Replies

He's right.

Hollywood judges Kazan by his politics, not his artistic merit.
Well, they're not the only ones.
How was Muhammed Ali judged when he was stripped of his title?
How were the Hollywood Ten judged? Paul Robeson?
How many times have I read FReepers who've said they'll not see an actor perform or read an article by a writer because they don"t like their politics?

That's the way the world works...unfortunately.

That's the way the world works...unfortunately.

What's terrible is not that Hollywood judged Kazan by his politics. I think it is appropriate to judge people by their politics, since one's politics are a conscious choice and not a genetic fact of birth.

What's terrible is that the vile politics of Hollywood's powerful elite lead them to ostracize not those who support thuggery, tyranny, murder and genocide, but those who oppose these evils.

Paul Robeson was a scumbag apologist for Joe Stalin.

From googles cached archives: "Other well-meaning and intelligent people visited the Soviet Union, among them the American singer, actor and human rights advocate Paul Robeson. In an interview that he gave in Moscow to a correspondent for New York's Daily Worker, Robeson is reported as saying that wherever he turned in Moscow he had found happiness and "bounding life, the feeling of safety and abundance of freedom." Commenting on recent trials and executions, Robeson said that from what he had seen of the workings of the Soviet Government, "anybody who lifts his hand against it ought to be shot!" 1

I also remember a Bill Buckley column where he said that a dissident went to Robeson for help and he betrayed him to the NKVD. A whole lot worse the Kazan talking to a congressional committee IMHO.

How many times have I read FReepers who've said they'll not see an actor perform or read an article by a writer because they don"t like their politics?

Not wanting to put hard-earned money in the pockets of someone whose actions and/or words make you retch is different than saying that their politics trumps their proven excellence as a performer.

Barbra Streisand is a heckuva singer, but I have never purchased her records or CDs. Aaron Sorkin is a fantastic writer, but I grab the remote when West Wing or American President comes on the tube. Moby is a talented producer and musician, if more than a little bit derivative, but you won't find any of his works in my stereo. Paul Newman is a great actor, but I never buy his salad dressing, lemonade, or whatever else. I had admired the beauty and talent of Julia Louis-Dreyfus for years before she became a legendary supporting player on Seinfeld. I had always enjoyed the work of Jack Black before he came out as a frothing Bush-hater; now I will wait for free cable for School of Rock. I am glad that Charles Grodin has wasted his time doing crap like Beethoven and Clifford, lest I be tempted to see him turn in another strong performance like in Midnight Run.

On the other hand, I have always thought Alec Baldwin was a hack; that Robert Redford was overrated, as is Ted Danson, one of the most fortunate men in the history of Hollywood (Leonardo DiCaprio takes the title); Janeane Garofolo was only good for a few snickers before she substituted radicalism for alcoholism; Mike Farrell has always been riding the coattails of Alan Alda (who, years after being thought of as the archetypical Hollywood liberal, is strangely silent).

Now, to the really silly part of your post, Larry. OF COURSE I won't read an article by a writer whose politics I don't like! Life is too short to get riled up by Dowd or Ivins or Cronkite or Krugman on purpose. Puhleeeeze.

I boycott Sean Penn movies not because I judge him to be a poor actor on account of his politics. (In fact, I think Penn is a superior actor.) Rather, I boycott Penn's movies because I think it was traitorous of him to fly to Iraq and denounce the U.S. on foreign soil. Therefore, I do not want to spend my money on a movie with Penn in it. Ask me if I think Sean Penn is a good actor, and I'll say, "Yes." Ask me if I want to pay for a Sean Penn movie and I say, "No." That's the risk actors assume when they use their celebrity to advance political causes. A good actor who loses parts because the audience will reject him on account of his politics is in the same position as a good actor who loses parts because audiences may reject him for being bald or fat. Both actors can whine that that's not "fair", but as our mothers always said, "Who ever said life was going to be fair?"

How many times have I read FReepers who've said they'll not see an actor perform or read an article by a writer because they don"t like their politics?

Yeah, but as Steyn points out, Kazan was on the right side of history. There's a lot of talent our there. I don't have to admire or consume all of it. I might watch some of those commies if I know not a cent of my money is going to them.