Archive: Opinions

The big news this week has been about actress Meryl Streep criticizing President-elect Donald Trump at the Golden Globes award ceremony.  Trump fanned the mainstream press flames with a Twitter post calling Streep "one of the most overrated actresses in Hollywood" and a Hillary flunky."  And then, of course, he called the media dishonest for reporting that he had mocked a disabled reporter.

This story, which seems to have taken on a life of its own, raises a number of questions.  Who cares what an actress thinks?  Does an entertainer abuse her or his workplace when (s)he uses the platform it provides to push their own agenda?  Does an entertainer have an obligation to use that platform?  Why does a person who has been elected President do a thing called 'tweeting'?  Why do we watch these endlessly self-indulgent awards ceremonies?  Should every little thing be paraded out in public?  How come serious issues, many of which are raised by this story but none addressed, aren't the story?  I'll take these one at a time:

Who cares what an actress thinks?
I'm going to start right here at home on this one: the thing I hate most about editing a newspaper is writing the editorials, in large part because I ask myself why should anybody care what I think?  Taking my opinions into a public forum makes me very uncomfortable because I frankly don't think what I think important to anyone but me and a few people I am close to.  I do it because newspapers are supposed to have editorials, and editors are supposed to be the ones who write them.  That's why they're called editorials.  And I like when they inspire 'letters to the editor' that makes a community conversation out of whatever issue happens to be at hand.  To me those letters hold much more weight than anything I write, because they come from the community.

At least an editor's opinion is part of his or her job.  I don't see how it is part of an actor's job.  Actors create characters and portray them in skillful and artistic ways, bringing meaning to the scripts and a connection between the audience and the characters they portray.  I think Meryl Streep is very, very good at doing that.  But I don't care what she thinks politically.  If I meet her at a party and the subject turns to politics, I will be interested.  Not so much on television.

I admit that I make exceptions.  Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic remarks made me not like him.  Reports that Errol Flynn was a Nazi sympathizer and CIA reports that suggest he may have been a Nazi spy turned me off of his movies -- too bad, because his Robin Hood was one great rollicking movie!  I guess I care enough about what those two think that it makes me very uncomfortable watching them play such engaging characters.  I am torn -- on the one hand I would love their work if I didn't know these things about them, but on the other hand I can't support people with beliefs like that.

Does an entertainer abuse her or his workplace when (s)he uses the platform it provides to push their own agenda?
I am in the yes camp.  It is an abuse.  When I pay to see a band, I want to hear their music, not their views on politics.  When I go to see a play or a movie I don't care what the actors think.  However, if their art takes a point of view, I am interested in how that is portrayed dramatically or musically, and in how it moves me.

I have heard people say they couldn't stand the television show 'The West Wing' because it was too liberal.  I didn't find it so.  I thought it was one of the better crafted television shows ever produced because of skillful writing, directing, acting, and production values (OK, maybe not the last season in which Jimmy Smits ran for President -- taking all the action away from the characters we had come to care about over the other seasons, and away from... well... the West Wing.  Get it?  The title of the show?  I think the producers forgot... -- but most of the series was top notch).  Characters in a drama are more interesting when they have a point of view, and sometimes even more interesting when it is not my point of view.  The thing is that the writer's point of view was portrayed artistically, not proselytized out of the context of the drama.

In acting class you learn how to do things like portraying a boring character in an interesting manner.  That takes great skill, craft, and art.  If you just act boring you will be... well, boring.  So drama isn't like life.  If successfully done, it portrays life in the most engaging ways.  When you break out of the dramatic world you created, it destroys that world.  People pay to experience that world, so breaking it is bad.

The actor Carrol O'Conner was socially and politically the opposite of the character he was famous for playing, Archie bunker in 'All In The Family'.  Depending on viewer's point of view he either played the character right-mindedly because he was conservative, or ironically in a way that called Archie's conservative values into question.  I say he did both quite skillfully, and that sparked a conversation within the larger community of television watchers.  I only knew he was liberal because I read it, some time after 'All In The Family' had left the airwaves.

Does an entertainer have an obligation to use that platform?
To me it is simple.  If you take orders at MacDonald's you obligation is to take the orders, collect the money, and hand over the Big Mac and the fries.  My obligation as a newspaper editor is to produce a newspaper the 48 weeks each year that this particular newspaper publishes.  Meryl Streep's obligation is to turn in the best performances she is capable of.  So my answer is no, because who is to say that she or whatever person is pushing an agenda is in the right?  And because there is a time and place for everything.  I don't think an awards ceremony was the place.

In fact I would say that it is a form of terrorism to say you are giving a concert, take from $20 to $150 (or more) for a ticket, and then when the ticket-holders are captive in their seats to barrage them with your political or moral views.  They paid all that money for a concert, not a lecture.  Didn't the Dixie Chicks almost lose their careers for doing this?

It's bait and switch at best, terrorism at worst.

OK, I'll concede that violence is part of the definition of terrorism.  But it is a quality of terrorism that something unexpected is injected into a venue at which that something is not expected, or wanted.  People going to the mall being blown up.  People going to school getting shot.  People running a marathon being bombed.  People flying in an airplane to get somewhere being crashed into tall buildings.

An anti-Trump speech at the Golden Globes doesn't meet the benchmark of those horrendous acts, but it shares the quality of something that has nothing to do with a venue being forced upon unsuspecting people who are there for an entirely different purpose.

Why does a person who has been elected President do a thing called 'tweeting'?
Presidents shouldn't do things that have silly names.  They should foster respect for the office, even if they are not personally respected.  Every time I hear that somebody posted a tweet I think a person with a speech impediment asked for a piece of candy.  Tweeting is not presidential.

I used to work for a large social networking company before the phrase 'social network' was a thing.  So I get why people feel they have to broadcast every little old thing that crosses their mind.  But I don't get how a person who is going to be president a week from now thinks 'tweeting' is appropriate for someone whose job is supposed to have an air of gravitas.

Further, would this news story still be popping up in the media if he hadn't responded?  By publicly attacking Streep he gave credence to her attack on him, and turned it into a personal squabble that did nothing to address important issues.  He diminished the office of President by so tweeting.

My sense is that no response would have been the right response.  Two out of line public rants don't make a dignified, inspiring important point.  Then again, nobody elected me.

Why do we watch these endlessly self-indulgent awards ceremonies?
Beats me.  I find them boring.  I think the Oscars and the Emmy awards are important to the people in the entertainment industry, because industries should recognize high achievers.  But I don't get why they have to be public spectacles.

I used to be on a board of directors for an organization that held an annual conference for independent software developers.  The culminating event each year was an awards ceremony.  We all dressed up for a banquet, awards were presented in a variety of categories, and we collectively honored the best of the best in our own industry.  It was of great value and interest to the people in the room.  It almost certainly would have meant nothing to you, except if you were buying a piece of software and saw the little emblem showing it had won an award.

One of the pitfalls of performing s self-indulgence, buying into the idea that you are endlessly important and interesting because you are your own product.  You're not selling a computer program or coffee makers or cars.  You are selling yourself.  I have known many actors who did not buy into this -- they were all about the work, the collaboration, the art.  But there are many who think it's just about fame and celebrity, and entertainment producers certainly sell this vision, especially when they broadcast what are, after all, just industry awards.  I can't sit through them, though I do think Billy Crystal is really, really good at hosting them.  I wish he had been available to host our software awards.

Should every little thing be paraded out in public?
No.  I'll say it again.  NO!  Why on earth do major news outlets think I give a fig that Mariah Carey blames Dick Clark Productions for her New Year's Eve lip syncing performance that went wrong when the music unexpectedly stopped?  Mistakes happen in show business along with every other business, and when they do you try to analyze what went wrong so it doesn't happen again.  This is done behind the scenes, because show business is a business, not just a show.  It is the business of producing shows.  And when a show is done right it is all about the wonder and delight of the overall experience.  Not the hard work, technology, rehearsal, creative process or the many other elements that go into creating that magical experience.  Or the gaffs.

So Carey's public whining about that technical glitch is, at best, unprofessional.  And my reaction to the story is 'who cares'?  Seriously, does someone really care about that?  Besides Carey herself, who should care.  But she should not care in public.  That's not part of the magic.  It's irrelevant.

How come serious issues, many of which are raised by this story but none addressed, aren't the story?
The media seems to think that people prefer gossipy, opinionated stories in favor of Sergeant Joe Friday's famous 'just the facts, Ma'am'.  I believe I am out of touch because I really do just prefer the facts so I can form my own opinions.  Talking heads on television whose job it appears to be to tell me what they think are, on a scale of 1 to 100, zeros to me.  But opinion is all we seem to get any more.  And people must want it, because they watch cable news and all the other news venues a lot.

My takeaway from all of this: if I am that out of touch, I am certainly justified in hating writing these editorials!  Because you shouldn't care what I think.  Or Meryl Streep.  Or Mariah Carey.  But oh boy! you should care when I sing!

v13i2