on this?
Leave a Reply