Freethought & Rationalism Archive

excreationist · 03-15-2003, 07:05 AM

Quote:

LOS ANGELES, March 14 (UPI) -- Realistic or not, there is growing talk in Hollywood about concern that political activism by actors could lead to an entertainment industry blacklist, reminiscent of the one during the McCarthy era.

...More recently, a few conservatives in Hollywood have complained that they are similarly shunned for being "politically incorrect."

The run-up to a possible U.S.-led war against Iraq has featured an energetic public debate about the propriety of liberal celebrities exploiting their fame to oppose Bush administration policy, although there has been little criticism of celebrities -- such as "Law & Order" star Fred Thompson, comedian Dennis Miller or musician Kid Rock -- speaking up for the war.

...The Screen Actors Guild raised the specter of a blacklist two weeks ago, issuing a statement warning against economic punishment of actors who speak up -- either for or against the war. SAG President Melissa Gilbert told "Access Hollywood" this week that it is a real concern.

"There is a sense out there, people have these Web sites going where they're asking folks to sign a petition to insist that actors are fired off the shows they're on," said Gilbert. "And they're getting 30,000 signatures."....

....Martin Sheen, the Emmy-winning star of "The West Wing," said he has received an "avalanche of hate mail" since speaking out against the war.

Peter Boyle, one of the stars of the CBS comedy "Everybody Loves Raymond," told "Access Hollywood" he is keeping his opinions to himself -- out of fear.

"I've made a commitment to not make any anti-war statements," said Boyle, "because I'm afraid of President Bush."

....An expression of neutrality sounds like a safe way to go, but you have to wonder how long it might take before somebody suggests that even neutrality is insufficiently patriotic -- given the president's admonition immediately after Sept. 11 that "if you are not for us you are against us."

Daniel Day-Lewis, Best Actor nominee for "Gangs of New York," described the Catch-22 that celebrities find themselves in -- as they are constantly quizzed by reporters about their political views.

"The media are sick and tired of people in my profession giving their opinion, and yet you're asking me my opinion," said Day-Lewis. "And when I give it you'll say, 'Why doesn't he shut up?'"

...In the end, critics of anti-war celebrities may be protesting too much. After all, as those same critics are so fond of pointing out, 87 percent of Americans said in a recent CNN poll that celebrity opinion on the war had no influence on their own thinking.

So if Mike Farrell, Janeane Garofalo, Jessica Lange and the rest exercise their constitutional right to express their political opinions, what's the big deal? Would any American seriously wish to live in a country where expressing a political point of view is a punishable offense?

There's also a NYPOST story about the Oscars' people not wanting it to turn into an anti-war rally since the preaching might put off some viewers.

It's not serious at the moment, but maybe it could get worse... soon the war will probably start and maybe end soon after, but then there might be more invasions and actors might protest again...

Probably the main reason the entertainment industry might want to keep them quiet is because preaching can be annoying... but anyway, there are some speculations about this turning into a witch-hunt.

Henry-Finland · 03-15-2003, 09:29 AM

From the UPI article:

Quote:

Realistic or not, there is growing talk in Hollywood about concern that political activism by actors could lead to an entertainment industry blacklist, reminiscent of the one during the McCarthy era.
<snip>
"I've made a commitment to not make any anti-war statements," said Boyle, "because I'm afraid of President Bush."
<snip>
Would any American seriously wish to live in a country where expressing a political point of view is a punishable offense?

Read the thread: "My respect for them just shot up..." about The Dixie Chicks

The Bushista Freepers wants to export freedom? :banghead:

Very good reading today:
"1984"
"The Iron Heel"

Have a nice day

Henry

lisarea · 03-15-2003, 11:28 AM

Aside even from the parallels to McCarthyism, which are relevant and, IMO, chilling, this whole argument that actors shouldn't be expressing their political views strikes me as disingenuous.

Did these people ONLY JUST NOW notice that actors aren't uniquely qualified to discuss politics and such? Really?

I've always been amazed at the whole talk show industry. WHO CARES WHAT ACTORS THINK? Who's watching this stuff in the first place?

There are exceptions, to be sure. Song and screenwriters and such at least use their brains for their work, but ACTORS? I'm not saying that they don't have as much a right as anyone to express their opinions and so forth, and I'm sure some small minority of them might even have something insightful to say. That Law & Order guy is/was a politician, so, misguided as he is, he's still a politician and can be expected to speak up on political issues. But acting is a career in which it pays to drop out of high school and spend all your time obsessing on your looks. Their whole job is to recite lines someone else has written, and to look convincing doing so. Their success in their field is measured in large part by their physical attractiveness, and how they ornament themselves.

I realize the irony in my citing this, but I saw somewhere a portion of an interview with Brad Pitt, after he'd done that movie about Tibet. The interviewer asked him what he thought of the situation there, and he said it didn't matter what he thought. He's an actor. He goes to work, someone puts makeup on him, someone else tells him where to stand and what to say, and he does what they tell him; and the fact that he dressed up like some character who had some involvement and/or unique experience with Tibet did not make him an expert on the issue.

I guess I just have to marvel that these people are suddenly coming out of the woodwork now to admonish actors for using their public position to advance their political beliefs. Where were they when Julia Roberts was testifying before congress? Why the hell did congress have to stop and watch Julia Roberts, actress, sob and blather on about something completely unrelated to her experience in her field? (I think it was some kind of disease she was asking for more research funds for.) ***KAK. WAIT A MINUTE. I JUST THOUGHT OF SOMETHING: Was this somehow related to her playing Erin Brockovich in that movie?!?!?!?!?***

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, the root of the issue is not that actors are expressing their opinions on things. They have every right in the world to do that. But it's completely unrelated to their jobs, and boycotting them for having and expressing opinions is obscene.

The fact that people give a shit what they say is the real problem, and the root of that problem does not lie with the actors.

Misso · 03-15-2003, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Did these people ONLY JUST NOW notice that actors aren't uniquely qualified to discuss politics and such? Really?

Who actually is uniquely qualified to discuss politics?

I think it's insane that there might be a boycot on people who express their opinions, no matter what their profession is. This is particularly insane in a country that claims to have freedom of speech.

Sojourner553 · 03-15-2003, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Misso
Who actually is uniquely qualified to discuss politics?

I think it's insane that there might be a boycot on people who express their opinions, no matter what their profession is. This is particularly insane in a country that claims to have freedom of speech.

Even more insane that this is "supposed to be" a "war for freedom!". We just aren't "free" to talk about it.

Sojourner

Beetle · 03-15-2003, 02:15 PM

I don't know about that. I think there's almost no chance that we'll ever see anything like the McCarthy blacklist again.

What the actors who speak out are risking is a marketplace backlash. They depend on the voluntary support of the population for their livlihood (we don't have to see their movies or buy their albums). If they engage in activities or take stands that anger enough people, then there will be economic consequences to them. Not because the government has decided to move against them, but because people don't think positively towards them anymore. A radio station in Houston said that over 70% of the people responding to an online poll wanted the Dixie Chicks dropped from the playlist. Only if the movies and records the celebrity activists make start to bomb will we see studios and lables dropping them.

Call me crazy, but I don't have a problem with that scenario. If I say something that angers my customers, I'd be history too.

lisarea · 03-15-2003, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Misso
Who actually is uniquely qualified to discuss politics?

I never said they shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinions, nor should they be discouraged, even.

It's just that most celebrities are not exactly the greatest minds of our generation, and I've never understood why people are any more interested in their ideas than they are in the opinions of any other marginally educated segment of society.

And I do think that some people are uniquely qualified to provide insight into political issues--usually those whose professions or avocations make them unusually knowledgeable, and those with specific life experiences that are directly related to the topic at hand.

The political views of celebrities are of no more interest to me than the political views of 7-11 clerks or vo-tech students. I'm not completely uninterested, but I'm also not unduly interested, and I absolutely do not understand why anyone is.

Happy Wonderer · 03-15-2003, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lisarea

It's just that most celebrities are not exactly the greatest minds of our generation, and I've never understood why people are any more interested in their ideas than they are in the opinions of any other marginally educated segment of society.

Don't forget that we elected an actor president not too long ago. At least he could give a coherent speech.

HW

PopeInTheWoods · 03-15-2003, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beetle
Call me crazy, but I don't have a problem with that scenario. If I say something that angers my customers, I'd be history too.

Quite right! The First Amendment protects the Dixie Chicks from being thrown in jail for expressing their views. It doesn't protect them from people choosing not to buy their records for whatever reason.

Andy

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-15-2003, 11:28 AM	#3
lisarea Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 5,550	Aside even from the parallels to McCarthyism, which are relevant and, IMO, chilling, this whole argument that actors shouldn't be expressing their political views strikes me as disingenuous. Did these people ONLY JUST NOW notice that actors aren't uniquely qualified to discuss politics and such? Really? I've always been amazed at the whole talk show industry. WHO CARES WHAT ACTORS THINK? Who's watching this stuff in the first place? There are exceptions, to be sure. Song and screenwriters and such at least use their brains for their work, but ACTORS? I'm not saying that they don't have as much a right as anyone to express their opinions and so forth, and I'm sure some small minority of them might even have something insightful to say. That Law & Order guy is/was a politician, so, misguided as he is, he's still a politician and can be expected to speak up on political issues. But acting is a career in which it pays to drop out of high school and spend all your time obsessing on your looks. Their whole job is to recite lines someone else has written, and to look convincing doing so. Their success in their field is measured in large part by their physical attractiveness, and how they ornament themselves. I realize the irony in my citing this, but I saw somewhere a portion of an interview with Brad Pitt, after he'd done that movie about Tibet. The interviewer asked him what he thought of the situation there, and he said it didn't matter what he thought. He's an actor. He goes to work, someone puts makeup on him, someone else tells him where to stand and what to say, and he does what they tell him; and the fact that he dressed up like some character who had some involvement and/or unique experience with Tibet did not make him an expert on the issue. I guess I just have to marvel that these people are suddenly coming out of the woodwork now to admonish actors for using their public position to advance their political beliefs. Where were they when Julia Roberts was testifying before congress? Why the hell did congress have to stop and watch Julia Roberts, actress, sob and blather on about something completely unrelated to her experience in her field? (I think it was some kind of disease she was asking for more research funds for.) *KAK. WAIT A MINUTE. I JUST THOUGHT OF SOMETHING: Was this somehow related to her playing Erin Brockovich in that movie?!?!?!?!?* Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, the root of the issue is not that actors are expressing their opinions on things. They have every right in the world to do that. But it's completely unrelated to their jobs, and boycotting them for having and expressing opinions is obscene. The fact that people give a shit what they say is the real problem, and the root of that problem does not lie with the actors.

03-15-2003, 02:15 PM	#6
Beetle Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Massachusetts State Home for the Bewildered Posts: 961	I don't know about that. I think there's almost no chance that we'll ever see anything like the McCarthy blacklist again. What the actors who speak out are risking is a marketplace backlash. They depend on the voluntary support of the population for their livlihood (we don't have to see their movies or buy their albums). If they engage in activities or take stands that anger enough people, then there will be economic consequences to them. Not because the government has decided to move against them, but because people don't think positively towards them anymore. A radio station in Houston said that over 70% of the people responding to an online poll wanted the Dixie Chicks dropped from the playlist. Only if the movies and records the celebrity activists make start to bomb will we see studios and lables dropping them. Call me crazy, but I don't have a problem with that scenario. If I say something that angers my customers, I'd be history too.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.