Joe McCarthy and the witch hunt of the 1940s and 1950s was before my time, and of most alive today. They weren't hunting for witches, but for Communists, and Hollywood was the big target. Some, like John Garfield and Marsha Hunt, refused to cooperate, and were blacklisted. Garfield died soon after, but Hunt lived on and had a full life outside of the limelight. Others, like Humphrey Bogart and Sterling Hayden, cooperated, and continued to get good roles. Reading about that time, and the real fear that celebrities had, I have sympathy with ones today wanting keep their politics private. And, as has been pointed out, has any celebrity changed many minds regarding politics?
If you are an artist with a platform, there are much better and more effective ways to make a point than by going the Susan Sarandon route. One of my favorite shows is "The Pitt" and they have been unsparing in depicting how political issues are playing out in people's lives-storylines around anti-vaxxers, ICE, etc-which in my opinion are much more effective ways of bringing attention to an issue if that's what they choose to do.
Right—in a way a lot of people miss what the real “platform” is. Dalton Trumbo making a speech (and likely making it to other leftists and communists) won’t have nearly the effect of one of his screenplays if it makes to to the screen. Which is exactly why the McCarthyites (and let’s face it, the studio heads implementing it) wanted to keep his work from getting to screen.
I guess the other thing is, we want to force people (in this case, movie stars) to have binary opinions on things that perhaps they are conflicted about, or have thoughts in tension with the groupthink-I know I have plenty and choose not to spread them all over social media. That is *anyone’s* right to keep that private. I don’t know why we need to make everything so personal these days.
Translation: I'm just a humble, overpaid face, three stories tall on a screen in a room where people eat wildly overpriced, greasy, stale popcorn.
Also, "Politics is so divisive, but I really admire people who have convictions, if I had any, I'd be doing it, too, but...my calling is elsewhere..."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
The kind part of me feels sorry for "celebrities" who are contracturally obligated to do inane publicity interviews, but I secretly enjoy it when something stupid they supposedly said finds its way into the ether.
Politics are divisive because they’re real - they have real world implications for actual humans on a the scale of nations. If you’re not loud and engaged, you’re an idiot and/ or nihilist douche. Keeping politics separate from your work as a celebrity is impossible. Choosing not to weigh in is still a choice, just a stupid nihilistic one that demonstrates a preference for money and comfort over justice and long-term viability. As much as I disrespect Ted Nugent’s politics, I still respect him more than celebrities who prefer the shelter of meaningless comfort.
Just because someone stars in a movie doesn’t make their political opinions any more valid than anyone else’s. But - and it’s a big but - I think anyone with a platform has a duty to speak out against the fascism engulfing the US.
I do not believe it's incumbent upon celebrities to announce their political views to the public at large. We are all entitled to some discretion in this area-I don't go walking around my *own* workplace spouting my politics, after all. Despite what's going on there is still real work to be done that doesn't rely on hating fascism (I don't care who my trauma surgeon voted for, as long as they are skilled). And the constant mantra of how one should use their "privilege" is growing stale. No matter how you interpret the word, Glen Powell doesn't owe us his political thoughts. I also think Lawrence has a point when she says the focus on overtly political celebrity action detracts from the art, where a lot of the activism is taking place and has a better chance of influencing how others look at things than calling everyone racist and stupid at a rally. It's complicated!
She hits on a very good point that a widely watched movie that makes a subtle but powerful political statement can be far more effective than some actor going on social media to make the same point explicitly.
For those lamenting that a celebrity refusing to speak out about an issue could harm the cause, let me assure you that there is simply no person out there who will change their political opinion because of what their favorite celebrity says. Did Ted Nugent or Kelsey Grammar or Midnight Cowboy himself turn you into a Trumper?
I do get though why a celebrity may want to speak up after they’ve been publicly “claimed” by a side—until 2018, Taylor Swift said nothing about politics (she was, and is, the celebrity with the most carefully curated public image out there—it’s all well engineered) so the Nazis (sorry, I mean the Alt Right) publicly crowed about how she was an Aryan goddess who was afraid to speak out because of Woke. Realizing that being silent might make half her fans (I fully maintain that the other half of her fans are MAGA dipshits) could jump ship if they thought she was a Nazi, she announced herself as a Democrat and endorsed Phil Bredesen (D candidate fir the Senate in 2018 who lost to the bale of rotting hay known as Marsha Blackburn). Sydney Sweeney should take note, though I suspect she really is a MAGA.
The only time a celebrity speaking out on an issue can do good is if people aren’t aware of the issue (an earthquake in Congo, etc). Otherwise they’re likely to lose fans and affect nothing. I can’t blame anyone for not spiking their career for nothing, and these online scolds I’d ask when’s the last time you preached to your right wing boss about your political ideals?
Joe McCarthy and the witch hunt of the 1940s and 1950s was before my time, and of most alive today. They weren't hunting for witches, but for Communists, and Hollywood was the big target. Some, like John Garfield and Marsha Hunt, refused to cooperate, and were blacklisted. Garfield died soon after, but Hunt lived on and had a full life outside of the limelight. Others, like Humphrey Bogart and Sterling Hayden, cooperated, and continued to get good roles. Reading about that time, and the real fear that celebrities had, I have sympathy with ones today wanting keep their politics private. And, as has been pointed out, has any celebrity changed many minds regarding politics?
If you are an artist with a platform, there are much better and more effective ways to make a point than by going the Susan Sarandon route. One of my favorite shows is "The Pitt" and they have been unsparing in depicting how political issues are playing out in people's lives-storylines around anti-vaxxers, ICE, etc-which in my opinion are much more effective ways of bringing attention to an issue if that's what they choose to do.
Right—in a way a lot of people miss what the real “platform” is. Dalton Trumbo making a speech (and likely making it to other leftists and communists) won’t have nearly the effect of one of his screenplays if it makes to to the screen. Which is exactly why the McCarthyites (and let’s face it, the studio heads implementing it) wanted to keep his work from getting to screen.
I guess the other thing is, we want to force people (in this case, movie stars) to have binary opinions on things that perhaps they are conflicted about, or have thoughts in tension with the groupthink-I know I have plenty and choose not to spread them all over social media. That is *anyone’s* right to keep that private. I don’t know why we need to make everything so personal these days.
"For me, my calling is elsewhere."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Translation: I'm just a humble, overpaid face, three stories tall on a screen in a room where people eat wildly overpriced, greasy, stale popcorn.
Also, "Politics is so divisive, but I really admire people who have convictions, if I had any, I'd be doing it, too, but...my calling is elsewhere..."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
The kind part of me feels sorry for "celebrities" who are contracturally obligated to do inane publicity interviews, but I secretly enjoy it when something stupid they supposedly said finds its way into the ether.
Politics are divisive because they’re real - they have real world implications for actual humans on a the scale of nations. If you’re not loud and engaged, you’re an idiot and/ or nihilist douche. Keeping politics separate from your work as a celebrity is impossible. Choosing not to weigh in is still a choice, just a stupid nihilistic one that demonstrates a preference for money and comfort over justice and long-term viability. As much as I disrespect Ted Nugent’s politics, I still respect him more than celebrities who prefer the shelter of meaningless comfort.
Just because someone stars in a movie doesn’t make their political opinions any more valid than anyone else’s. But - and it’s a big but - I think anyone with a platform has a duty to speak out against the fascism engulfing the US.
I do not believe it's incumbent upon celebrities to announce their political views to the public at large. We are all entitled to some discretion in this area-I don't go walking around my *own* workplace spouting my politics, after all. Despite what's going on there is still real work to be done that doesn't rely on hating fascism (I don't care who my trauma surgeon voted for, as long as they are skilled). And the constant mantra of how one should use their "privilege" is growing stale. No matter how you interpret the word, Glen Powell doesn't owe us his political thoughts. I also think Lawrence has a point when she says the focus on overtly political celebrity action detracts from the art, where a lot of the activism is taking place and has a better chance of influencing how others look at things than calling everyone racist and stupid at a rally. It's complicated!
She hits on a very good point that a widely watched movie that makes a subtle but powerful political statement can be far more effective than some actor going on social media to make the same point explicitly.
For those lamenting that a celebrity refusing to speak out about an issue could harm the cause, let me assure you that there is simply no person out there who will change their political opinion because of what their favorite celebrity says. Did Ted Nugent or Kelsey Grammar or Midnight Cowboy himself turn you into a Trumper?
I do get though why a celebrity may want to speak up after they’ve been publicly “claimed” by a side—until 2018, Taylor Swift said nothing about politics (she was, and is, the celebrity with the most carefully curated public image out there—it’s all well engineered) so the Nazis (sorry, I mean the Alt Right) publicly crowed about how she was an Aryan goddess who was afraid to speak out because of Woke. Realizing that being silent might make half her fans (I fully maintain that the other half of her fans are MAGA dipshits) could jump ship if they thought she was a Nazi, she announced herself as a Democrat and endorsed Phil Bredesen (D candidate fir the Senate in 2018 who lost to the bale of rotting hay known as Marsha Blackburn). Sydney Sweeney should take note, though I suspect she really is a MAGA.
The only time a celebrity speaking out on an issue can do good is if people aren’t aware of the issue (an earthquake in Congo, etc). Otherwise they’re likely to lose fans and affect nothing. I can’t blame anyone for not spiking their career for nothing, and these online scolds I’d ask when’s the last time you preached to your right wing boss about your political ideals?