Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
By Dylan Hart
I’ll be honest: I couldn’t tell you a single thing about who won what at this year’s Golden Globe Awards.
What I can tell you is that comedian Ricky Gervais, in his fifth stint hosting the award show, spent his usual opening dialogue unleashing a tirade of joking critiques of the attendees and the systems surrounding the show, and that Tom Hanks’ aghast reaction was instantly a meme.
And certainly, Gervais raised some valid points. He criticized Hollywood’s systemic problems with race, commented on corporate exploitation and jabbed at celebrities who befriended Epstein.
But the audience’s main takeaway? Hollywood actors are out of touch.
“You’re in no position to lecture the public,” Gervais said. “You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg. If you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent and your god and f— off.”
Gervais’ speech — or, at the very least, the public reception of his speech — puts actors in a box and labels them all ignorant of “the real world.”
It’s not a new argument, as media outlets like The Guardian, The New York Times and Telegraph, alongside actors like Anthony Hopkins and Mark Wahlberg, have said the same in the past, albeit never on a stage in front of dozens of their opponents.
This isn’t even the first time that someone at an awards show has tried to shut down actors politicizing their award speeches.
In 1978, writer Paddy Chayefsky, presenting an award for writing, told the crowd that he was “sick and tired of people exploiting the occasion of the Academy Awards.”
That year’s Supporting Actress winner, Vanessa Redgrave, addressed the actions of the Jewish Defense League, whose members burned an effigy of her, picketed the awards and attempted to bomb a showing of her film “The Palestinian.” Chayefsky said that “a simple ‘thank you’ would have sufficed.”
What makes actors any less prepared to discuss political issues than other professions? If actors should simply sit down and shut up, who should be allowed to engage in discourse about issues? There’s a marked difference between expert opinion and civilian opinion. Actors should be allowed the latter.
Certainly, some are out of touch with the day-to-day life of the average American, but plenty more have lived average lives before breaking out as stars, even if they’re driving their Lamborghinis in the Hollywood Hills today.
There’s no reason to believe that everyone at that show was born into wealth or notoriety, even if some were. After all, the image of actors struggling financially and waiting tables in Los Angeles to make it big prevails for a reason.
It is important to recognize that actors are not paragons of virtue. They don’t spend their days mulling over philosophy, ethics, economics or sociology, so it is fair to take their soapbox speeches with a grain of salt. But Gervais’ implication that actors are worthless to political discourse shouldn’t be getting the reaction it does.
Sometimes, actors are more acutely aware of certain issues than the average person. Redgrave knew that well.
Actors were at the forefront of an incredibly important political movement from the past decade — the #MeToo movement. Although activist Tarana Burke is popularly credited with starting the movement, it wouldn’t have gained such tremendous traction in 2017 if it weren’t for certain actors making the decision to step forward and have their views known.
In 1973, Marlon Brando won an award for Best Actor after starring in “The Godfather.” But in explicit protest of the Academy, Brando sent Sacheen Littlefeather, an Apache woman, to represent him and explain his disapproval of the film industry’s treatment of Native Americans.
The crowd was divided. Most clapped, but a few loudly booed. Compared to today’s age, hearing people in the Oscars crowd outright boo Littlefeather was rather jarring.
But regardless of the immediate reaction, Brando and Littlefeather undeniably started a conversation. It was one of many catalysts for change in the industry, pushing the envelope on a representation issue Hollywood still struggles with today.
There are plenty of actors who have been strong activists. Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore founded an anti-human trafficking organization, and their cause was undeniably made more public through their involvement.
While I’d like to see more actors using their free time between shoots actually going out and committing to a cause through action, it’s only fair that they discuss things that matter to them when they’re given a window to provoke thought in thousands of people.
Regardless of any credentials Hollywood stars may hold as a unit, people do listen to what they have to say. The media and the general audience should welcome their perspectives, even if they are at first challenged and discussed.
When you have a platform, you should feel free to make a point. If it’s a bad point, it will get torn apart. If it’s good, it will stand on its own. There’s no reason to let credentials stand in the way of a valid argument. And if a speech really goes south, there’s a good chance that the actor won’t be giving many more of those, anyway.
