I know conservatives are struggling to understand what a microaggression is. I commend you on trying! You’ll get it some day!
See, that is a microaggression.
Openly mocking people in ways that ridicule disabilities is not in any way a subtle insult.
How you figure? What evidence do you see in Trump’s business activities that he is “more attuned to working class problem” than middle-class entertainers are?
Streep at least put in some time as a waitress and typist to earn money while in drama school. That’s more exposure to “working class problem” than Trump has ever had.
It gets tiresome and annoying to many of us on the left too. This is one of the reasons I stopped watching American award shows (that, and the fact that awards are frequently given out for reasons other than quality).
I still watch the BAFTAs, but then the quality of the scripted remarks tends to be a lot better than that of the Oscars and Emmys.
Yeah, but that was over 40 years ago.
Question: Do any of us have an “agent” who works to get us our next job? Well people in Hollywood do.
My point is that people in Hollywood live in a kind of bubble where they only are around their own kind, regardless of where they might have come from.
Their lives are centered around getting their next job and often that comes from extensive networking. Like going to parties and meeting producers and directors.
I remember the old tv show “Politically InCorrect with Bill Maher” where Bill would often bring this up with celebrities who started spouting their “expertise” about issues where they knew almost nothing about.
Which is still more experience than Trump has.
So do temps. Are they special too?
You realize that Hollywood movies involve huge numbers of working class people - carpenters, electricians, make-up artists, drivers, caterers, security, and so forth - right? And that many actors actually talk to these people, given that they often spend literally months on location - sometimes in very remote locations - together? This idea about rich and famous people who only deign to mix with hoi polloi under duress is more applicable to the likes of Donald Trump than to Meryl Streep.
Are you under the impression that just anyone can do this sort of thing successfully? Because I assure you that it’s more akin to international diplomacy than Trump’s “deals” are.
And I remember it being driven off the air by outraged “ordinary Americans”.
Of course they don’t. How many people will relate to them other than those who are besotted by star power in the first place? Others will rightly believe that, wherever these stars came from in the first place and however humble their early circumstances, they’ve completely lost touch with Joe Public.
Besides, as some liberal journalists have commented, it’s completely counterproductive. Lukewarm Trump supporters hearing these Hollywood blowhards pontificating will rally round him all the more. Meryl Streep may be a great actress (and she undoubtedly is) but that doesn’t make her wise in the ways of the world and in fact all the available evidence suggests she isn’t.
Again, celebrities in all walks of life have every right to use their fame and their public platforms to push their favorite causes. And sometimes it does some good.
But there are inevitably going to be people on all sides of the political spectrum who just want to watch a movie, listen to music, or catch a ballgame without being hectored. There are agnostic football fans who just want to see a game without hearing players thanking Jesus, and Republican music fans who just want to watch the Grammy awards without having to hear Stephen Colbert’s political rants. Both groups probably want to tell athletes and musicians “Shut up and play.”
Actually everything from what I read about life on a movie set is that the talent, especially the real big stars, have little or nothing to do with the production crew except for makeup and wardrobe. The talent has their own seperate trailers and sit in seperate areas. In some places I’ve read it’s actually taboo to even speak to a top actor unless they speak to you first.
I am curious about where you read this. The people I know that work in entertainment (mostly musicians and production crew) have said quite the opposite though obviously there are probably some top actor/actresses with god complexes just like there are corporate CEOs who do not want to interact with “ordinary people” who work with them. The only real taboo about interacting with top stars I have ever heard is don’t harass them constantly in the advancement of your own career, in other words extend basic courtesy.
I think he read it in Red Channels.
As others noted, the question would be whether they were effective spokespeople for their causes, but I guess that’s what you meant.
As public ‘spokespeople’ I would say no. I think the overwhelmingly left leaning political statements of Hollywood stars are a net negative for the Democrats. I doubt they particularly motivate core Democrats who’d otherwise be apathetic, and the hypocrisy and group/bubble think of many such statements turn many more people off. I think the general idea of using one’s fame in one sphere to lecture on politics is a net turn off. Note, somebody like Al Franken entered the political fray directly. Some people might still hold it against him that his jumping off point for politics was entertainment but now he’s a ‘spokesman’ because of MN voters, a different situation than a celebrity just dabbling in politics. Same with trying to say Reagan or Trump were or are also ‘outspoken celebrities’. Maybe they were, but it makes a difference in perception of the figure if that person comes off the sidelines to risk humiliation in an election based on their outspoken views, isn’t just lobbing them from a platform in the entertainment world.
And maybe everyone today is in their bubble as someone else said on thread and I’ve said. But here we’re talking about people loudly talking from within their bubble, and a rich and pampered one.
That said, Hollywood money is an important part of Democratic fundraising. And the involvement of stars in that case probably does raise other money. When big liberal celebrity holds a big fundraising party for other celebrities and left leaning rich people and it doesn’t involve the kind of out of touch public comments by Hollywood which often harm the left’s cause IMO, that is a net positive for Democrats: money is money.
I agree with this.
While at this point in my life, nobody would give two shits about anything I have to say… I certainly hope that if I ever have the pulpit and can give an apropos, well-reasoned, meticulously crafted rundown of my thoughts on a subject, I am not immediately discounted because of my status as a teacher/map maker/whatever. Believe it or not, I can offer insights into multiple subjects!
And Donald Trump may be a great businessman (and reviews are mixed on that) but that doesn’t make him wise in the ways of the world and in fact all the available evidence suggests he isn’t.
I think it misses the point of why outspoken celebrity (predominant) leftism is a drag on the Democrats. You (and I!) aren’t famous (you imply so, I know I’m not). It’s a what if. Celebrities aren’t ordinary people, they are famous, because of stuff nothing to do with whether they can make coherent points about politics, which most of them IME cannot. It’s cookie cutter liberalism for the most part, or often just some weird thing (‘let’s everyone silently communicate right now with Deng Xiaoping to change his policy wrt Tibet’ remember that one from Richard Gere at some awards show?). Of course there are exceptions. But for the most part I wouldn’t expect to gain much listening at length to the political opinions of average people either, so why would I in case of celebrities? But celebrities have a platform to do it, so more annoying.
I’m just expressing my non-puzzlement that AFAIK more people react poorly than well to outspoken celebrity liberalism (or for that matter to Mel Gibson or whatever small number of exceptions you want to give in terms of which way celebrity political loudmouths typically lean).
And though some people obviously can’t get Trump off their minds for a second wrt any subject, he really doesn’t qualify anymore as a celebrity political loudmouth. He has entered the political fray directly and won an election (a ‘huuuge’ one). And again I wouldn’t put Al Franken in the bucket of liberal celebrity loudmouth anymore either.
It’s worth pointing out that Streep graduated from Vassar before going on to graduate studies in law at Yale. She decided to switch to acting and has a Masters of Fine Arts degree.
She’s probably more qualified to speak on public issues than ninety-nine percent of the people in this country are.
Celebrities are outstanding speaking for a cause. As long as someone who actually knows something writes their script.
However, when it comes to anti-Trump celebrities, the first qualification for being taken seriously that every anti-Trump celebrity must meet is to not be a fan of Roman Polanski. It’s not asking for much.
As I’ve pointed out in other threads on this topic, while it’s nice to see Trump supporters suddenly deciding to consider sexual assault a serious matter, there’s still a big difference between supporting the award of a Best Director Oscar to a Roman Polanski film in 2002 and supporting the commission of statutory rape by Roman Polanski twenty-five years earlier.
So your attempt to impose that arbitrary and irrelevant criterion for deciding which celebrities are qualified to be “taken seriously” doesn’t really make any sense.
I find it interesting that the OP asks a question about actors, then presumes to answer it in the negative, yet at the the same time whenever the question comes up about the virtually unlimited ability of the very wealthy and of special interests to saturate the media and the airwaves with their self-serving messages, create fake astroturf blogs and saturate every other available avenue of information with direct and indirect propagandizing to support their mercenary interests, then conservatives describe this with approval as the wonderful exercise of free speech – a sacred right in this great nation that is available to anyone with a few billion dollars to spend and the ability to hire a first-class stealth spin organization and Washington lobbyists.
Just say the words “Citizens United” and you invoke a torrent of emotion from the right about “free speech”, no matter that that speech often serves up an incessant stream of blatant lies that misleads the public and usurps the very fabric of democracy by affecting the results of elections and public referendums. “The more speech the better”, quoth Antonin Scalia in defense of this plutocratic mendacity. But heaven forbid that a Hollywood actor dares to say something political, even for a moment. It seems to me that the acceptability of this business of free speech has an awful lot to do with whether certain people agree with it or not.
Really? According to what general moral principle, or is this something completely new called “Adaher’s Law” just invented on the spot? It just seems to me like an arbitrary attempt to undermine the moral legitimacy of someone you disagree with by introducing a complete irrelevancy, and one that is very easily misinterpreted, since Polanski is a complex figure with acknowledged cinematic achievements along with his famously reprehensible personal history. Sorry, but if Streep applauded Polanski’s “Best Director” win for The Pianist, maybe it was because it was a powerful film that deservedly won three Oscars and 55 other awards around the world as well as 70 other nominations. It doesn’t disqualify her from political commentary, nor does it mean she’s a “fan” of Polanski’s personal morals. That’s a totally myopic one-dimensional way to view the world.
How about before any celebrity becomes a spokemodel for anything, the first qualification is that they not be a fan of Donald Fucking Trump? It’s not asking for much.
No need to speculate about it. The question has been studied, and the result is that a celebrity spouting about politics drives people away from the position that the celebrity is advocating.
If Meryl Streep, Kate Perry, and George Clooney wanted to get Hillary elected, then what they should have done is endorsed Trump.