56 Comments

1. Dean Douthat:

Actors are simply large children who have never gotten beyond “let’s pretend”. Children are asset- and income-free dependents and therefore always subject to feeling insecure. Actors, regardless of asset/income level, seldom lose their insecurity in the course of hanging on to the “things of a child”.

Jul 17, 2005 - 8:19 am 2. Les Nessman:

Roger:

“..virtually all of us (present company and a very few others excepted) have completely adopted the politics of our actors.”

What exactly does that mean?

Jul 17, 2005 - 8:23 am 3. ahem:

I imagine a lot of it also has to do with being popular with one’s peers. After all, celebrity is pretty much a constant popularity contest. It’s not the kind of profession that fosters staunch individualists.

–Ex-actor

Jul 17, 2005 - 8:47 am 4. kynna:

I disagree that writers have picked up on the actors’ views. I think it’s the other way around going back to the 30’s and the oh-so-serious Clifford Odets and his crew. The leftist movement was all about the writing and then about the acting. The actors were important because they brought the words to life, but the writers were the key and everyone knew it.

It’s trickled down from there, and now, with the industry establishment firmly entrenched in leftism, actors, writers and anyone else who wants to work regularly need to adopt the views of the “man”. Not that they don’t believe it with all their hearts. Where no knowledge is kept there is room for propaganda, so their minds are fertile ground for the leftist ideologues.

That’s all my opinion, of course. I know some of these people and they are the least informed of anybody on these issues. Their intentions are good, but their information is bad.

Jul 17, 2005 - 8:48 am 5. Roger:

To be clear, kynna, it’s all symbiotic. Many of the Group Theatre writers like Odets were themselves actors, so it’s hard to distinguish one from the other. Nothing new here. Shakespeare was himself an actor. In Greek times, Thespis wrote his own plays. And so it goes.

Jul 17, 2005 - 8:51 am 6. Terrye:

I have always thought that actors were vey much like the royalty of old Europe. The competition is fierce, but at the same time there is a touch of the ridiculous along with the wealth.

Men in powdered wigs wearing fancy little shoes with buckles on them while they fight duels while their footmen stand by.

kind of a deadly serious charade.

I don’t take them seriously when it comes to things like politics because it is all part of the charade.

Of course there are guys like Clint Eastood who seem genuine.

I remember reading an interview with Robert Mitchum years ago. He said he became an actor because his wife said she would leave him if he did not get a job and acting seemed easier than working.

Jul 17, 2005 - 8:59 am 7. Jamie Irons:

Roger,

By making the pronouncements they do, they are trying to convince the audience of their own seriousness and their own goodness (their own value). But most of all they are trying to convince themselves. Fragile egos, not inflated ones, are at work here.

First Freud, and later Melanie Klein, Otto Kernberg, Karen Horney and Heinz Kohut, taught us that the fragility of the ego in the narcissistic individual is precisely what prompts these people to act outwardly in such an infuriating, grandiose and superior manner. So I believe, with all due respect, that you are not quite right to contend that “fragile egos, not inflated ones, are at work here.”

Both are at work here.

Another key factor in the narcissistic personality (and I am certainly not contending that every actor is a narcissistic personality) is a lack of empathy.

It is this factor that allows a Michael Moore to prance around the country “feeling the pain of ordinary Iraqis” oblivious to what is really going on, or to opine, immediately after 9/11, that the terrorists hit the “wrong” people, those who did not vote for Bush.

Jamie Irons

Jul 17, 2005 - 9:00 am 8. Roger:

I agree, Jamie, that both are at work. Or put another way – both are teh same thing.

Jul 17, 2005 - 9:04 am 9. ricpic:

There are instinctual actors and then there are very thoughtful actors. But in both cases the intelligence at work is not of the generalizing-conceptualizing-intellectual variety; it is of the “felt” or particular-acute-psychological-insight variety.

Ergo the brilliant actor who is at the same time a political dummy-herd animal.

Jul 17, 2005 - 9:08 am 10. thucydides:

One factor in the Hollywood folks’ espousal of liberalism is the appeal of its posture of conspicuous benevolence and egalitarianism. This may be seen by them as tending to ward off envy of their wealth by others. Fear of envy is probably quite pronounced, since they appear to be shallow in their moral reasoning, and may have felt a great deal of envy towards others themselves. The fear is probably often further aggregated by the feeling that they haven’t really done much to deserve their great wealth.

Jul 17, 2005 - 9:31 am 11. Silicon valley Jim:

I wonder why actors feel free to run their mouths about politics when, for example, professional athletes, who are paid approximately as much and insulated from the chores and friction of every day life just as much, don’t? Is it that actors have careers that can extend fifty years? Is it that an actress doesn’t decide that she’s Secretary of State until she’s past the age at which an athlete is likely to be active?

I’m sure that there have been some instances of professional athletes commenting on political events during the past, say, four years, but there haven’t been many.

Jul 17, 2005 - 10:04 am 12. Rick Ballard:

The idea of fragile Goodyear blimp sized egos is amusing. I’m curious as to from what “audience” those in question are seeking approval. The one that is not showing up at the theaters or the one composed of like minded “thinkers” in the industry?

One might imagine that the current fall in ticket purchases might blow a few holes in the blimp egos of the tripe regurgitators. The big audience isn’t wildly applauding the intellectually impoverished examples of groupthink being spouted by actors. Is there no one brave enough to mention that they appear to be cutting their own throats? Or is the little circular audience of sycophants the only one that counts.

When are the moneymen going to determine that hiring Tim Robbins has too high a risk to reward ratio?

Jul 17, 2005 - 10:04 am 13. Tom of the Missouri:

Fascinating analysis all around. As one who thinks, analyzes, generalizes (with exceptions to the latter of course) and doesn’t care about being accepted with the in-crowd as opposed to those who feel, emote, pose and want so desperately to be loved by everyone, I think you can apply much of this analysis to the left in general. At least this is what I tell myself to keep my sanity and remain civil while I live around many of the latter types. Many actors, being extreme examples of this phenomemon, are actually easier to take because they are such pure examples and so child like.

Roger, thanks for being so kind in your in your criticism of VDH, he, along with you, are such a great examples of thinker types.

Jul 17, 2005 - 10:13 am 14. richard mcenroe:

Y’all wanna type anythang in this town, bo’, y’all better,

Frankly, they made a hell of a mistake back in the 19th century when they started letting scriveners and players in by the front door instead of sending them around to the tradesman’s entrance where they belong.

Jul 17, 2005 - 10:29 am 15. RBMN:

From:

What makes a liberal?

by Dennis Prager

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030812.shtml

excerpts:

At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good. As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism, and anything else that can let the individual off the hook. A second naive liberal belief is that because people are basically good, talking with people who do evil is always better than fighting, let alone killing, them. “Negotiate with Saddam,” “Negotiate with the Soviets,” “War never solves anything,” “Think peace,” “Visualize peace” — the liberal mind is filled with naive cliches about how to deal with evil. Indeed, the very use of the word “evil” greatly disturbs liberals. It shakes up their child-like views of the world, that everybody is at heart a decent person who is either misunderstood or led to do unfortunate things by outside forces.

[...]

The second major source of modern liberalism is narcissism, the unhealthy preoccupation with oneself and one’s feelings. We live in the Age of Narcissism. As a result of unprecedented affluence and luxury, preoccupation with one’s psychological state, and a hedonistic culture, much of the West, America included, has become almost entirely feelings-directed. That is one reason “feelings” and “compassion” are two of the most often used liberal terms. “Character” is no longer a liberal word because it implies self-restraint. “Good and evil” are not liberal words either as they imply a moral standard beyond one’s feelings. In assessing what position to take on moral or social questions, the liberal asks him or herself, “How do I feel about it?” or “How do I show the most compassion?” not “What is right?” or “What is wrong?” For the liberal, right and wrong are dismissed as unknowable, and every person chooses his or her own morality. A good example of liberal narcissism is the liberal position on abortion. For the liberal, the worth of a human fetus, whether it is allowed to live or to be extinguished, is entirely based on the feelings of the mother. If the mother wants to give birth, the fetus is of incomparable worth; if the mother doesn’t, the fetus has the value of a decayed tooth.

Jul 17, 2005 - 10:31 am 16. ShrinkWrapped:

Allow me to add my $.02 on the issue of narcissism in the acting profession and the relationship of narcissistic tendencies to their faux, superficial leftism:

Actors tend to have more narcissistic pathology than most. Part of that has to do with self selection. Acting appeals to people who crave the admiration of an audience (which is one of the hall marks of the narcissist; their self esteem needs buttressing by an idealized “other” which has its roots in the early childhood mother.) As well, becoming an actor tends to re-enforce the narcissistic tendencies of actors because, in reality, they need the admiration of the audience (which includes much more than the box office: co-workers, studio heads, directors, et al) in order to become successful in their profession. The upshot is that the narcissistic elements in their character are reinforced.

While the superficial impression is that narcissistic characters are egotistical and self satisfied, the reality is that they feel, on the deeper levels, defective and deficient and completely dependant on others to confirm their worth. They tend, therefore, to not take controversial positions on issues, which they rarely know in depth since superficiality is another aspect of this kind of person (appearance trumps substance every time) because their audience, which again, includes the box office, but also, more importantly, their co-workers and bosses, would disapprove.

Dr. Sanity and myself (and others) have blogged extensively about the developmental line of Narcissism and its manifestations in contemporary life.

For anyone who is interested in further explanation:

Dr. Sanity wrote a terrific series on Narcissism and Society here: http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/04/narcissism-and-society.html

My series on Narcissism, Malignant Narcissism, and Paranoia is in four parts and starts here: http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2005/02/narcissism_mali.html

Jul 17, 2005 - 10:56 am 17. Lem:

“Thought, or even truth, is not the point. Stance is.”

Bernard Goldberg’s latest book points out that Larry David’s wife; environmental fund raiser extraordinaire, literally drive-by sermonizes SUV drivers (from what I presume is a Toyota Prius). Meanwhile (Miss David’s Plame name is Laury) takes jet fuel guzzling private plane trips from NY to LA.

An enterprising Atlantic Monthly journalist did some math and figured that one of her plane trips is relatively equivalent to months of SUV driving. He dubbed her a “Gulf Stream Liberal”, a new twist on the pejorative “Limousine Liberal”.

Jul 17, 2005 - 11:03 am 18. Dean Douthat:

Ah but, Lem, you just don’t understand. Ms David’s airplane doesn’t use gasoline like SUV’s do. Gasoline use is evil because it comes from oil and GWB was once in the oil business and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were all about oil.

Nope, the Gulfstream runs on virtuous kerosene.

Jul 17, 2005 - 11:27 am 19. W.J.A:

That Hollywood celebrities think silly and stupid things is not surprising, because they live in a protective bubble where their handlers and hangers-on treat everything they say on anything as profound. But it’s the entertainment *press* that’s most to blame for Hollywood celebrities constantly airing their asinine views in a public forum. During interviews, they sit there gap-mouthed and jot down all their blockheaded musings without asking a single hard question. And then they run these puff profiles where the actor’s political insights are repeated verbatim, so the actor gets to pat himself on the back for being such an engaged thinker, and more key, the actor’s *publicist* gets affirmation that this reporter from People or wherever is in their pocket. And with puffery comes more access for future profiles. Everyone benefits, except, well, us.

If celebrities were interviewed more and more by actual, politically-informed journalists who didn’t let them get away with asinine statements, who challenged their assertions with tough follow-up questions, and the celebs and their handlers realized their bubble of constant affirmation was about to get popped to expose them as foolish airheads, you’d see the number of stupid political bloviation from celebrities drop way, way, way down.

Jul 17, 2005 - 11:33 am 20. Stephen_M:

An inflated ego is a fragile ego. Balloons are not at all fragile unless inflated. The fragility of both come about trying to exceed native state artificially. Artifice is the actor’s stock-in-trade so many unfortunately habitually apply artifice to their egos rather than the much harder true personal growth. Former M*A*S*H star Wayne Rogers, often seen on Cavuto’s show is a fine example of an actor with a large, non-inflated, non-fragile ego. Certainly others exist but they might be hard to spot because they spend their non-acting time living life rather than bloviating. And I expect they are rather uncommon anyway.

In answer to someone’s question above. Athletes often have large egos but the nature of athletics keeps them far more grounded in the realities of the physical universe. And those realities constantly inform them of their limitations. An actor’s life is about ignoring or at least blurring such realities.A running back can make all the very impressive “I’m gonna run right over that linebacker” faces and noises he wants. There the actor’s job is done. But the ball carrier will encounter the reality that broadcasting intention is nowhere near enough every time he is tackled. Next morning his bruises reinforce that.

So we find actors and not athletes involved in Harmonic Convergence and such.

Jul 17, 2005 - 11:37 am 21. David Thomson:

It is senseless to argue that a college education inoculates one from the siren call of radical political doctrines. Mark Steyn apparently never finished high school. What kept him from going off the deep end? Oh well, Victor Davis Hanson has a superb record for insightful commentary. We can live with an occasional lapse in judgment. Nobodyís perect.

Jul 17, 2005 - 12:11 pm 22. Patrick Tyson:

When reading the linked foolish Hanson essay about the foolish things some entertainers write and say I was reminded of a couple of lines in Tennyson’s Idylls of the King:

And smiling as a master smiles at one

That is not of his school, nor any school

But that where blind and naked Ignorance

Delivers brawling judgements, unashamed,

On all things all day long, he answer’d her:

“Thou read the book…”

Merlin is the master. He is in a verbal joust with Vivian. Their idyll ends with the forest echoing her last word—fool—as he “lays as dead, and lost to life and use and name and fame.”

Euripides is one of my personal heroes.

In this world second thoughts, it seems, are best.

Now, back to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

Jul 17, 2005 - 12:17 pm 23. Silicon valley Jim:

Nope, the Gulfstream runs on virtuous kerosene.

Which is the fraction that distills at the temperature just below that of gasoline, I think. Gasoline consists of alkanes (saturated hydrocarbons) and alkenes (monounsaturated hydrocarbons)with seven (heptane) to eleven carbon atoms (eight carbon atoms is octane, the standard for the temperature at which gasoline ignites); kerosene consists of alkanes and alkenes with twelve to fifteen carbon atoms.

You probably knew that, Dean, but I doubt that Mrs. David does.

Jul 17, 2005 - 12:29 pm 24. Silicon valley Jim:

Correction: Kerosene distills from crude oil at a temperature just above that of gasoline. Gasoline vaporizes easily at room temperature, which is one reason that it’s really not a good idea to use it for removing grease from, say, the bearings in your bicycle, but it is a good idea to use kerosene, which stays liquid at room temperature.

Jul 17, 2005 - 12:32 pm 25. Dishman:

Considering how fragile they are, I think “zeppelin” or “Hindenberg” egos might be more accurate than “Blimp”, the difference being explosive gas-bags versus inert gas-bags.

Jul 17, 2005 - 12:37 pm 26. Susan:

Alright, alright, I can’t take much more of this from so many of my favorite writers, including Mr. Shrinkwrapped, whom I normally agree with.

Actually, sometimes you end up in acting because you get cast as soon as you walk in the door. If you can sing or dance you get cast even more. Is it a big ego-stroke? Absolutely. Anytime you’re recognized for something you’re good at it’s bound to get to you.

For me, the power of group-think was the real driving force among actors I’ve know over the years, much more than any direct knowledge of the facts. In fact, if you knew any facts you just kept them to yourself lest they swarm on you backstage or in studio. You also learn quickly that to get a director or writer to like you is really quite simple. You just have to reflect back their own values in any kind of an interview situation. It wasn’t hard to figure out quickly where most writers and directers stood. Not being part of the group or ensemble is soooo anti-actor and devastating to one’s career. I am not exaggerating.

Most actors really don’t spend much time talking in depth to people that think too differently. I can’t think of a show I’ve ever been in where some popular actor didn’t vent his far left views a la’ Jon Stewart. If you, yourself, weren’t educated on the facts, or even if you were, it behooved you to respond like Jon Stewart’s audience and just nod your head approvingly at everything the great wise ones said.

Having been in the trenches for over a decade, I can finally say that the acting profession is really just one big extension of high school. It will always come down to popularity. All you have to do is go to the movies or flip on the tv to see that.

Another ex-actor

Jul 17, 2005 - 1:17 pm 27. Paul:

Anyone who hasn’t seen “Curb Your Enthusiasm” is missing not only an excellent depiction of the juvenile, narcissitic Hollywood limousine-liberal world, but also the funniest damn show I think I’ve ever seen.

Larry David is a tremendously talented comic writer, but his columns over at HuffPo demonstrate the political acumen of brain damaged ape.

Jul 17, 2005 - 2:17 pm 28. ambisinistral:

Wouldn’t it be the money men in Hollywood setting the agenda?

You follow the career of somebody like Robert Downey Jr., with his endless arrests and drug problems, and you have to figure it is more than talent that keeps his career afloat. It has to be that the Powers That Be personally like him off-screen.

What is it about the producers, and by that I mean the investors not the folk who organize the production, that encourages such a left leaning in the product they are pumping money into? Is it the fact that the speculative nature of film and TV drives away more conservative investors? I dunno, but I have to believe if Hollywood’s money men were farther to the right they sure as hell would be less enamored with far left talent.

Jul 17, 2005 - 2:27 pm 29. Rick Ballard:

ambi,

That would be the tack I would take on it. I haven’t received my copy of the Radosh’s book yet but I can’t imagine that the true believing hard leftie’s did not have a residual effect within Hollywood. The MSM, MSE private foundatations and the entertainment industry were all targeted by the Gramscians a very long time ago and they all show the effects of the targeting today. I’m sure Susan’s comment is accurate and I’m sure Roger’s take on the current crop of writers “following the stars” is also correct. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

I don’t know the intricacies of film finance at all but I would expect that a division exists between the money men and the talent people. As more and more features are made which actually do not make a justifiable return perhaps some of the talent people will be encouraged to pursue new endeavors. It’s OK with me if the industry bleeds for a while longer first.

Jul 17, 2005 - 2:48 pm 30. Frederick:

Patrick Tyson:

“… the linked foolish Hanson essay.”

Well, Hanson adorns anything to which he directs his prose, but I agree that clowns are not his best subject.”

“Euripides is one of my personal heroes.”

Hanson likely wouldn’t agree about the hero part. Hero, of course, may mean anything in English, but it has a specific meaning in Greek. Originally respectable warrior. Then later one of the legendary supermen like Heracles. Euripides was just an Athenian who is remembered for writing some very good plays for religious festivals. He was widely thought to be a good writer, but a bad Athenian. Refused to participate in civic life. Scandalous home life. Litigious. Unpopular. Ridiculed by the comedians. Left Athens while the getting was good to become a court hanger on in Macedon. Ripped apart in the end by dogs. Or so the Greek sources say. As for his plays, it’s hard to say anything meaningful about them unless, like Hanson, you can read the original Greek effortlessly. Maybe Sean Penn or Cher can give us an opinion based on some English translation, if either knows how to read.

Jul 17, 2005 - 2:58 pm 31. Randal Robinson:

I’ve known a few actors and they ARE incredibly insecure people. This is in large part due to the nature of the business they’re in. Success in Hollywood is only partially due to hard work or acting skills and being the best actor in the room is no guarantee at all of getting a part. A lot of it has to do with having the right look, the right agent, knowing someone, or just plain luck. It’s no wonder actors see success as a very mysterious and fleeting thing.

Actors also tend to be ruled by their feelings and emotions rather than their intellect. Liberalism is a form of therapy for them – it helps them feel good about themselves. It’s easier for them to think they’re a good person if they’re reflexively anti-war rather than thinking hard about long-term consequences or the hard choices that the real world forces serious people to make.

FWIW, athletes tend to have just the exact opposite problem as actors – oversized egos rather than fragile ones. Unlike acting, sports is very much a meritocracy and top athletes tend to think the success, adulation and accolades they’ve received are well-deserved. They have less need to embrace liberalism as a form of therapy and have a greater tendency to believe that success is grounded in a strong work ethic rather than a cosmic roll of the dice.

Jul 17, 2005 - 3:07 pm 32. Patrick Tyson:

Frederick,

Did the word “personal” escape you? My take on Euripides will not be forthcoming, but there is this:

Out of that learning you have also acquired a method of inquiry—in addition to such a majestic body of knowledge: observe, question, compare, and conclude—always oblivious to whether your answers make you among the hated or loved, or more likely rarely even noticed.

Like Euripides, you are hunters of beauty, which Socrates reminds us is really the The Good and The True—what the Greeks call aletheia “that which cannot be forgotten.”

You, like Thucydides, are skeptical of those who would change language to mask a reality that cannot really be masked. Shakespeare has taught you that people are never either 100% admirable or completely evil, but yet they still can be helped and supported if perhaps 75% good, and in turn must be opposed and soundly defeated if 80% bad.

So you, almost alone now in this great nation, have been afforded an education that makes you empirical and inductive, open to truth when it comes from enemies and the uncouth‐and resistant to lies when they are sweet and well meant from friends. You will not just ponder and equivocate, but decide, judge, and act.

http://www.fresnostate.net/Classics/StJohns2.htm

Reminded of Tennyson again, in English, you know—

One equal temper of heroic hearts,

Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Hope this helps.

Jul 17, 2005 - 3:23 pm 33. Old Dad:

My Old Dad gave me some good advice when I was young and full of piss and vinegar:

“Shut your damn fool mouth. Keep’em guessing.”

Jul 17, 2005 - 3:59 pm 34. chuck:

Roger,

It seems that Hanson’s mistake was to write on a subject you know something about but that he doesn’t. It’s an case of the commentator desease that runs rampant in the editorial and opinion pages of the papers, that raises its ugly head whenever a reporter writes on a subject that the reader knows something about. There is no cure, resistance is proven futile. One can only bear in mind that no article is going to be as deep or revealing or correct as we might hope. A certain skepticism is indicated when entering the dominion of the commentator.

Jul 17, 2005 - 4:08 pm 35. Roger:

And the blogger as well!

Jul 17, 2005 - 4:28 pm 36. richard mcenroe:

Rick Ballard ó The money men would greenlight a script by Daddy Schiavo celebrating NAMBLA if it tested well. On that level they are as one with Spielberg and Redford. Shoot, I wouldn’t be surprised if Jerry Lewis wasn’t floating his script about the Jewish party clown who led the children into gas chambers again (Hell, if he got it in before 7/7 Credit Lyonnais would probably have bankrolled it again.)

Frederick _ Oh, come on, if it wasn’t for Euripides, the Thesmophoriazusae wouldn’t be half as funny… and it would make a great movie: “Ashton Kucher IS Euripides, in…”

Jul 17, 2005 - 4:42 pm 37. richard mcenroe:

Typo there, CL didn’t bankroll it before.

Jul 17, 2005 - 4:43 pm 38. Rick Ballard:

Richard,

It would seem current test marketing is out of tune with the market. Or is the test marketing jiggered by the same people on the talent side who wish to send “messages” without benefit of Western Union?

I don’t care about Hollywood enough to look up the numbers. Is the curent slump a “new thing” or is it a recurring problem?

Jul 17, 2005 - 4:53 pm 39. Frederick:

richard mcenroe:

That’s an excellent point. Of course, a contemporary audience might not get the Euripides play and plot device references. Perhaps our host could do an updated version with Michael Moore instead of Euripides, Dan Rather instead of Mnesilochus, and a Texas small-town Fourth of July instead of the Thesmophoria. The rest should write itself.

Jul 17, 2005 - 5:23 pm 40. Duke:

Hate to break this to you, Roger, but VDH is absolutely right. I was a working actor in films and TV for 20 years and I know from where I speak. You think because you were a Hollywood writer for 20 years you know how actors “really think.” You believe everything an actor looking for work in the future tells you. It doesn’t dawn on you that all actors tell people what they want to hear so they can get jobs later. Let me tell all of you that one of the problems all actors have is that they DO believe they are the characters they are playing. In fact, Method Acting, which is calling upon your inner experiences to create a character as opposed to building it from the outside, makes this connection almost automatic. I once actually started behaving like a Mafia hit man, not that I had guns, but I actually believed that I could kill anybody I wanted to. I stopped believing that when I got a part as a ruthless business owner on Serpico and I believed in that also. This is aided by the recognition of people on the street grabbing you and thinking you are the character you play. People who play continuing parts on series become that character. Period.

If you don’t think that Martin Sheen didn’t think he was actually the President you miss the reality. Actors also view the people they are playing through the PC Hollywood lens. All businessmen are bad, ditto all Republicans, social workers are good, and so on.

You forget the “prison con,” the behavior of desperate criminals when they see a chance to fool a reporter, social worker, or whomever they feel might get them out. Actors have the similar con when they need work later.

Any time a civilian came on the set I told them what they wanted to hear. Always. That’s the game.

Jul 17, 2005 - 6:06 pm 41. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

When the idea of “talking pictures” was first mooted, Harry Warner (of Warner Bros) was not enthusiastic. “Who wants to hear actors talk?” he asked.

Maybe ol’ Harry had a point.

Jul 17, 2005 - 7:02 pm 42. WichitaBoy:

Thanks, folks, for some fascinating insight into a world I do not understand. I think it’s safe to say that there’s a deeper understanding of Hollywood here than VDH possesses, no slight to VDH.

In return, I can offer some insight into academia. Academics are obsessed above all else with proving how smart they are. Most of them have “imposter syndrome”, the sense that they aren’t really as smart as everybody seems to believe, and their greatest fear is being outed. Outed as being stupid. This has precisely the same effect on their political pronouncements and activities that being an actor does: they are strongly inclined to go the popular statist route because to not do so would be ipso facto proof of their own stupidity. That would be unforgiveable.

Egos in academia, at least among mathematicians, are all over the board. Some great people think they are great and some mediocre people think they are mediocre, but the reverse is true and common; that is, there are plenty of great people who think they are mediocre and plenty of mediocre people who think they are great. All this despite the fact that the objective results are pretty clear. This had led me to believe that there is no connection between ego and ability, but apparently I’ll have to rethink this in the case of actors.

What’s interesting is that both groups have become filled with this particular set of ideas. Why these and not some others? In both Hollywood and academia there is a built-in proclivity toward adopting the dominant political ideas the way one wears a fashionable set of clothing, but if that’s the only factor then the ideas should change from time to time the way clothing does. Yet the ideas haven’t changed since the Sixties. Why is that?

One possibility, Rick Ballard’s hypothesis, is that this is due to the actions of the Gramscian cabal. Maybe so. I’m inclined to believe, though, that there may be other factors in operation. No slight to Rick. Guilt expiation is surely part of it. And I think another factor is the desire to be part of the elite in both cases.

Oddly enough, I think the statist perspective offers great comfort to the elites and would-be elites more than to the people at large, for it offers the elites the possibility of actually running the show, for the good of the people. The people then must be kept in their place for their own good. This is why the Democrats are the party of the elite now. Capitalism upsets everybody’s apple cart and makes it hard for the elites to hold onto their power. That’s one reason it must be opposed and that businessmen must be relentlessly depicted as evil.

Jul 17, 2005 - 7:21 pm 43. jerry:

Roger:

I have to agree with Hanson on this as well. Today’s celebrity culture detaches the individual from reality. He has a bunch of hanger-ons telling him how witty, how intelligent and how important he is. In the old days actors knew about what their real status was. in 1950, Gregory Peck knew the Jimmy Stewart was the real bomb group leader while he was just playing one. I would say that today’s actors generally understand that they are not the character they play but certainly believe that playing the part gives them special understand of something real. There is nobody willing to tell them that no, someone wrote script and you a played a part, and really don’t know much about anything.

I also think that many Hollywood types believe in the “script.” If it can be imagined and plausibly played then it can achieved in the real world.

I don’t think many actors feel guilty over their wealth anymore then athletes. Actors earn their money like everbody else. Their value is set in the market. If Tiger Woods, who is probably a Republican and rather conservative, doens’t feel guilty over the money he earns then why should Martin Sheen? I think the idea that a combination of guilt and deep felt security leads actors down a liberal path is too pat and simplistic. In the past Hollywood was fairly diverse politically. The culture of celebrity is the only real difference between then and now. This culture produces an unreal environment which makes its members susceptible to the traditional romantic notions of the left.

Jul 17, 2005 - 7:26 pm 44. richard mcenroe:

Frederick ó And Rosie O’Donnell as the Women’s Herald (Streisand probably won’t take a character role)?

Jul 17, 2005 - 7:30 pm 45. richard mcenroe:

The thing about name actors today is their overwhelming sense of entitlement. They deserve to be surrounded by people who hang on their every word. They deserve to make $30 million dollars to hang from wires and shoot toy guns. They deserve membership in an exlusive cult that promises them secret mental powers and a guaranteed ride off the planet when the end comes.

Jul 17, 2005 - 7:37 pm 46. Luther McLeod:

richard, and thus the power of quantity over quality. Even the mediocre can succeed beyond their wildest dreams. Same as pro sports in my opinion.

Jul 17, 2005 - 7:55 pm 47. lindenen:

NY Magazine has a great new issue with Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes depicted wearing strait jackets. There’s an article about these very same issues we’re discussing: “Celebrity Psychos: The Summer They All Went Mad”.

Jul 17, 2005 - 8:40 pm 48. chuck:

WichitaBoy,

Oddly enough, I think the statist perspective offers great comfort to the elites and would-be elites more than to the people at large, for it offers the elites the possibility of actually running the show, for the good of the people.

The other day I was thinking of how artists and writers used to suck up to the nobility who payed them. This changed in the 19′th century, but if we note who they suck up to now perhaps we might ask if the reasons are not the same.

Academics are a bit different. I would guess that these days most are employed by state institutions, so it is a wonder that they can be so much more radical than the public at large. Perhaps tenure, which I am beginning to think unjustified in a state university, gives them a false sense of security. But in anycase, it is easy to see why they might have a statist outlook: state moneys pay their salaries.

I agree with your general point, though. A statist government must be one of the few opportunities a academic sees for true influence and power. A mirage, no doubt, for statist states almost always end up run by a rougher crowd than that found in academia. But the dream lives on.

Jul 17, 2005 - 9:51 pm 49. scott1798:

I have to agree with Mr. Simon to a certain extent. The vast majority of those who call themselves “actors” are utterly shallow and bereft of intellect. But I find it hard to imagine a true actor, a signal talent, like Al Pacino, Robert Dinero, George C. Scott, as being insecure.

Jul 17, 2005 - 10:14 pm 50. Rick Ballard:

WB,

No cabals. The precepts of Gramsci and the Fabian Society are as open to study and individual interpretation as Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’. They are also just about as simple and easy to apply. Reduced to a minimum they involve using ‘likemindedness’ in a political context as a primary element in making hiring decisions. The process is quite slow and quite effective. There really isn’t an effective way to combat the method except through defunding an infected institution. That’s why it will linger on in the foundations and MSE long after it is minimized in the MSM and entertainment industry.

You had a whole year to watch the application of Alinsky’s rules to debate over the last election, why would you think that Gramscian methodology hasn’t been applied throughout the institution that he initially identifed as being important and susceptible?

I’m looking forward to the Radosh’s book because (from the reviews I’ve read) it provides a fairly clear explanation of how Gramscian precepts were applied (and are being applied) in Hollywood.

Jul 18, 2005 - 5:00 am 51. Kyda Sylvester:

Ed Asner, an actor whose dramatic and comedic talents I admire, is an unreconstituted lefty and and a vocal supporter of convicted cop killer left wing cause celebre Mumia Abu-Jamal.

The “Free Mumia” types base much of their support on testimony from “eye witnesses” who have come forward since the trial. Much of what is in those witness statements simply is not credible and that which is credible tends to support the state’s case.

A reporter once asked Asner, as he blathered on about the suppression of eye witness testimony, if he actually had read the statements to which he referred. He said no, he hadn’t. That it wasn’t his job to read testimony. That other people did that. Exactly.

Jul 18, 2005 - 5:02 am 52. Kyda Sylvester:

Aren’t we up early.

Jul 18, 2005 - 5:06 am 53. richard mcenroe:

Scott1798 ó They are. I remember when I was running a security shift in Bel Air, one night we got a panic-alarm from one of the (then) A-list followed by a frantic phone call: “Send somebody quick! There are people applauding in my kitchen!”

Also, you have to realize that modern “stars” have absolutely no shelf-life. Once upon a time an actor like Glenn Ford would rise to stardom and then settle back into a long career of character and supporting roles as time caught up with him. The blonde bombshell of the decade past could end her days playing the matriarch of the ranch or brassy, seen-it-all barmaids, but she could still work. Very few actors can make that transition these days.

Rick Ballard ó Hollywood has traditionally missed every major innovation in its markets. When sound came in, it caused a massive upheaval in the industry. When television came in, it nearly destroyed the studios. It took nearly a decade for the studios to run the independents out of the video business, and currently they have no idea how to fit the new video-shot, distributed on DVD and download model into their bloated structures.

Jul 18, 2005 - 6:32 am 54. kholvoet:

“I wonder why actors feel free to run their mouths about politics when, for example, professional athletes, who are paid approximately as much and insulated from the chores and friction of every day life just as much, don’t?”

Well, for one thing, Athletes aren’t competing for public affection as a primary factor (well, unless you consider pro-wrestling athletics…)

That is, Barry Bonds can be one of the all-time greats, and despised by a large majority of contemporary fans.

And, many athletes are in fact polarizing figures (though it is usually either race or religion): Jackie Robinson, Mohammed Ali, Joe Johnson (turn of the Centry World Heavy Weight Champion who…err…caroused with white women), the sprinters in the Mexico Olympics with the Black Power Salute.

At the same time, traditionally, athletes are not viewed as intellectuals, and so whatever opinions they have are not considered influetntial.

Oddly unfair as athletes seem to have better success in politcs / judiciary than actors.

Alan Page, Hall of fame footbal player is a Minnesota Supreme Court Justice, or used to be…). Bill Bradley (US Senate), Tom McMillan (US House of Rep.), J.C. Watts (US House of Rep)have all moved from athetic excellence to potlitical success.

Heh, even some actors were former athletes: Arnold, Carl Weathers, Burt Reynolds, The Rock, etc.

Jul 18, 2005 - 8:12 am 55. thedragonflies:

Being hip is one of the best glues that keeps the left together. If something happens to make the war hip, they will all be pro-war.

Hollywood as high school makes sense to me. A fully developed, mature ego takes time and effort to develop. I can well believe that a vast majority of Roger?s actors are very insecure ? it comes with the territory of immaturity.

Jul 18, 2005 - 3:36 pm 56. DubiousD:

I think for the purposes of this conversation we should not lump all celebrities, even liberal celebrities, into the same pile. There is a world of difference between bleeding heart, quasi-establishment liberal-types like, say, Tom Hanks, and hardcore, frothing-at-the-mouth leftist cranks like Margaret Cho.

Rather than needing to be liked, many celebrities seem to have a greater desire to hate. An almost Pavlovian animus toward anything to the right of the Nation magazine would appear to be the primary impulse driving the most ardent celebrity leftists. When a stand-up comedienne at a Democratic fundraiser performs a racist routine bashing Condoleeza Rice as a bootlicking Aunt Jemima, it is safe to say than something far more sinister than the mere childlike desire for approval has seeped into the political calculus.

One must also not overlook the fact that certain actors have personal axes to grind, regardless of ego and success. Need we be reminded that Sean Penn’s father, Leo Penn, was a Communist who was blacklisted back in the McCarthy era? Would it unreasonable to assume that the younger Penn might resent how his father’s career was derailed (if not destroyed altogether) and therefore would still harbor grievances toward the U.S. government today?

Jul 19, 2005 - 2:37 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: