Opinionated actors....SHUT UP!

[Benny Holiday]

or..."It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." (Who said that?).

Abraham Lincoln.

 

[Bebop]

I liked it much better when actors did not have public opinions and just honed their craft and whisked us away for an hour or so. I would be the last one to claim they should not have public opinions but it is their choice to speak up or just do their work. I just liked it better back then. If you went to a party or had a drink with them you would get an earful but they would never hold a press conference to let us know they hate the current President. I am sure there are those that would say that it's about time they did something with their celebrity status and maybe you are right but I liked it much more when I did not associate an actor with a political cause. I watch the actors to get away from the political causes of everyday life not to be reminded of them. Sometimes it's not political opinions but just making too many appearences as themselves. I don't want to watch an actor on screen and know what he is like in real life. [huh]

 

[LizzieMaine]

It's not a new phenomenon at all, of course. Many actors and entertainment personalities of the Golden Era were extremely vocal about their political views, and some of them ended up just as controversial as personalities today. Charlie Chaplin spent most of the years from the thirties onward embroiled in one controversy or another due to his political statements. In 1939, comedian Eddie Cantor lost his radio show for a year because of the public controversy generated by his outspoken criticism of Father Charles Coughlin. James Cagney was an aggressive supporter of trade unionism, and frequently clashed with studio bosses over the public expression of his views. Lillian Gish was a founding member of the America First movement in 1940, which bitterly opposed FDR's policy concerning the European War. Edward G. Robinson was a vocal supporter of civil rights at a time when it was highly unpopular to be such. Adolphe Menjou was a hawkish critic of left-wing influences in show business, and was a prime mover in bringing that issue to the attention of congressional investigators in the years after the war. And of course, Ronald Reagan first came to political attention due to his public activities in the Screen Actors Guild.

In other words, it's nothing new. They did it then, they'll do it now, and they'll do it tomorrow. And that's show biz.

 

[Fletch]

And as long as they do it, we'll boycott 'em, blacklist 'em, or just talk trash about 'em. Because that is what freedom of speech is really meant for.

lol

 

[Bebop]

I had not thought of the stars of yesteryear and the opinionated frolicking they did. I believe what I mean to say is that I would find it relaxing to be how I used to be. Not really having anything to do with how actors used to be. I never noticed any podium mongering by any stars 25 or 30 years ago.

 

[carter]

And then we have Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy who was not a member of the House Un-American Activities Committee but was a virulent anti-Communist and prone to often wild, unfounded, and unsupported allegations against the Truman administration, the U.S. Army, and many other persons and organizations.
Regarding decency, the Army's chief legal representative, Joseph Welch, said, "Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
Edward R. Murrow said at the conclusion of his See It Now broadcast on March 9, 1954, "His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between the internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men."

This 1st Amendment right certainly is and always will be a thorny issue. But, It sure beats the alternatives.

 

[Foofoogal]

Used to be a time when your parents would come home and watch the news...

Matt said it all. Now it is Youtube or MySpace. :eusa_doh:
Whoever owns the network or site is able to spin and lean the info. Scary stuff IMHO.

So funny because the only thing I know about Sean Penn is that he was once married to Madonna and hit photographers a few times I think.

 

[Jack Scorpion]

Here Here! (to the thread title)

 

[Chanfan]

Sure, these folks have a bigger pulpit than most, but that's the way it is.

That's the key to it. I don't think their profession makes their opinions more (or less) valid than any other run-of-the-mill person, it's just they have the means (by way of fame) to get their opinion out to a whole lot of folks.

Now, given that they have the means, and assuming they have a strong belief - no matter if it's well-reasoned and well-founded, or otherwise - I would be very surprised, perhaps even disappointed if they didn't speak out. I've often heard it said that one should act on ones convictions, so perhaps the ones who don't speak out have a little less to admire. Perhaps like becoming wealthy, and then not using your money in any charitable way. Certainly one doesn't have to be a philanthropist just because you became rich, but you're likely to get more respect if you do so.

Of course, if I believe their opinions are foolish and display great stupidity (if they match my own or not), it may well be that the low opinion that generates far outweighs the positive of their being willing to use their position to put their beliefs into action.

And I'm human - so certainly when I hear an actor who has some stance I dislike, going off "merely" because he's famous and gets a voice that I do not, I roll my eyes and curse him or her for an idiot. Yet were I to catapult to fame, I'm sure I'd likewise use the opportunity to push my pet agendas, and cause my own share of eye-rolling among the hoi polloi.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Should actors who know absolutely nothing about the intricacies of land mines or international terrorism, but are against both, also shut up?

What about people trafficking - a particularly murky area with very few people who know much about how it works - should they shut up about that, too?

Should Priests be allowed to comment publically upon sexuality and lifestyle choices of which they have only the vaguest, mired in prejudice, notions?

Should we limit comment to the renowned experts and have everyone else hold their tongues? You can have your opinions - which we will assume to be un-, ill- or under-informed - but by God, you can't state them in a medium that people can read/hear.

Or should they only shut up when they say anything "controversial" (taking 'controversial' here to mean 'anything with which i don't agree')?

bk

 

[Edward]

The actress who shall go unnamed who said she'd kill herself if she was as fat as Marilyn Monroe? [huh]

Well, she's entitled to that opinion for sure. It's idiotic, mind, but the problem as I see it is that the fashion industry and Hollywood keep pushing this "thin is best" notion of female beauty without much countering (at least, until recently anyhow - things are a bit better in the UK now than they were ten years ago). It's the lack of a counter-opinion being expressed that is the issue, not that that opinion is out there.

The young manufactured pop-princess being marketed as "punk" who didn't know who the Ramones were, and couldn't see why it mattered?

Always makes me laugh, that - just as much as the kids out there last Summer who were wearing Ramones t-shirts (selling in Top Shop on Oxford Street for the equivalent of sixty US bucks, I kid you not) who obviously had no idea that it was anything other than a mere brand, let alone the Great Band Ever God Blew Breath Into (note: objective fact. ). Mind you, on the flipside I also get concerned when you have kids who turn into their parents - old farts at 16. You know the sort, thirteen years old and they don't list to anything recorded after 1976 because "everything nowadays is rubbish, and manufactured and they don't make good music any more." The London punk scene (at least, the thinking end of it) was always typified by a Year Zero manifesto - the past doesn't matter, what matters is what we create now. Anyhow, what I find offensive about that incident was not the kid's ignorance, but that the record company had tried once again to commodify something organic that was by its very nature not designed to be mere unthinking unti shifter material.

This seems liek a long-running thread in the making. I haven't heard what Penn has said recently but i saw a headline that he was down speaking to Hugo.

Retro's back in fashion for bogeymen too, then? I'm sure Osama's pleased about that.

P.S. I once had the pleasure of watching two teachers, one a math teacher and one and english teacher argue about which is proper: "7 and 5 IS 11" or "seven and five ARE eleven". Back and forth they went until someone asserted the opinion that "7 Plus 5 = TWELVE" !

lol lol lol A true "wood for the trees moment!"

I simply divorce what these people do in their profession from what they say in press releases.

The sensible thing. If they don't intertwine their art and their opinions, and you don't feel like you're contributing towards something that is anathema to you by paying to buy their music/ movies / other product, then why should it matter. I know I found most of Johnny Ramone's professed political opinions utterly vile, but the man was still my guitar hero. Common ground there on an appreciation of music. I do beleive that within reason it is part of being a mature human being to be able to find common ground with another, to recognise common humanity. Sometimes it's not possible, or not so easy. For instance, I remember when Pete townsend was convicted for having downloaded child pornography. A lot of folks were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that what he did was stupid (and criminal) but that he geuinely did do it for the reasons he gave, and not because he was sexually interested in the material. Others rushed out to get rid of all their Who albums and refused to listen to the band again. I've known people who genuinely liked Gary Glitter's music, and had real difficulty with that when he was convicted.

Personally, I find it absurd if we take at face value what so many people say - that "celebrities" should not be entitled to express their opinion freely, while these same people have no objection to cab drivers, shop workers, your average, regular people expressing equally (often far more so) ill informed and unthinking opinions. It seems to me that far more often what they really mean is "I hate the prevailing political opinions in Hollywood, and these people should be forced to shut up because I don't agree with them." Actually - within reason, of course - I can respect a celebrity far more if they are willing to express their own genuine political opinions, especially when they are standing up for convictions that may make them very unpopular in certain quarters. I respect those who wish to keep their private opinions private, but there's something uncomfortable to me about someone who refuses to give a political comment in case it "harms sales." One thing I find utterly contemptible in people generally, celebrity or otherwise, is total disinterest in politics. Some folks even think they are being clever to say "I hate politics" and display their ignorance of it. Always the same folks who complain about tax, or some new law, or the lack of a new law, or things that affect their lives, but don't ever bother informing themselves, or often even to vote. That really bugs me. I believe it was Frank Zappa who once said "Stupidity has its charm. Ignorance doesn't." I consider that he had a point.

 

[carter]

Originally Posted by Viola
The actress who shall go unnamed who said she'd kill herself if she was as fat as Marilyn Monroe? [huh]

I certainly hope she's never exposed to Renoir or Degas. The shock to her system may be more than she can bear.

 

[dhermann1]

The problem with actors, especially contemporary ones, is that they need to dramatize everything. A lot of performers who are politically active are just living out their own low brow melodrama of "good" vs "evil" with themselves as Joan of Arc, or Davy Crockett. Being slightly lefty myself, it DEEPLY chagrines me to see people who clearly don't know their patooties from a hole in the ground undermining what I consider a strong point of view.
There are solidly knowledgible people on both sides (e.g. Ben Stein on the right and Jackie Cooper (remember him?) on the left), and lots of drama queens (and kings) on both sides as well. The more emotionalism I see in a person's argument,the more I consider them to be taking the leading role in their fantasy drama.
That's what particularly irritates me about performers commenting on politics.
BTW, talking about celebs in the past getting into politics, I believe George Murphy, the old Hollywood hoofer, got elected to the Senate in 1964. Americans have for a long time confused the image with the reality. "I'm not a doctor, but I play one in TV", but we buy stuff from him as if he was a doctor.

 

[luvthatlulu]

Well said, Baron!!!

Should actors who know absolutely nothing about the intricacies of land mines or international terrorism, but are against both, also shut up?

What about people trafficking - a particularly murky area with very few people who know much about how it works - should they shut up about that, too?

Should Priests be allowed to comment publically upon sexuality and lifestyle choices of which they have only the vaguest, mired in prejudice, notions?

Should we limit comment to the renowned experts and have everyone else hold their tongues? You can have your opinions - which we will assume to be un-, ill- or under-informed - but by God, you can't state them in a medium that people can read/hear.

Or should they only shut up when they say anything "controversial" (taking 'controversial' here to mean 'anything with which i don't agree')?

bk

Let's all step back a moment from whatever side of this issue we're on and imagine this scenario, if you will:

Let's suppose that all the artists get together one day and decide that, because all the "little people" (that would be us, unfortunately) know so very little about any of the artists' particular craft, we should all be forever banned from speaking publicly our opinions on their work. Further, if you should happen to be overheard being critical of an actor's latest movie release, as an example; you risk imprisonment, deportation or -- at the very least -- a severe and public reprimand from the studio. Everyone okay with that? Now, imagine that having attained that new authority over you, the artists also decide that your pathetic little opinion about anything else matters so little that it, too, should be banned from public airing with risk of the same penalties. Not so funny now, is it?

I have said it before, and I will say it again: I will never, ever stand by quietly while someone's voice is censured, even if I totally disagree with them; because whatever I allow to happen to them may someday just as suddenly happen to me. The day my head goes on the block, simply because I voiced an opinion and no matter how ill-founded my opinion may be, I would hope there would be just one small voice in the crowd with enough guts to shout, "Hold on, people, this isn't right!"

 

[Girl Friday]

I think it was at the Academy Awards, several years ago a reporter asked Daniel Day Lewis what he thought of the war, he replied (something like this, I can't find a direct quote) I am an actor I don't think I am qualified to answer that question.

 

[Bebop]

Let's all step back a moment from whatever side of this issue we're on and imagine this scenario, if you will:

Let's suppose that all the artists get together one day and decide that, because all the "little people" (that would be us, unfortunately) know so very little about any of the artists' particular craft, we should all be forever banned from speaking publicly our opinions on their work. Further, if you should happen to be overheard being critical of an actor's latest movie release, as an example; you risk imprisonment, deportation or -- at the very least -- a severe and public reprimand from the studio. Everyone okay with that? Now, imagine that having attained that new authority over you, the artists also decide that your pathetic little opinion about anything else matters so little that it, too, should be banned from public airing with risk of the same penalties. Not so funny now, is it?

I have said it before, and I will say it again: I will never, ever stand by quietly while someone's voice is censured, even if I totally disagree with them; because whatever I allow to happen to them may someday just as suddenly happen to me. The day my head goes on the block, simply because I voiced an opinion and no matter how ill-founded my opinion may be, I would hope there would be just one small voice in the crowd with enough guts to shout, "Hold on, people, this isn't right!"

I suggest you go to the powder room of this Lounge and start throwing around your opinions about make up and eyeliner and what skin cream is best for a light complection. Unless you know something about these subjects, most that do, will tell you to shut up. Well, we have such well mannered people here that it would not be said much, but it would be thought.

The artists NEED our opinions about them and their projects. Without our opinions on EVERYTHING about them, including their private lives, they cease to be the celebrities they are.
Also, you are talking about art when you mention artist or actors. Art is not a black and white subject. The general public, the "little people", have as much weight when speaking about art as the "big guns" that have degrees and experience. It is there to entertain us little folks.
You can't say the same about world politics or global warming. You need facts to back up what you say in order to not have someone that knows more tell you that it would be better to shut up. Not because we want to stifle the expressions or free thought or because we have no respect that "soliers died for our right to free speech" but because if you don't know what you are talking about, it becomes something akin to arguing with a drunk who looks at you cross eyed when you throw facts his way and seems to be working only out of emotional frustration.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Hey there!...

I think I got edited!! Where's my brilliant post on the earth and the sky, shared opinions and perspective? [huh] Don't make me post all that again!!

-dixon cannon

 

[Twitch]

Bebop- I agree that as soon as we are shown things about actors' private lives it forever ruins the illusion of myth and fantasy they provide playing an ancient Roman in one movie and a modern-era lawyer in another.

The whole Enquirer mania of delving into actors' private lives is purient and ruins the image we have made from their work. I don't want to know a favorite actor has 3 ex-wives, 6 kids(4 out of wedlock), is a supporter of presidental hopeful Dork Snorkington, has a drinking problem, paints still life and on and on.

Just take the complely fabulous, staggering amounts of cash the adoring fans throw at you and live the fantasy.

They can say what they want but I'm not listening.

 

[Smithy]

It seems that many actors fit the old adage "empty vessels make the most noise".

 

[luvthatlulu]

Bebop, I respect your opinion.

But I am struggling to understand your position. You seem to be arguing one minute that certain individuals (primarily the one's you disagree with) should lose their ability to voice an opinion on an issue simply because you've decided that their knowledge of the subject is somehow deficient. That's a subjective evaluation in and of itself and open to even more argument. Then, in the next moment, you're defending your right to have an opinion, and voice it, on their area of expertise regardless of whether they agree you are knowledgeable on the subject or not. That seems very hypocritical to me somehow. And you have yet to explain how we'll ultimately determine who's qualified to decide whose voice will be heard and whose will not. That's a problem -- there is never going to be a consensus on that alone, my friend.

I say let everyone speak. I believe that reasonable people can very quickly determine who's full of pooh and who isn't, and either continue to listen or just walk away as they see fit. When the audience fades or runs away, the speaker ultimately must go away. Don't believe it? Ask Don Imus.

P.S. - I don't agree with everything Matt Deckard says. But I figure he's spent more time studying the subjects he's talking about than I have, so I continue to do him the courtesy of reading what he has to say. If I ever conclude he's talking thru his hat more often than not, I'll simply get bored with him and quit reading his posts. But I won't ever advocate having him silenced. Hopefully, he would do me the same courtesy.