Adam Kirsch looks at the I Tatti Renaissance Library: Rereading the Renaissance.
"The only thing most teachers and students of the humanities agree on," Kirsch begins, "... is that these are troubled times for their field. For a whole variety of reasons—social, intellectual, and technological—the humanities have been losing their confident position at the core of the university’s mission."
The decline of the humanities began long ago with a loss of faith on the part of those charged with teaching them, when the humanities began to ape the sciences, and arguments were put forth defending their "usefulness" - as if the utility of being able to think clearly and speak correctly were anything other than obvious. And so we live in an age in which rhetoric and logic are hopelessly confused, in which people stand in line at museums to look at paintings whose iconography utterly eludes them.
Just yesterday Peggy Noonan had a column in the Wall Street Journal discussing, at some length, the views of George Clooney. George Clooney is an actor, a man who makes an obscene amount of money for looking good and speaking well words thought up and written by other people. In what other age would anyone take the views of an entertainer seriously? Even he understands that what he does professionally may be lucrative but isn't really all that important. That's why he wants to be taken seriously as a thinker. We can strike a blow on behalf of the humanities - and their standards of reason and speech - by denying him his wish.
"In what other age would anyone take the views of an entertainer seriously?"
ReplyDeleteSo, are there no filmmakers that we should take seriously? Clooney's "Good Night Good Luck" isn't just entertaining fluff. Whether or not it fails, it still attempts to develop serious ideas about political freedom in America. Remember, he's not jsut an actor in it. He developed the project and directed it. He may have won his Oscar for Syriana, a film he just acted in, but he's becoming a serious filmmaker.
Also, it seems that "entertainers" have been taken seriously in just about all ages except our own. Although in our age, we do take entertainers from the past seriously (ie Shakespeare, Twain, etc).
Well Shakespeare and Twain wrote their own material, for one thing.
ReplyDeleteI think we do tend to take people too seriously when they are commenting on something outside their sphere, if they happen to be articulate, or handsome, or both. George Clooney scores high on both points I believe.
Is this why many actors take money for doing voiceovers or other commercials (remember Bill Murray in Lost in Translation? What did his character know about Japanese whiskey? But I suppose he got people to buy it.).
I beg to differ, Shandygaff, on several points. First, actors have rarely been taken seriously in any age I can think of. Socially, they were regarded as being little better than servants. Second, regarding Good Night, and Good Luck: Murrow - by his own admission - was a Johnny Come Lately to the McCarthy issue. As I've pointed out here before, the guy who deserves to be remembered is Ralph Flanders, the conservative Republican who took McCarthy on and introduced the bill of censure against him. Clooney seems to have the idea - unfortunately shared by many in my profession - that journalists are supposed to be sociopolitical crusaders. They are supposed to report information accurately and dispassionately. I lived through the McCarthy era. From what I read in the media you would think it was comparable to the Russian show trials of the 1930s. It wasn't - remotely.
ReplyDeleteHi Maxine:
ReplyDeleteThe reason actors like to do voiceovers is that the money for doing them is prodigious. Actor Robert Young, who was a screen star in the 30s and 40s, and had a couple of very successful TV series, once said the most money he made in his career was from the commercials he made for Sanka.
While I liked the sentiment of George Clooney's speech (I think it is good, sometimes, to be "out of touch"), I had to cringe at the rest of it. He really didn't think them through.
ReplyDeleteWhile, yes, the Academy gave Hattie McDaniels an Oscar in 1939 (and, really, how could they NOT? Who in that year could have even come close to the genius of Mammy?), it hardly paved the way for lots of other minority roles. There was even some controversy over her attending! (I've heard both that she did attend, but had to sit in the back, and that she wasn't allowed to attend and made her speech at a later time for the newsreels. I have no idea which, if either, is true.) Even now, minority actors have hard times getting good roles.
And what about homosexuality? Yeah, they might been patting themselves on the back for Brokeback Mountain, but a lot of Academy voters were so uncomfortable they didn't even watch it. Plus, no industry is as militantly closeted as Hollywood. Just look at the contortions of Tom Cruise.
So, yes, George, your sentiment is good, but the point doesn't hold up. Hollywood has rarely, if ever, been truly courageous or brave.
Frank W,
ReplyDeletePoints well taken.
Ed
Ah, but if you read Reagan: A Life In Letters and the collection of speeches he wrote and delivered before becomong governor of California, you will see that he was more than just an entertainer. Before he ran for for governor, Reagan had served two terms as president of SAG. And Reagan did enter the political arena. He didn't just use his celebrity to shoot off his mouth. George Clooney hasn't run for squat. Reagan defeated an incumbant governor and an incumbant president. The guy was a very good poltician, and rather a good writer. His ability in the letters to maintain a conversation with a kid in the DC public school system without ever sounding patronizing is quite touching. I think you should read the book. I think you would be quite, quite surprised.That he learned a lot from the entertainment business that was useful in politics cannot be denied - and he for one never denied it.
ReplyDeleteI'm almost ashamed to admit that I actually watched the Army-McCarthy hearings - I was a big history buff as a kid, and current events was history in the making. And of course I agree that celebrities have the right to their opinions. Just like anybody. But anybody's opinion is worthless unless it is informed and well-reasoned. There in fact is a celebrity whom I do take seriously: Bono. I think he thinks for himself, and doesn't traffic in cliches. I think he's the kind of guy - like Vaclav Havel and Solzhenitsyn -- who would have the courage to speak out even under a repressive regime.
ReplyDeleteOddly, I do not wish I had either Clooney's looks or his celebrity. A bit of the change I wouldn't mind, though.
Fascinating debate!
ReplyDeleteLots of threads, but returning to the actors/voiceover topic.
Laurence Olivier was, so the story goes, one of the earliest "serious" actors in the UK to take money for an ad, Polaroid I think it was. But he had it signed into the contract that the ads could not be shown in the UK as he did not want his public here to find out he'd taken the shilling. Presumably this means that he thought people took him seriously in the UK (which indeed they did, he got not only a knighthood but a peerage) but not in the US. Or, turning it round to the orginal point Frank made, Olivier knew that people in the US don't take actors seriously -- which of course is as it should be (unless it is to do with their views on building theatres and stuff like that). But he wanted to preserve his image for his "home audience". He couldn't do that these days, of course, with the Internet and those pesky bloggers finding everything out and speading the news ;-)
Lord Olivier certainly deserved to be taken seriously in his area of expertise. Indeed, George Clooney deserves to be taken seriously when he discusses his profession - though not as seriously as Olivier, because Clooney is no Olivier. The error the Clooneys of the world make is to think that their success in one area confers on them authority in all areas. It is hubris with a comic dimension.
ReplyDeleteThere must be a middle ground. I have encountered so many people who go on about things without having done the minimal amount of investigation into the facts of the matter. My opinion on a whole spectrum of topics is worthless. I have enough trouble organizing my thoughts around what I do know. I see no reason for wasting my time and others' bloviating about all the stuff I don't know. Of course, my predilection is for reporting, and any pundity I do I like to keep subordinate to the reportage.
ReplyDelete