At the 74th Golden Globe Awards a couple of Sundays ago, renowned actress Meryl Streep was awarded the Cecil B. DeMille Award. She then delivered a well-articulated acceptance speech which subsequently went viral on social media. Included in her speech was this memorable quote:
“There was one performance this year that stunned me. It sank its hooks in my heart. Not because it was good. There was nothing good about it. But it was effective, and it did its job. It made its intended audience laugh and show their teeth. It was that moment when the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter. Someone he outranked in privilege, power and the capacity to fight back. It kind of broke my heart when I saw it. I still can’t get it out of my head because it wasn’t in a movie. It was real life.”
She didn't mention him by name, but anyone who paid even peripheral attention to the 2016 presidential election over the course of the past year knows that she was talking about Donald Trump. Her speech was met with widespread praise, but naturally, such a response was not unanimous, generating backlash from the likes of political commentator and professional crybaby Tomi Lahren, and the President-elect himself, who broke his habit of generally avoiding responding to criticism with a scathing tweet directed at Streep.
There were a number of different reasons behind criticism of Streep's speech, but a dislike of political sentiments at awards shows isn't new or uncommon. A complaint I've heard more than once by acquaintances who disdain awards shows is that they are "too political," rooted in a prevailing belief that awards shows are "not the place" for political statements.
Evidently, the tendency to make political statements at awards shows and the ensuing conflict go way back. At the 1978 Academy Awards, Vanessa Redgrave won Best Supporting Actress for her performance in Julia and generated controversy with a politically-charged acceptance speech condemning Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. Later in the broadcast, director Paddy Chayefsky prefaced a presentation of another award with this response to Redgrave's speech:
"I would like to say, personal opinion, of course, that I’m sick and tired of people exploiting the Academy Awards for the propagation of their own personal political propaganda. I would like to suggest to Ms. Redgrave that her winning an Academy Award is not a pivotal moment in history, does not require a proclamation, and a simple ‘thank you’ would have sufficed."
On that note, I would like to offer a defense of political statements at awards shows, as well as other non-political platforms, like sporting events. I get it, you want to just enjoy your awards show, and don't want to be reminded of the problems of the world, and you might be thinking, "If I wanted a political sermon, I'd watch C-SPAN."
But I think there's a certain strategy behind using awards shows as a platform to bring attention to issues. Let's be honest: C-SPAN's viewership isn't exactly comparable to that of the Academy Awards. So bringing up a subject like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, LGBT rights, diversity, equal pay, Donald Trump, or what have you at an event like the Academy Awards or Golden Globes, which attract much attention and coverage every year, as well as more attention from the lay public and individuals who might not otherwise pay attention to politics, might reach more people and bring more awareness to the issue than just limiting the outlets for communicating about such issues to C-SPAN or MSNBC, which don't attract as much attention.
This doesn't mean that awards shows have to become solely political, or that every speech has to be political, or that we can't just enjoy works intended solely for entertainment, or that everything has to be about politics. At the same time, be careful with sentiments like, "If I wanted a political sermon, I'd watch C-SPAN." Issues that are politics to you have real human costs for others. Dismissing efforts to bring attention to said issues on the basis of "I don't want to hear about that" can lead to complacency very fast.
Another common retort I've heard to Streep's speech is how the "liberal Hollywood elite" is out of touch with average Americans, a sentiment expressed by Tomi Lahren in her regular "Final Thoughts" segment, in which Lahren used the "glitz and glam" lifestyles of Hollywood actors as evidence of her contention that they are "out of touch." I could point out the hypocrisy of that in relation to her support for Donald Trump, a man who has often embraced the "glitz and glam" lifestyle, as well as how Hillary Clinton won the popular vote despite Donald Trump winning the Electoral College, and just leave it at that. But I'm not made that way.
I don't think anyone would disagree that celebrities shouldn't be the go-to sources for educating oneself about the various issues plaguing the world. But having wealth and fame doesn't disqualify one from being informed about what is going on in the world, and attempting to make a difference. In fact, I would argue that it's all the more reason to focus some of your efforts on these problems. What would you rather that celebrities use their money, power, and influence for? Would you rather they use some of it to help make the world a better, more equitable place, or spend all of their money solely on expensive cars and clothes, and all of their energy on celebrity feuds?
Are all celebrities who talk about politics genuine in doing so? Probably not. But who the hell cares? Sometimes it's obvious to spot when a celebrity is just attention-seeking, and in those instances, they're probably worth ignoring. But no human is 100% selfless, and we can't pick the brains of everyone in Hollywood to be sure that their motives are 100% genuine. If they're making a difference and bringing much-needed attention to a pressing issue affecting masses of people, then frankly, that's all that matters to me.
Perhaps I'm overestimating the influence of entertainment figures' political efforts and sentiments, but I don't believe that influence is zero, and I admire such individuals for making an earnest effort. But if their use of awards shows as a platform for such efforts bothers you so much, I offer you the same advice that you so condescending offer to so-called liberal snowflakes: if it offends you that much, don't watch it. You'll likely have an easier time doing that than the people you're putting down.
