About a month ago, I was watching a documentary about the career of actor Kirk Douglas, a man who I admire greatly. There were clips from his numerous roles including “Spartacus”, “Lust for Life”, “The Bad and the Beautiful” and “A Letter to Three Wives”. Through all his fictional personas, Douglas has attained a mythical stature, one that equates who he is to what he pretends to be.
I don’t live in fear of offending any actor by saying that their lies reveal truths about life and seduce us into belief. What offends me is the weight we give to their off screen views.
The same can be said of organized religion. It says that something is real, when it logically is not, yet we are in thrall to the seduction of lies. We fear of saying things that are disrespectful about mystical beliefs, holy tales and those priestly utterances that are given on top of the pulpit. Why do we cling so closely to ignorance? Why are we so afraid of calling liars liars? Does our religious upbringing and indoctrination in stories and special effects make us suseptible to the black magic of actors?
There is the cult of the performers in which our “celebrities” assume priestly functions. Then they lead us down a road to their [a]moral choice. George Clooney, now a respected political spokesman? His roles in “Syrianna” and “Good Night, Good Luck” have erased the line between who he is and what he pretends to be. And what if the gullible believers truly think that he has the answers to the Middle Eastern conflict merely because he played a spy on screen? Is he really the same person who denounced Senator McCarthy and exposed his lies? Murrow may have done great things, but we cannot trust that Clooney ghosting as Murrow somehow borrows the authority, intelligence and moral character of his muse.
When we believe “Munich” is really Munich in 1972 or “JFK” is really the story of Dallas on November 22, 1963 we suspend rational thinking. Most actors don’t have answers to the problems of this world– and their opinions don’t deserve the respect that the media circus acccords them.
Here in Van Nuys 
I’ll start by saying that the following comment is not a direct response to your view. It just reminded me of something I often think when people say “Why should I listen to what actors or musicians have to say about politics?” This is often followed by that person’s personal views on the same subject. My question is, why shouldn’t we? I work hard and spend way to many hours behind the camera and computer to truly keep up with everything that’s going on in Politics. It seems to me that many actors have way more time on their hands to keep up. That doesn’t mean that their opinions are necessarily more valid than mine, but I’ll bet a good portion of them are more informed than 90% of the general public that cries foul every time an actor or musician mentions his or her political beliefs. I won’t even mention California’s history of actor/polititians… Oops, I just did. have a feeling that most of the people that complain about actors spouting politics, would do the exact same thing if they had such a huge vehicle to do so.
Brooks Blog
LikeLike
Andrew wrote:
“It’s true that the political parties have lost so much respect that movie voices have filled in the void. Political movies are substituting for actual political protest in America. Easier to make a movie about a war you don’t like than lead 50,000 Angelenos to march down Wilshire Blvd.”
It’s as every bit of a problem of Americans themselves as much as the political parties themselves.
Americans love to beat their chests about our “freedoms” and that in turn fuels our notions of supremacy. We have “freedom,” but we do not have courage.
Protests and marches have ceased to be useful anymore. The government, military and economic elites have recognized a long time ago that protests, boycotts and other nonviolent mass demonstrations are a way for the rabble to throw a tantrum without the ruling class to lose any privilege.
Now contrast this to the most repressive, brutal dictatorships around the world. You have artists, intellectuals, journalists and resistance leaders who do not have political freedom, and put themselves and their families and friends in danger for defying the regime. They’re not allowed to speak or think freely, but they do anyway because they are committed to their ideals so much that they’re willing to take the ultimate risk.
And here in the “land of freedom,” we will express ourselves as long as there are no consequences. Americans are too comfortable to be radical. We only think that watching “Syriana,” “Good Night, and Good Luck” or “Brokeback Mountain” is a political act because these movies contain controversial themes. They’re really money-making vehicles for all parties involved, and as long as Hollywood is profitable, it will sell moviegoers the illusion of controversy instead of spawning a revolution. Think about which party gets the largesse of the businesses that commodify liberal ideals. Hint: it’s not the Democrats.
LikeLike
It’s true that the political parties have lost so much respect that movie voices have filled in the void. Political movies are substituting for actual political protest in America. Easier to make a movie about a war you don’t like than lead 50,000 Angelenos to march down Wilshire Blvd.
While I respect Clooney as an actor, I don’t respect the movie “Syrianna”. It was as muddled and long winded bunch of hot air that I have ever seen–with that obnoxious “West Wing” feeling that lets the audience feel they are inside the halls of power and seeing things they shouldn’t see. But I couldn’t make heads or tails out of what was going on. Now I know: it doesn’t make sense, but it’s political so that why its so IMPORTANT.
LikeLike
“What offends me is the weight we give to their off screen views.”
—-That’s why an idol must be broken, my more religious friend would comment. However, Hollywood stardom functions upon creating and sustaining idols, living ones that many just cannot seem to live without.
Great critique on George Clooney et al. I don’t hate him, in fact, I am kinda fond of him as an actor. It’s when he began to self-inflate and think what he has done is such incredible political work agaist the current U.S. administration, he and the rest of Hollywood began to reveal their self-indulgence, arrogance and alas, irrelevance. You can smell it so bad that they think Syrianna, Munich and Good Night Good Luck are such far superior and absolute important work of political critique and gift for humanity than, say that gay cowboy movie about “luv”.
The big studio guys are now acting like noble savages, speaking on soap boxes under the roof of small production companies. The indie spirit has waned so much after a brief excitement in the early 90’s and eventually fulfilled the cynic’s prediction: eventual submission to the profitability and recognition from the big guys.
Perhaps this strange era of Hollywood posturing and US/White House political dilemma is therefore a far acceptable check and balance model to a large public: between the critics and the government. Since the 2 parties are not readily arguing against each other, a far unaccountable and yet gleaming entity moves in to assume the voice of discontent. Works kind of beautifully, in’nt?
LikeLike