Jamie Lee Curtis’ Sad Backpedal Captures Hollywood Cowardice

“Tinsel Town courage” can be an oxymoron.

Stars who gain or lose weight for a role are deemed “brave” in celebrity circles. Those who use awards shows to plug progressive causes, reflecting the industry’s overwhelming groupthink, are similarly dubbed stunning and/or brave.

Yet when courage really counts, too many stars stand down.

Remember when Gina Carano was cruelly fired from “The Mandalorian” for sharing a social media post promoting empathy? Not even her co-stars rose to defend her, at least until months after her dismissal.

What about Roseanne Barr losing her sitcom empire and career for one ugly, racially-charged Tweet for which she swiftly apologized? Barr shattered professional glass ceilings for a generation of female comedians, yet very few (if any) rallied to her defense.

Sometimes, Hollywood’s lack of courage is breathtaking.

Consider how few Women’s March celebrities spoke out after Hamas tortured and sexually assaulted women during their Oct. 7 massacre in Israel. The 2024 film “Screams Before Silence” recalled those atrocities in heart-breaking detail.

A more recent, galling example of Hollywood cowardice?

Few celebrities could spare a sympathetic word following the Sept. 10 assassination of conservative icon Charlie Kirk. They had a perfect opportunity to do just that at the Sept. 14 Emmys gala.

The country was still reeling from the attack that day, a killing captured and shared on social media. The assembled stars said nothing, reflecting the industry at large.

One prominent exception? Oscar winner Jamie Lee Curtis teared up during an interview with Marc Maron after she brought up Kirk’s murder.

“I mean, I disagreed with him on almost every point I ever heard him say. But I believe he was a man of faith, and I hope in that moment when he died, that he felt connected to his faith … Even though I find what his ideas were abhorrent to me, I still believe he’s a father and a husband and a man of faith, and I hope whatever ‘connection to God’ means, that he felt it.”

Curtis recalled that emotional response in a new interview for Variety. And, shockingly, she did so in order to essentially argue she was taken out of context.

Why? In part, because she received a “threatening” backlash, to hear her describe it.

“An excerpt of it mistranslated [emphasis added] what I was saying as I wished him well – like I was talking about him in a very positive way, which I wasn’t; I was simply talking about his faith in God,” Curtis told Variety.

She added, “In the binary world today, you cannot hold two ideas at the same time: I cannot be Jewish and totally believe in Israel’s right to exist and at the same time reject the destruction of Gaza. You can’t say that, because you get vilified for having a mind that says, ‘I can hold both those thoughts. I can be contradictory in that way.'”

Two times of note.

One, the media is wholly disinterested in the fact that people bullied an Oscar winner into retracting her human reaction to Kirk’s murder. That reflects the modern Left’s willingness to dehumanize its ideological foes.

Like Kirk.

Two, the same media didn’t blink when Curtis retracted her human reaction to Kirk’s murder.

Then again, reporters may have gotten numb to Hollywood’s moral collapse. Still, Curtis’ backpedal sets a new bar for industry cowardice.