The Golden Globes served up another dose of socio-political posturing last week. Meryl Streep and several others made speeches decrying Trump's election, urging protection of the press and sundry other political topics. This of course follows the kerfuffle over the 'Hamilton Lecture' for Mike Pence, and dovetails with the many entertainers who swore they would leave the US if Trump were elected. Entertainment is a part and outgrowth of society. Events like the Golden Globes et al raise the question of the place of entertainment in social expression.
There is a long history of plays as social commentary. The Greek satires and tragedies are in some cases specific commentary on the character flaws that led to social disasters. Roman plays, especially comedies, are biting commentary on the role of slaves, who too often were better educated and more accomplished than their richer and more powerful masters. The Marriage of Figaro was so controversial it was banned, as were a number of other plays that dared to criticize Bourbon France or Hapsburg Austria. In passing, it is ironic to note the most artistically tolerant country was and still is Germany, happy to let their artists ramble on about whatever they like.
Movies have followed the same direction as plays. There are many movies that have addressed current social controversies, such as The Great Dictator, or Modern Times. Others have been similar to Greek historical plays, telling at least a version of history for effect, such as All The President's Men, The Deer Hunter, The Good Shepherd, or Mississippi Burning. Others deliberately choose and film scripts that address problems like corporate ethics or moral choices, such as Up in the Air, Michael Clayton, Sophie's Choice.
Broadly speaking, the more directly entertainment addresses social issues, the less effective it is. It passes gradually from satire and farce into drama, historical drama, and then suddenly it is documentary and finally nothing but editorial. Like so much else in life, a direct approach destroys the effect. A woman who comes up to a man and grabs his crotch is not seductive, just coarse. A man who grabs a woman's ass in the elevator isn't complimenting her, he's assaulting her. Art speaks to the soul. It evokes, it suggests. It does not work as sermon, or polemic. It does not, it can not preach. The movie Freaks is particularly effective in this way. Without saying a single thing about ugliness or disability, the movie leaves you thinking hard about what is truly evil, and ugly.
Now we have the spectacle of artists speaking directly. By long tradition, artists spoke through their work, which was offered with dedications but not with explanations. I know this as a performer and composer, not just an audience member. No performance, play, symphony or art exhibit, is begun with a director's or artist's statement on the purpose of the work, or with an afterword on its intent. The audience must be allowed to experience and feel, not be told what they are 'supposed' to experience.
When play casts lecture politicians or actors use awards as political platforms, they are diminishing their art and themselves. It becomes harder to lose the performer in the performance. Any future film inevitably is questioned as a political screed. Art, and emotional impact, are sacrificed for overt political statement.
These pronouncements are lauded as bravery by their peers, when they are nothing but self-indulgent, public bloviation. How much bravery does it take to speak words with which your entire audience agrees? In Los Angeles County, Clinton took 76% of the vote, in Manhattan 87%. There is no artistic effort, bravery or integrity required to preach to the choir, knowing your pronouncement will be one long applause line.
In addition, these socio-political screeds are hypocritical. A star worth 65 million dollars preaches about liberal politics. Leo DiCaprio scolds about the environment while flying private jets. Stars lecture about poverty while employing minimum wage immigrants, preach about schools while using private tutors.
All of this affects movie watching habits. This article is old, but gives an idea of the impact of star activism on movie watching-Hollywood Reporter. It has gotten much worse since then.
Can you imagine going to a doctor and having to listen to political opinion, or getting a lecture from a plumber on water ecology? Of course not. Then why should actors imagine they are entitled to harangue people from stage or award podium? This is bad manners, bad politics, bad press and worst of all, bad art.
Ted
There is a long history of plays as social commentary. The Greek satires and tragedies are in some cases specific commentary on the character flaws that led to social disasters. Roman plays, especially comedies, are biting commentary on the role of slaves, who too often were better educated and more accomplished than their richer and more powerful masters. The Marriage of Figaro was so controversial it was banned, as were a number of other plays that dared to criticize Bourbon France or Hapsburg Austria. In passing, it is ironic to note the most artistically tolerant country was and still is Germany, happy to let their artists ramble on about whatever they like.
Movies have followed the same direction as plays. There are many movies that have addressed current social controversies, such as The Great Dictator, or Modern Times. Others have been similar to Greek historical plays, telling at least a version of history for effect, such as All The President's Men, The Deer Hunter, The Good Shepherd, or Mississippi Burning. Others deliberately choose and film scripts that address problems like corporate ethics or moral choices, such as Up in the Air, Michael Clayton, Sophie's Choice.
Broadly speaking, the more directly entertainment addresses social issues, the less effective it is. It passes gradually from satire and farce into drama, historical drama, and then suddenly it is documentary and finally nothing but editorial. Like so much else in life, a direct approach destroys the effect. A woman who comes up to a man and grabs his crotch is not seductive, just coarse. A man who grabs a woman's ass in the elevator isn't complimenting her, he's assaulting her. Art speaks to the soul. It evokes, it suggests. It does not work as sermon, or polemic. It does not, it can not preach. The movie Freaks is particularly effective in this way. Without saying a single thing about ugliness or disability, the movie leaves you thinking hard about what is truly evil, and ugly.
Now we have the spectacle of artists speaking directly. By long tradition, artists spoke through their work, which was offered with dedications but not with explanations. I know this as a performer and composer, not just an audience member. No performance, play, symphony or art exhibit, is begun with a director's or artist's statement on the purpose of the work, or with an afterword on its intent. The audience must be allowed to experience and feel, not be told what they are 'supposed' to experience.
When play casts lecture politicians or actors use awards as political platforms, they are diminishing their art and themselves. It becomes harder to lose the performer in the performance. Any future film inevitably is questioned as a political screed. Art, and emotional impact, are sacrificed for overt political statement.
These pronouncements are lauded as bravery by their peers, when they are nothing but self-indulgent, public bloviation. How much bravery does it take to speak words with which your entire audience agrees? In Los Angeles County, Clinton took 76% of the vote, in Manhattan 87%. There is no artistic effort, bravery or integrity required to preach to the choir, knowing your pronouncement will be one long applause line.
In addition, these socio-political screeds are hypocritical. A star worth 65 million dollars preaches about liberal politics. Leo DiCaprio scolds about the environment while flying private jets. Stars lecture about poverty while employing minimum wage immigrants, preach about schools while using private tutors.
All of this affects movie watching habits. This article is old, but gives an idea of the impact of star activism on movie watching-Hollywood Reporter. It has gotten much worse since then.
Can you imagine going to a doctor and having to listen to political opinion, or getting a lecture from a plumber on water ecology? Of course not. Then why should actors imagine they are entitled to harangue people from stage or award podium? This is bad manners, bad politics, bad press and worst of all, bad art.
Ted
Well said. And ironically it appears that the central theme of the Golden Globe rant was based on a mistaken assumption. Trump was not demeaning the handicapped. We all need to take a breath and talk to each other not at each other.
ReplyDeleteChuck M.
Well-written and historically intriguing. If an actor wants to express an opinion in response to the interviewer's question, that's fine. But to discuss this in an awards ceremony does not seem appropriate.
ReplyDeleteWhen actors venture beyond their capacity in areas of controversy, they cause unnecessary dissension, such as Ben Affleck did with his ignorant comments on Islam while a guest on Bill Maher's show in 2014.
-D-
Well written as always, but I strongly disagree. "Art speaks to the soul. It evokes, it suggests. It does not work as sermon, or polemic. It does not, it can not preach." This was true MAYBE for a century or so during the German romantic period, but no where else in history. How many religious plays were written in the 1300's, with expressly political aims? How much High Renaissance art had political aims? (Hint: all of it.) I suggest you re-read the text of the chorus in the famous 4th movement of Beethoven's 9th Symphony. Much contemporary art is expressly political; visit the galleries in Soho or in the new Whitney. And ESPECIALLY the play Hamilton, which is expressly and intentionally a play about political history and how it applies to our society today - what more appropriate forum to make a political comment than at that play? (Note that I clearly distinguish between "political", meaning having to do with public values, and "partisan", which I agree has no place in "high art".)
ReplyDelete