I've never been sure how many stages there
are in the process of grief, but I do know that when it comes to Donald Trump
and his political career Hollywood has never reached the acceptance stage.
Indeed they've basically spent the near
decade since his election to the Presidency the first time pivoting between
denial and anger. And since we all know about the anger part this article is
mainly going to be about their denial.
Much as Hollywood would really like to
pretend Donald Trump doesn't exist and that if they ignore him hard enough and
virtue signal long enough he will blink out of existence they know it’s a
futile cast. He is here and he is part of the present. So Hollywood has spent
the last decade denying him in the past and the future.
We've all read the articles in the last
decades from Stephen Schwartzman to Mark Burnett to everyone who starred in a
series or a film where Trump made an appearance before he announced his run for
the White House essentially making a variation of the same argument. Donald
Trump was never competent, never rational, never organized. He was always the
same word salad ranting, bigoted, faux rich man he is at his rallies (and
obviously those rallies are hideous reflections of humanity). He was a monster
then; he's a monster now.
Many of these stories may be true. But over
the last few years I've increasingly seen them as whitewashing. Not of Trump
but of film and television's role in his rise to power. They are trying very
hard to make the rest of the country forget that with them and Trump there was
a 'before' and an 'after' and the before period was much longer then the after.
How long is a matter of debate: I'm inclined to say it goes from the mid-1980s
until Trump officially made his announcement for President.
During that period Hollywood, New York, all
the coastal elites were perfectly fine going to Trump's casinos, attending his
parties, going to his weddings, hanging out at Mar-A-Lago and perhaps even some
other island resorts. I remember those times; I lived through them and no one
seemed to be holding a gun to Fran Drescher's head when he was appearing in The
Nanny and no one seemed under duress when he appeared in Home Alone 2. And
they certainly seemed to having a good time when they toasted him at Comedy Central
in the 2000s and having him on Leno and Letterman for thirty years. I think so much of the last decade has been
spent on Hollywood going full scorched Earth on any past relationship they ever
had with Trump. The question I ask myself – would they have been this way if he
had run as a Democrat which he was registered as until 2009? I suspect we'll
never know. Nor if so much of Hollywood's
behavior is out of a sense of guilt or remorse that they played a vital
role at doing much to raise a man who stands for everything they claim to
loathe to the highest office in the land.
As they have denied him in the past, they
do much to deny him in the future. All of their actions whether in late night
comedy, TV shows or films directing messages against him, awards show speeches
or even appearance in the media against him has been deny everything that he
stands for which goes against all good values which of course they have always
believed in and always will. I will
acknowledge that during the first Trump administration I admired, appreciated
and was entertained by so much of what they did. However in recent years I have
increasingly come to see it as little more than a mirror image of what Trump
has done at his own rallies.
That may seem extreme but think about it.
Whenever John Oliver or Seth Meyers gives a late night monologue or a speech
about all of the horrible things Trump does they are doing so in front of a
camera in a theater hundreds of miles away from Trump to a studio audience that
will only applaud what they say and a viewing audience that already agrees
completely with everything that is being said. How is this any different from
when Trump gives a political rally in Des Moines or Charleston that will be
broadcast on Fox News or Newsmax?
Well the obvious one is that given the
results of three consecutive elections Trump's audience remains just as loyal
as it was eight years ago and has been more than willing to do the most
important thing in politics: vote for him.
In November 2024 he won reelection, now controls both houses of Congress
and has a supermajority on the Supreme Court. He did this despite having
the full force of Hollywood against him for eight straight years, something
that they have remained just as much in denial about during the past year.
It's worth noting that for all Hollywood's
argument of speaking 'truth to power' and 'The Resistance' they were not
fighting the Battle of Algiers. They
never ventured within a hundred miles of Trump country, never talked with
Republicans except to mock them, never went to a Trump rally except to mock
them. For all the causes they advocated for they were never willing to go near
the arena unless Democrats invited them. In this sense during his first term
Trump was more than willing to treat them with the same disdain. I don't think
Hollywood ever minded that among the norms he disregarded was attending White
House Press corps dinners or anything connected with the Kennedy Center. I think for all of their bravado during the
last decade has essentially been everything that the left has done in miniature
when it comes to action: they make nasty statements about those in power,
assured that power isn't in the room with them, are applauded by their peers
and receive the contempt of the opposition (as well as some of their allies at
times). Nothing changes for those whose causes they advocate for but they have
'raised awareness' which is all that matters to them. Hollywood has never
really cared for another commonality they have with so many on the far right
(and that includes Trump even when they were hanging out with him): they are so
wealthy and privileged that they are essentially insulated from ramifications
or consequences.
I'd argue the major thing that's changed in
the last year when it comes to Hollywood is that the bill is coming due. Having
spent so much time openly antagonizing if not outright vilifying every single
person who is stupid enough to vote for Trump, the industry has been suffering.
There are other factors involved in this, to be sure, but it can't have helped
that when Hollywood chose to actively antagonized half the country - a group that is not inclined to think
kindly of the industry in the first place – then they have no reason to watch
your shows. Hollywood has been in denial about that fact despite all the
evidence and the bill has started to come due, first in late night, then in
other parts of the industry. Hollywood's
reaction, not unlike its antagonist, has been to double down on its rage even
if it means attacking itself. Whether it is Bill Maher choosing to visit the
Trump White House or corporations embracing fascism because they have decided
they need to make a profit even if that means appealing to the half of the
country that voted for Trump.
Hollywood's hypocrisy when it came to their sudden realization that
they've been working for corporations this whole time seemed to be the biggest
level of hypocrisy possible – until this past month.
I need to be clear. I support the arts and
to put it mildly I've never been a fan of the administration in either term.
That being said his decision to take over the Kennedy Center with loyalist and
put his name on it doesn't strike me with fear or outrage me. I can barely
consider it something more than an annoyance and compared to all the havoc he
shows no signs of alleviating it doesn't even rank the top hundred of things
that he's done that bother me. I
acknowledge it is, keeping with much of his brand, petty. The problem is that in the weeks since and
well before that everyone in the arts has been reacting with a pettiness and
vindictiveness that is reminiscent of the chief executive and as always with
the left, just as meaningless and self-defeating.
The moment the Center was named, a
prominent performer who had held Christmas and New Year's Eves concert at the
Kennedy Center for decades cancelled both his performances. To be clear he had
no problem doing it during the first Trump administration and taking the money
to do while he was President. It is only after it shared his name that this
performer figured that was a line he was unwilling to cross.
This has been going on ever since the
current administration took power: Shonda Rhimes resigned in February and Issa
Rae and Lin-Manuel Miranda have cancelled performances there even prior to
this. Yesterday Stephen Schwartz acknowledged that he would do the same. All of this has been framed like everything
the left does is framed as a moral decision which trumps (play on words
intends) such mere decision as economics and finance as if Rae and Lin=Manuel
Miranda were Rose Parks and Ceasar Chavez instead of millionaires who are
cancelling a gig at a locale they find beneath them.
But the thing is, this isn't just about
them and I almost wonder if the President did this as much out poking the left
as vanity. If they chose to perform at the Kennedy Center they would be
breaking their rule of acknowledging the existence of the administration in a
way they could pretend they didn't before. Having known firsthand just how
thoroughly they can turn on their own if one of their members does anything
seen as remotely sympathetic to the opposition as giving aide and comfort to
the enemy. So doing a show in a center that is both run and now co-named for a
man that they – and more importantly their audience – despises is not a
decision they can make. However it's worth noting that if there's one thing
we've learned in the past decade it's that by cancelling said appearance will
do nothing to bother the President. If anything it will play into the narrative
he has shaped about Hollywood being afraid to even go near him because he's
more popular then they will ever be. If
they showed up, of course, they would be seen as begging to share the spotlight
with him. There is no scenario that anything these people did would bother him,
save for him to write a tweet which as we all know he does regardless.
The problem is there is collateral damage
by their moral stands and it involves the residents of Washington DC. I want
you to remember a few things. Washington DC has never gone Republican in an
election once ever since it was granted the right to vote in elections in 1960.
It has been the target of abuse from Republicans from denying it statehood to
using the most racist expression to its citizens and this has been increased
exponentially in the decade of Trump. Consider how so much of its everyday life
has been upended as so many followers and hangers-on have entered the city for
its favor even as they degrade in public. Consider that National Guard troops
have walked the streets of the city until recently. If you are a resident of DC
you are crying out for escape, a distraction, more than most people in America.
No doubt you look for these concerts and performances at the Kennedy Center as
a relief.
Now imagine that you are told that the
performers who you made a small fortune to see them have canceled their
appearances, that they frame this as a moral stand putting their own financial
good above their principles. That's well
and good for them but what about the people of DC? How can they look at this as anything but a
slap in the face by the people who have spent so much time and tweets arguing
about all the horrible things the President has done and is doing to their
district? By their actions they've
demonstrated that they will always put their ideological purity above the good
of other people, even when it comes to their own profession. They could not have made a bigger argument
that they are activists first and entertainers second if they'd put on social
media.
And if they're willing to make it clear on
what is – certainly by the standards of everything else going on – a relatively
minor thing that is nevertheless in their job description, well, then the
question has to be asked. How much do they actually care about all the things
they've spent the last decade marching in favor of and speaking out in favor
and saying on their platforms if they won't even confront him on what is a
minor issue by everyone else's standard except theirs?
Three months ago in the aftermath of Jimmy
Kimmel's suspension John Oliver did a special arguing as always that this was a
moral battle. He argued, as is the left's want, that Trump is just a bully and
if you stand up to him he will fold. Now look at what happened after he went
into what was basically the territory of
'the arts': a space that they have used to confront all things Trump (when he
wasn't personally there, of course). Using their terms he was walking into
their space, saying its mine now and you have to play by my rules. I'd argue that if they had kept doing their
performance, kept every schedule, they would have confronted him in a way they
keep saying everyone else should do. We will do our job and ignore your
intrusion in our lives and concentrate on our audience. That would have been
act of defiance far less performative then anything they've done in the last
decade.
I suspect like most children I was told the
best thing to do when someone bullies you is to ignore them and pretend they
don't exist. I acknowledge that never worked in practice but in regard to how
the President and Hollywood, it seems to be the only approach they haven't tried.
And with the stakes so small compared to everything else I'd argue there was
nothing to be lost by just doing their jobs and entertaining. Because we're
only privy to his public thoughts and his tweets we'd never know if it actually
bothered him but it would had the benefit of the high ground being the ;eft's
when both sides have basically cast it aside.
Instead those in the arts chose a
performative stunt, only this involved a kind of performance that was beyond
their capability. It showed that they chose not to stand with the people of DC
by doing their jobs but stand with their own opinion by their community. It
showed that they have no more really spirit for in-your-face confrontation then
they have claimed the President does. It shows that they've taken the kind of
bold stand that frankly only the very wealthy can afford to take and
even then it’s a stand that doesn't mean anything in the grand scale of
things. And they've done everything to
proof that they're out of touch liberals
even when it comes to doing what is supposedly their own profession.
In conclusion I want to speak in two
capacities. I'm a Democrat. Never voted for Trump once. I don't like what he stands for, what he's
done scares me and I won't deny a certain dull fear comes through me in the last
year when I turn on a network channel at any time, wondering if there will be a
service interruption realizing the nightmare that so many people think about.
And speaking as someone who doesn't have the means that the people in Hollywood
have been doing to get out of the country since his reelection I feel that
dread more gutturally.
At the same time I'm a critic who reviews
the product Hollywood has put out for anywhere between 80 to 85 percent of his
columns. I've always been able to remain objective when it comes to
differentiating between the artist and the art, regardless how loathsome the
artist may be or what their political views are. That is something many of my
colleagues and people in Hollywood have increasingly been either unwilling or
unable to do but I have and I believe I can continue to do so.
So speaking as someone who respects your
work and even admires your views even as I disdain your approach I need you to
believe me when I tell you: in the last year in particular Hollywood and many
in the arts have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are everything that
Republicans have been saying about you well before the last decade started. I
have no doubt you consider this a compliment and may delude yourself into
thinking it is. Let me assure it absolutely is not one and I take no joy in telling
you that. America is going to be moving on from Trump in three years. You guys
really need to do the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment