I mentioned this briefly in the comments to my previous "Haters" post, but found it interesting enough to want to comment further.
In this post from the Strongly Worded Letter blog, the blog's author (one of the DJs from KROQ radio here in LA) quotes a number of people and their reactions to the poor performance of George Clooney's new movie, Leatherheads.
The reason he quotes them, and the reason I'm interested in this, is the vehemence expressed in these opinions… the fervor with which they condemn Clooney as, among other things "uneducated," "arrogant," "talentless" and, rather mind-bogglingly, "misogynistic." (I'm not terribly familiar with the man's education, but listening to him speak, I can argue that uneducated is the last word I'd ever use to describe him, that he's arrogant only in that he knows what he believes and isn't afraid to state it, talentless is laughable, and I'm completely nonplussed by the whole misogynistic comment.) The common thread here is that Clooney is yet another of these uneducated actors who don't understand that their only purpose in life is to entertain the working man, and their opinions are neither wanted, nor of any value.
Whatever you might think the merits of that last statement, I'm still left in wonder at it all. Not at the idea that one should boycott those whose opinions one disagrees with. I actually agree with that position, and think that's a valid way of expressing your point of view. For instance, I don't watch Dennis Miller any more. Ever since he discovered his inner conservative after 9/11, I find his rants unamusing and his politics distasteful. So I don't watch him. But Miller's a comedian/satirist… his work is all about his opinions, so not watching him makes sense to me. But I don't think, if he were in a movie that I found interesting, I'd avoid that movie simply because he's in it. And I'm reasonably certain that I wouldn't sit back, the weekend after said movie, celebrating its failure and gloating about how the narrow-minded conservative just got his due.
I'm not trying to say that like it makes me a better person than those quoted on Strongly Worded Letter, but just to try and express my puzzlement over these reactions. While I might be able to understand this attitude if this were one of Clooney's political films, à la Syriana, we're talking about Leatherheads, a period-piece romantic comedy about football, a movie that's obviously working hard to capture that 'wacky' Cary Grant/Katherine Hepburn vibe from the 40's. So what, we're concerned that George is going to find a way to layer in a "Stop the War" message during scrimmages with Renée?
I can't comprehend that level of passionate contempt for someone simply because they have the gall to express themselves in public. Nor the fact that, since it's an actor expressing himself, it simply adds fuel to the fire and somehow justifies this hate.
I suppose it's an extension of the 'us against them' rhetoric that conservatives have been trumpeting in the culture war we seem to be engaged in, just one more example of the "hater" mentality I mention below. Hollywood has a lot of money and many of the power players there tend toward liberal politics (despite its heartless commercial soul, movies are still about creativity and that does tend to attract a more liberal, accepting type of personality, I think.) So it's a natural and easy target, and these reactions seem to bear out the success of this kind of thinking.
What we're left with are more intolerant assholes, spewing invective on the 'Net. I find it all rather tedious and pointless, and I wonder when (or if) we're going to get over this kind of childish behavior.
In this post from the Strongly Worded Letter blog, the blog's author (one of the DJs from KROQ radio here in LA) quotes a number of people and their reactions to the poor performance of George Clooney's new movie, Leatherheads.
The reason he quotes them, and the reason I'm interested in this, is the vehemence expressed in these opinions… the fervor with which they condemn Clooney as, among other things "uneducated," "arrogant," "talentless" and, rather mind-bogglingly, "misogynistic." (I'm not terribly familiar with the man's education, but listening to him speak, I can argue that uneducated is the last word I'd ever use to describe him, that he's arrogant only in that he knows what he believes and isn't afraid to state it, talentless is laughable, and I'm completely nonplussed by the whole misogynistic comment.) The common thread here is that Clooney is yet another of these uneducated actors who don't understand that their only purpose in life is to entertain the working man, and their opinions are neither wanted, nor of any value.
Whatever you might think the merits of that last statement, I'm still left in wonder at it all. Not at the idea that one should boycott those whose opinions one disagrees with. I actually agree with that position, and think that's a valid way of expressing your point of view. For instance, I don't watch Dennis Miller any more. Ever since he discovered his inner conservative after 9/11, I find his rants unamusing and his politics distasteful. So I don't watch him. But Miller's a comedian/satirist… his work is all about his opinions, so not watching him makes sense to me. But I don't think, if he were in a movie that I found interesting, I'd avoid that movie simply because he's in it. And I'm reasonably certain that I wouldn't sit back, the weekend after said movie, celebrating its failure and gloating about how the narrow-minded conservative just got his due.
I'm not trying to say that like it makes me a better person than those quoted on Strongly Worded Letter, but just to try and express my puzzlement over these reactions. While I might be able to understand this attitude if this were one of Clooney's political films, à la Syriana, we're talking about Leatherheads, a period-piece romantic comedy about football, a movie that's obviously working hard to capture that 'wacky' Cary Grant/Katherine Hepburn vibe from the 40's. So what, we're concerned that George is going to find a way to layer in a "Stop the War" message during scrimmages with Renée?
I can't comprehend that level of passionate contempt for someone simply because they have the gall to express themselves in public. Nor the fact that, since it's an actor expressing himself, it simply adds fuel to the fire and somehow justifies this hate.
I suppose it's an extension of the 'us against them' rhetoric that conservatives have been trumpeting in the culture war we seem to be engaged in, just one more example of the "hater" mentality I mention below. Hollywood has a lot of money and many of the power players there tend toward liberal politics (despite its heartless commercial soul, movies are still about creativity and that does tend to attract a more liberal, accepting type of personality, I think.) So it's a natural and easy target, and these reactions seem to bear out the success of this kind of thinking.
What we're left with are more intolerant assholes, spewing invective on the 'Net. I find it all rather tedious and pointless, and I wonder when (or if) we're going to get over this kind of childish behavior.
Comments
But, I think your true colors are showing in this post. It's ok for you to hate Dennis Miller - a guy you USED to like - but, it's not ok for Joe Blow to be disgusted by Clooney? The conservatives are to blame for the 'us against them' rhetoric in public? Liberals are more accepting personalities than conservatives?
Wow...you disappoint me. And, you're dead wrong. Time to begin reading some other sources of information. There is enough hate to go around on both sides. And, I've seen as many, if not more, attacks on freedom of expression by self-proclaimed 'accepting' liberals than conservatives. You can't have a cross where we can see it, you can't mention God in a public place, you have to carry my opinion and give it equal time to your opinion, you can't let the military recruit on our campus. Lord help us.
I anxiously await your post that defends Obama's elitist comments on the bitter citizens of middle America. Yes, Hillary is an elitist too...that's not the point. His comments were indicative of many liberal elite who think the 'red states' are nothing but a bunch of idiotic hicks who aren't as smart as them or else they'd be 'accepting' liberals too! And, they were covered by the 'objective' NY Times on page 17 and the 'objective' LA Times on page 13. Wow. Big surprise.
At least the liberals have big, guilty hearts. They want to SAVE the poor hicks in middle America! Using the efficiency of government! How kind... BARF.
Or, perhaps in your next post, you'll discuss the invective spewed upon the likes of Ben Stein for his outrageous movie about intelligent design, or Trey and Matt for making fun of liberal Hollywood in South Park and Team America? Nah. That would mean shining a light on the supposedly 'accepting' left - who are anything but.
As for my true colors showing, I like to think it's more my idealism (or maybe my naiveté) showing. Are liberals guilty of narrow-mindedness and judgmental attitudes… hell yes, I'm sure they are. But I guess I'm coming from that more open-minded place that I'm talking about, so I project that onto the liberal concepts I'm discussing.
I don't believe in displaying a cross, or the Ten Commandments or a nativity scene on government property because I believe it violates the Constitution and the notion of Separation of Church and State. I am uncomfortable with the military recruiting on high school campuses, just as I'm uncomfortable with the military funded America's Army videogame/recruitment tool, as I find it troubling to recruit people into military service at that young an age.
I haven't heard Obama's 'elitist' comments that you refer to , so I can't comment (not because they're buried on the Times pages, but more my dodging most of the election rhetoric at this point).
I wasn't trying to hold myself up as some shining example of open-mindedness and liberal ideals. I'm just trying to get my head around the source of the invective. What is it about Clooney's, or Miller's or Ben Stein's or Trey & Matt's politics that makes it necessary for us to not simply disagree with them, but to lash out at them, as if they are the embodiment of everything that's wrong with this country?
Equating Darwin to Hitler and his birthplace to Dachau? Simultaneously participating in the deification of Ronald Reagan AND likening himself to him? Seriously.