Kurt Russell has weighed in on politics once again, which is to say he hasn’t weighed in on politics right now. Which is to say, Kurt Russell has some opinions on politics, but only about how he doesn’t have any opinions on politics, and neither should you.
Let’s start again.
Kurt Russell gave a brief interview this week—linked to his new Netflix Santa Claus movie, The Christmas Chronicles Part II—in which he touched on his political beliefs, a topic he’s noticeably reticent to discuss for a guy who’s talked about politics an awful lot over the years. (In admittedly reductive brief: He’s a self-described “hardcore libertarian” from the Cato Institute set, and he’s pretty pro-gun.) But that’s not what Russell wants us to take away from today’s political discourse. No, he’d rather that the actors of today consider all the ways that being open about their political views is harming their craft. “As far as I’m concerned,” Russell said, “You should step away from saying anything so that you can still be seen by the audience in any character.”
You could argue that “not talking about politics” is an inherently political stance, of course, albeit one that’s semi-invisible in support of the status quo. But Russell is pushing for the idea that audiences don’t have as much ability to separate art and artist as we might like, and that the expression of those views might get in the way of us seeing them as “court jesters”—Russell’s words—or hunky Santas, or whatever the case may be. (It also feels of a piece with the wider “cancel culture” narrative, where performers, especially right-wing performers, must supposedly live in fear of being told, “Hey, that viewpoint kind of sucks.”) “There’s no reason entertainers can’t learn just as much as anybody else about a subject, whatever it is,” Russell noted, adding, “But I think that what’s sad about it is that they lose their status as a court jester. And I’m a court jester.” And certainly, you could posit that Russell is clowning pretty hard with this particular viewpoint, so, hey, mission accomplished there.
222 Comments
He’s earned enough goodwill over the course of his career for me to say “Okay, fair enough, Kurt,” and move on. But what bugs me about his stance is that when people say about actors and musicians that they should should shut up about politics and just stick to their jobs of entertaining people, it usually means “Shut up about your liberal politics.” I wonder if he thinks James Woods should shut up? Or Dean Cain?
I agree with your larger point, but also doesn’t everyone think James Woods should shut up? Surely the thought has to be there in the back their minds.
I’m pretty sure even James Woods himself thinks he should shut up. As for why he doesn’t, well, I’m sure it has nothing to do with all the cocaine he never did.
I was listening to the Videodrome commentary over Quarantine. It really bummed me out to here everyone talk about what a good guy James Woods was. Oddly paranoid but still a good guy.
James Wood shutting up really has nothing to do with politics. He should just shut the fuck up in general.
De Niro sure shut him up in “Casino.”
Didn’t he have his hired goons do it? Deniro was a pussy in Casino the only people he pushed around were overweight showgirls and muffin chefs.
It was his idea! (He didn’t want to ruin his pastel slacks.)
And that card cheat whose hand he pulverized with a hammer.
I don’t think James Wood should shut up because we need more genuine idiot cranks.
Also, he’s done plenty of talking about politics himself. I love him but he’s a fucking hypocritical idiot
Didn’t him and Goldie have a reputation for making some sort of statement at awards shows in the 90s, I remember Dave at the Oscars making a joke “here’s Kurt and Goldie, and watch out, they’re probably pissed off about something”
Also, he’s done plenty of talking about politics himself. I love him but he’s a fucking hypocritical idiot
Possibly his opinions on things have changed over time.
Right. He’s a hypocrite.
He’s not *not* talking about politics, he’s telling others not to.
One of the basic tenets of libertarianism is that they, the libertarians, are smart and good-looking while everyone else is a mouth-breathing idiot, so “I’m done talking, so now it’s your turn to shut the fuck up” is right on brand.
Is there a common stance among libertarians on abortion rights? It would seem like a classic situation for a government to back off and let individuals run their own lives, yet I suspect that…
Well if they were consistent in their libertarianism they would have been in the streets this summer right alongside BLM advocates, protesting the state’s monopoly on violence, but by some strange coincidence all the better-known “libertarians” seem to have been on the side of the cops. Funny how that works out.
American Libertarianism is a cranky white guy’s movement. It’s people who have been treated with extraordinary deference and gentleness by the state whining about oppression, and typically backing down hard in the face of actual examples.
There are very few true libertarians, most people claiming to be libertarians are really just white supremacists. Their cries for small government are really just calls to stop enforcing black Americans’ civil rights. You ever notice that many libertarians also revere the Confederacy? You can’t be for individual rights, but revere a regime that started a war to keep black Americans enslaved.
I suspect that most libertarians secretly live by the creed: “freedom for me, laws for you.” They’re parasites, hoping to extract the benefits of a well-regulated society while living free of all regulations themselves and giving as little as possible in return. I’ve always thought that anyone who states publicly that they are a libertarian should be sent to an island to live for a year among other libertarians and according to strict libertarian principles. At the least it would make for good reality TV; at best it would cure us once and for all of this stupid, self-serving ideology so we can all get on with our lives.
Two things. I’m down.
I haven’t followed his political commentary over the years, but it sure sounds like he’s including himself in the ‘shut up’ category.
pretty bold of you to claim Dean Cain has a job of entertaining people
My great-great-grandmother Clovis loved him in The Warmest Christmas Cocoa
Christians are people too! At least I’m pretty sure!
Yeah exactly, this has been a criticism since forever and it really doesn’t hold up. Why not business folks or megachurch preachers, too — don’t their opinions sometimes get in the way of their “craft” ??
Agreed, I’m willing to push the goal post because he’s Kurt Russell.Also what’s missing from this interview is that it what a joint discussion with Goldie Hawn; and GH was pushing back pretty hardly… or cutely… on Kurt’s stance.In context, the statement had more of a comedic odd couple vibe then a hardcore stance (and I think KR’s intent was to just talk about himself, but he was fine if other celebrities are more active, considering his wife seemed to disagree).
“He’s earned enough goodwill over the course of his career for me to say “Okay, fair enough, Kurt,” and move on.”
Yeah, he was Snake Plissken, therefore he should be allowed to tell whoever he wants that they’re not allowed to voice an opinion.
Maybe if he thinks actors should shut up, he should start by shutting up himself.
alternatively, this could be read as a warning to the conservative people in Hollywood that if they run their mouths too much they’ll slowly find themselves unemployed? (Actually that can’t be the case, guys like Jon Voight and James Woods always have intelligent and reasonable “hot” takes on what’s really happening in the country, let’s let them continue to run their mouths and whatever consequences might happen, happen.)
It’s a good question, but if he’s as hardcore Libertarian as the article makes him sound there’s a good chance he doesn’t care much for the people Cain and Woods prop up either.
That’s why I said “I wonder.” I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt because he’s Kurt Russell.
Apologies for missing that, hard to read tone in text and oftentimes online “I wonder if…” is used more in a sarcastic sense to mean “I don’t really wonder, he’s doing exactly that”In any case I could be completely wrong, there are plenty of so-called Libertarians that aren’t purists when it comes to propping up people who do things they claim to be against, as long as they beneficiaries look a lot like them. I really hope Kurt Russell isn’t one of those.
And how is “cancel culture” any different than the right wing calls to boycott any openly left wing celebrities, which goes back at least as far as Streisand in the 70s?
Well, he’s saying that *he* needs shut up about politics, so people can enjoy his Court Jester status…so he definitely thinks Woods, Cain, Adam Baldwin, and Nick Searcy should do the same.
I think he must mean everybody, because he’s of a conservative bent, apparently, and he is including himself in the shut up part. That said, you could also say that since it’s 99% liberal actors who are outspoken, he could be directing this commentary to them since they are the ones who say stuff. So. Could be what you said, I guess.
I think he’s talking about Gina Carano, and if so then he’s actually admonishing a Trumper.
This is the argument I have with people about liberal celebrities who voice their politics. So even though they have jobs/careers better than most of us, they can’t voice their opinion? They are people to who should be able to say what they have to say about politics like the teachers, policemen, construction worker and so on. Can you imagine what it would be like if all celebrities (and I mean a real one, not those reality “stars” ones) couldn’t vote because of that? They have the right to speak their politics no matter how out of touch most of them are.
The irony of those who tell celebrities to shut up about politics yet voted for a failed business person who’s most notable position was on a reality show….
100% on point. The same ends up being true in sports. There was such hubub about the NBA being politicized, but absolutely no one told Brett Favre or Connor McGregor to shut up. For some reason, the people you’re meant to connect with on some emotional level and like should shut up about their beliefs, but the people who take massive blows to the head constantly are the political sages of our day.
I think his response is actually coming from this place: “I’m sick of being told I need to hold and espouse liberal political views. So please stop asking me what my position is.”It’s a hostile environment for conservatives and libertarian types in Hollywood as they are a very small minority (at least, the ones who have outed themselves as such).Having said that, I don’t agree that anyone should “shut up” about their politics… unless they can’t help but constantly yammer on about politics and manage to politicize literally everything. It can be fucking exhausting.
A big part of my issue with actors going on about their political positions is that many of them don’t seem to have much of a clue what they’re talking about. It does not forward any cause, left, right or otherwise, when it’s clear the person is parroting what they’ve heard elsewhere and aren’t familiar with the facts that support (or refute) that position. There is also the smugness factor that we should naturally care what they think because they’re famous. There are certainly exceptions but watching a high school dropout go on about how stupid this or that politician is makes my eyes roll so far I can see my brain.
Yeah, but they’re no worse than “Joe the plumber” or whatever other blue-color salt of the earth strawspokesman the right likes to trot out to show how of the people the conservative side is. And if someone has an MBA, I’m going to listen to them even less on politics than I am someone who dropped out to join the Groundlings or whatever.
yes he does. that’s what he said. do you have reason to suspect he’s one of those echo chamber, my way or the highway people? I don’t. neither do you yet you jump to the conclusion that he is exactly that kind of person. libertarians hate right wingers as much as they hate left wingers. entertainers in general seem to be dumb people who know mostly how to sell themselves and how to frame their opinions and beliefs in such a way as to make themselves seem to be part of the current popular group.
I’m guessing you’re a Libertarian. Thank you very much for those crucial non-Trump votes in swing states. I make it a point to offer my sincere thanks to every Libertarian I meet. Sincerely, thank you.
I think all celebrities should shut up about politics. Then again I think all certified non-experts with a platform should not pretend that they are anything other than non-experts. From James Woods to Alyssa Milano, from Tim Allen to John Legend.Non-experts thinking they are experts is why an embarrassing percentage of the country thinks COVID is a hoax.
Dean Cain’s just happy to get a mention in public these days.
I should have gone with Jon Voight, but I just didn’t think of him.
That’s a fucking double burn for Bloated Christopher Walker. You are displeased with him and you remembered Dean’s name first.
No, it doesn’t
‘when people say about actors and musicians that they should should shut
up about politics and just stick to their jobs of entertaining people,
it usually means “Shut up about your liberal politics.”’It is very odd that when people talk about entertainers who won’t shut up about politics they never mention Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sonny Bono, Jesse Ventura, Fred Grandy, or Clint Eastwood.Though to be fair they seldom mention Will Rogers either.
I’m gonna take a controversial stance here: feet shoulder width apart, knees slightly bent. Cancel THAT, liberal media!
So something like this then.
Bingo.
ANARCHIST!
CLEANER!
SO YOU’VE HAD A WASH, THAT’S NO EXCUSE
Look, I want to be more politically involved, but if I stand as heroically as the Pinhead of Wales I’m in serious danger of disappointing my future queen!Seriously, I wonder if “heroic standing” was one of the many reasons the real Prince and his wife hated each other. I know he was forced to marry her to pay off gambling debts, but still…
Russell’s right-leaning politics aside, there is an argument that most celebrities of any political stripe live in rather self-obsessed cloisters of wealth, luxury and privilege that completely set them apart from 90% of the population, meaning that they mostly have very little of value to say on most given subjects on a practical level. And thus, while they should have the same rights to speak their minds as any other member of the population, that 90% should generally pay less attention to them.
Yeah I don’t disagree with Kurt but as Trump and Reagan proved, celebrity has power to the point of becoming President so his words while not entirely wrong, also speak of a ship that sailed decades ago. If there is one thing I have consistently noticed with most conservatives is they live in a physical (not just virtual) bubble that removes them from the people they hate, thereby making it easier to hate them. With that in mind, remember that Russel grew up in privilege thanks to his father. He started halfway up the celebrity and working ladder by simply being born and lived in 1% circles from his first breath. This likely also explains his right wing stance. If make more that $250k a year being right wing makes financial sense. Most other celeb’s though? Even a cursory glance of their backgrounds shows the common range is dirt poor to middle class, working their way up the celebrity ladder which means they were forced to interact (and I assume becomes friends with) people from a wide variety of life experiences, races, sex orientation etc, which informs their tendency towards liberalism. In short, they couldn’t not form much less maintain their bubble (this is also why cities, regardless of state, are liberal). In short, he speaks from a position of privilege missing a significant number of life experiences that might have informed on his viewpoint. Nothing wrong with that, just means I tend to shrug on his opinion. I do like his diplomatic phrasing and explanation though. Walked away indifferent because of thinking I brought to the table and not because of anything he said or implied.
I suppose by “bubble” I mean the circles celebrities move in once they actually reach celebrity, not necessarily the circles they find themselves in on the way there. Sure, climbing the ladder usually means being exposed to a range of viewpoints and experiences, all of which is admirable enough. But once you actually find yourself in a situation wherein you have loads of employees ready to do your every bidding and remove any possible inconvenience from your life at a moment’s notice; hoards of fans and admirers telling you how incredible your every word and action is 24/7; an army of hangers-on who, even if they’re not just stereotypical vultures, have a vested interest in making sure you’re constantly kept happy and in a good mood; and most of your friends and social circle tend to be people within the same career, class and financial bracket as you (as is the case for most of us)? Once in that situation, I imagine it can be very easy to lose touch with the realities of modern life for most of the world no matter how otherwise progressive and admirable the viewpoints you developed on the way are. Which doesn’t mean they’re necessarily wrong or bad, of course, just that people should keep that in mind before taking them too seriously.
Except most people are also living in bubbles. They, and search engine and social media algorithms, have created a bubble where they only get stuff they agree with. So when something slips through that they disagree with their response is rage.
I think its true wealth and fame may insulate celebrities to some degree, but what you seem to discount is the ample evidence that what often happens is that wealth allows people of all stripes to surround themselves with likeminded people and entrench themselves in views that they have always held. If you look at the background and/or family tree of Jon Voight, Mel Gibson, Sam Jackson, George Clooney, Sylvester Stallone, Mark Wahlberg or Chris Evans, their politics or who they surround themselves with are not surprising.
Kurt Russell grew up with privilege thanks to his father’s father, actually. Bing, Kurt’s dad, was the son of successful business owner and attended Dartmouth College.
So…fame and wealth above a certain dollar amount preclude someone from having an opinion. That’s your hill, huh?
No, as you should have probably gathered from this:And thus, while they should have the same rights to speak their minds as any other member of the population, that 90% should generally pay less attention to them.Since it’s the last sentence of my OP, I can’t help but presume you didn’t actually bother to finish my post, so I’ll respectfully request that in future you actually read everything I’ve written before berating me for having opinions which are, in fact, not the ones I’ve expressed.
I read it. My question remains. I just don’t like your pithy wealth and fame number breakdown equating it to virtue and validity of opinion, and who income-wise is thus allowed by you, to either a) pay attention, or b) ignore.By the way, upper 10% of the US population median household income is around $75,000.
I mean, I’m still skeptical that you did, since your “question” makes no sense in light of what I wrote (and for what it’s worth actually reads more like an unnecessarily confrontational attempt at starting an internet fight rather than being a question, strictly speaking). Your “question” is challenging me on holding a position I explicitly rejected, which suggests that either you didn’t read what I said, you didn’t understand it and are lashing out unnecessarily, or you’re not engaging in this discussion in good faith. Disagree with me all you want, that’s fair enough — but if you’re going to challenge me, at least challenge me on something I’ve actually said, not something I’ve explicitly stated is not what I think. And I will concede that my use of “90%” was rather flippant and clearly not reflecting any serious research on the subject. However, that still doesn’t warrant the rather hostile tone you’ve taken seeing as we are merely discussing this in the comments section of an article relating to an interview with Kurt Russell about a Santa movie of all things. If we were at an academic symposium or discussing this in the pages of a peer-reviewed journal, your challenging of my research and data in such a tone and your accusing me of apparently being inappropriately “pithy” would be more appropriate; but we’re not, we’re in the AV Club comments section, so frankly you can back off a bit. Especially since you seem strangely convinced that I am in any meaningful position to “allow” or force people to agree with me or to not pay attention to others merely because I wrote a comment on the Internet which, frankly, is just utterly ludicrous. For what it’s worth, however, since we’re here my position on this subject ultimately is this: wealthy and famous celebrities can hold and express whatever opinions they want, in as free a manner as they wish. However, that doesn’t mean that those of us who aren’t wealthy and famous celebrities necessarily have to treat these opinions with more significance, importance or weight than we do those of anyone else, and many of these opinions (though, granted, not all) are likely not that valid, relevant or useful to most people’s day-to-day lives and experiences. And given that recent political trends and events have suggested that treating the views of wealthy and famous celebrities as importantly merely because they are wealthy and famous has made quite of a lot things trend towards the worse, I personally feel it would be a good idea if we as a broader society were to do that a bit less. I am, however, under no illusions that I have any power to force anyone else to do so, and would not do so even if I did.I hope this clarifies things and addresses any objections you might have had or might still have to what I have previously written.
“However, that still doesn’t warrant the rather hostile tone you’ve taken
seeing as we are merely discussing this in the comments section of an
article relating to an interview with Kurt Russell about a Santa movie
of all things. If we were at an academic symposium or discussing this in
the pages of a peer-reviewed journal, your challenging of my research
and data in such a tone and your accusing me of apparently being
inappropriately “pithy” would be more appropriate; but we’re not, we’re
in the AV Club comments section, so frankly you can back off a bit.”Gotta say, this is all pretty rich from a guy who gave me multiple ham-handed lectures for using the word “hope” in a comment a few posts ago.
Uh, no. The median US household income is $68,400. The top 10% income line is $200,968. https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-household-income-percentiles/And not to be too much of a statistical pedant, but the median cannot be the top 10%.
The way im reading it is more that once you get to a certain status or wealth, your opinion on some things becomes… disconnected from reality. I dont think anyone was saying there is a threshold where, once crossed, you arent allowed to have an opinion. I think its more that we are allowed to apply context to that opinion to judge it’s relevancy.
For example (and im so sorry, ive tried to find the article but cant seem to…), oil-billionaires and their children telling people what a liveable wage is in America is an opinion, and they are entitled to it, but as someone who has had to choose between food or rent in a given week, i can dismiss their opinion as absolute fantasy if i please.
And yet somehow we spent four years living under the political whims of a man that came from a self-obsessed cloister of wealth, luxury and privilege.
“Perhaps there’s a lesson in all of this,” said the man to the group of individuals who all prepared to throw rotten fruit at him.
So, idiots like you think that ALL actors are rich and privileged, therefore the rich and privileged Kurt Russell is right?
Piss off.
This is a really important point.
One lesson I’ve learned from the pandemic is that the opinions of most
people, famous or not, are just so trash they aren’t worth paying
attention to. It’s not quite pop culture, but seeing all of the college
football coaches (and players!) come out in the summer with their dumb
reasons why it’s vitally important they have a season this year made me
realize that hyper-specialized people living in a tiny bubble where they
have elevated value really don’t have opinions valuable enough to be
worth considering.
I understand why celebrities want to use the platform and attention they’re given to highlight political issues they care about. It’s great when they speak out on an issue that I care about like climate change or guns, and so I can live with the flip side of that, which is occasionally getting morons like Scott Baio or Kid Rock saying we need to nuke the whales. Either way it’s not worth getting too worked up about it.
Do you think the average person walking down the street has much of substance to say about important issues, whether or not you agree with them? I imagine the percentage of worthwhile, complex thinking runs concurrent in every slice of the population. And it’s a shockingly low percentage of worthwhile thinking.
On economics perhaps, but the artistic community, by its nature, is going to be on the cutting edge of social issues.
Meh, it’s hard to judge whose opinion is “of value” and whose isn’t. Their opinion might not be “of value” to you, but I personally place a lot of value on people in positions of economic power lending their vocal support to, for instance, BLM. A gay kid afraid to come out to his family might place a lot of value on people in positions of economic power lending their vocal support to LGBT issues. Etc.
That’s fair enough; it depends on the subject and the person.
I think most actors don’t have much if any education in political science, economics, American history, law, logic, or civic governance. A few, but not many. So when they talk about politics, they know less than the military-vet mechanic down my street, or the retired math teacher from my high school.
Big time. Most of these wealthy a-holes are actually deluded enough to believe the DNC is significantly less evil than GOP
“Actors should shut up about Politics” is a much stronger political stance than most of them make.
Johnny Cash on prison reform and native American rights! J.C. did everything right.
I guess I can understand where he’s coming from. Celebrities can be tiresome when they get political. Probably, the less we know about them personally, the better.
OTOH, if I was famous, I would definitely want to be remembered as anti-Trump. That’s one thing I would want to be crystal clear about. Both morally and just for your own legacy, speaking out against a would-be fascist seems like the very least you should do. This is one case where many could reasonably infer that silence implies consent.
“Probably, the less we know about them personally, the better.”
Wait, you’re saying that, instead of calling all actors court jesters and telling them to shut their mouths, he could just..not pay attention?
What an interesting concept.
If granted a wish, it would be for Fox News to be replaced by 24 hours of the Pork-Chop Express with Jack Burton.
“an inherently political stance, of course, albeit one that’s semi-invisible in support of the status quo.”Semi-invisible, unlike Goldie Hawn who is apparently totally invisible, given that she’s not mentioned once here, despite the fact that this was a joint interview with the two of them while promoting a film that they’re both in, and she prodded him to defend his comment.
Don’t ask her, she’s just a girl! A-haha!
She suuuurrre is.
She’s an older WOMAN now…so we can just go ahead and ignore her of course. If she was a young girl and still super gorgeous, we would have had a picture of her with Santa. No actual mentions from her, but more pics…
Yeah … this. I read this interview this weekend. And yes – she seemed to call him a bit on that comment, and then, gently, seemed to mock him a bit.Christ, this was an interview about a sequel to a Christmas movie on Netflix … not exactly the MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour …
PGThirteen, you ignorant slut…
Santa Claus takes precedent.
Phooey, who ever needed context before judging someone’s statements!
Actors aren’t jesters. Jesters didn’t work like that. Do what you want Kurt.
I understand the sentiment but I don’t think it’s quite right. It’s fine if celebrities want to talk about politics of any kind. It’s stupid when the public behaves like that makes them leaders. There have been some very well meaning and reasonably responsible celebrities doing some interesting political work without being in the spotlight. Jonathan Demme and Haiti comes to mind. But shoving aside the experts or the political leaders in favor of Jonathan Demme (or Clooney or Sean Penn or Tim Robbins) is dumb.
Nobody is doing that. What are you talking about
Thank you for this. I’ve been binging King of the Hill recently.
He is a great actor but fracking expert Mark Ruffalo comes to mind.
He is a great actor but fracking expert Mark Ruffalo comes to mind.
There are people who consider Sean Penn an author worth reading two terrible books from, so I guess respecting his political prowess isn’t that far behind…
Awful doesn’t even begin to describe how awful his books are. War Crime isn’t even to harsh.
They’re violations of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions.
I understand your sentiment, but I don’t think it’s that cut and dry. In particular, “expertise” is not separate from ideology.An actor who advocates for public healthcare by pointing to all the countries who succeeded in implementing some form of it is correct in saying that the US could do it too. An ivy-league DC “expert” who makes money by peddling his own supposed expertise to politicians, government agencies and think tanks invested in the status quo and maintaining their power and revenue sources, who concludes that nothing can be done, is wrong.
Agreed. But you, Arisen, and I, Fever Dog, probably have specific scenarios playing in our heads when the range of possibilities (activity celebs, causes, potential experts/leaders) is wider than that.
And then you have people like Jane Fonda and Sam Waterston literally getting themselves arrested for good causes. There are celebrities who really are willing to put their money and freedom where their mouths are. That’s valuable.
the thing about actors is that they aren’t serious people. It’s almost like you need to be a bit funny to succeed in Hollywood. you can be serious about acting, writing, creating, but it’s a different skillset.
Even if they have a successful movie career and then decide ‘oh you know what, I’m gonna be the Governor of New York now’. Like Chris Evans with his new website or Daveed Diggs telling people to vote. people listen but no one takes them seriously.
Some people do. Kanye did get votes after all, not many of course since he has no idea how to run for president and his fan base is pretty hardcore. Taylor Swift got people to register to vote in fairly significant numbers. Actors do spend time money and effort to get donations for campaigns. That’s significant.Or you know the celebrity who is currently president and Reagan before him.
If they really wanted to control the country, they’d rig the elections. Straight out. Actors are the exciting, beautiful, funny fairy floss of US politics. Time and money are significant, but so is spending your effort where it’s actually useful. In ways that count.
“If they really wanted to control the country, they’d rig the elections”What?
*shrug* or at least the swing states.
I’m allowed to think and speak, right?
I don’t understand what you were saying which is why I pasted your original statement and replied with “What?”
this is an online message board. It’s a load of 1’s and 0’s that make shapes which our minds see as meaningful bits and pieces of language which are then interpreted as figurative language, capable of information, deception, and inspiration. But it is virtual. This is not real.
Are you like really wasted or something? I think I’m done trying to understand you, have good day or evening whatever.
haah. am I? No.
Rig the elections. Pretend that you’re a democracy and then decide in shadowy backrooms who gets what and why. Then have everyone perform democracy on the stage for the people. Why is that surprising to you?
early morning here, it’s 3 am. And if I wanna tout pseudo-conspiracy theories, then this is the time in the day to do it (i woke up).
You have a good one too bronto.
Even if they have a successful movie career and then decide ‘oh you know what, I’m gonna be the Governor of New York now’.You know that literally happened twice in California with Reagan and Swarzenegger right? And even in the case of New York, a Sex in the City actress ran for governor recently and lost.
Let us not forget Jessie Ventura.
There’s also Gopher from Loveboat and Cooter from Dukes of Hazzard who became Congressmen
God-damn sexual tyrannosaur!
California plays by a different set of rules.
And Minnesota and New York doesn’t?
I gathered from their use of “fairy floss” that they’re not from North America, but even if you’re someone who comments on a pop culture website and is unaware of Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Ventura… surely the past four years of American politics should demonstrate the power of even C-list reality TV celebrity?
Most people worldwide at least know about Trump and Schwarzenegger as those are recent. Judging from his incoherent ramblings, he must be a space alien still new to the ways of our planet.
“the thing about actors is that they aren’t serious people.”
Shut the fuck up. Don’t add your stupid fucking ignorance to Russell’s.
Ah yes, court jesters, famously anti-political.
This comment needs more stars.
Their job was very often speaking truth to power.
It’s the same with minstrels. A lot of what they sang was propaganda, puffing up this war or that king.
Someone (I thought it was Holbein but apparently not) literally painted Henry VIII’s two jesters into the biggest political broadcast of the day
It’s well known that The Fool in King Lear was neutral when it came to giving the entire kingdom to everyone but Cordelia.
Seriously. FFS.
I feel like ‘ol Jack probably didn’t get the best education growing up on a studio lot, ya know?
this is one of those great points i’m going to save and pretend i came up with myself if i ever find myself in a conversation with a human being again.
You have my blessin’.
I just went full Danny Kaye. Thank you.
Nothing wrong with that!
Court Jesters tended to be Kings’ most trusted advisers.
In a mediaeval court, the jester was pretty much the only person who could speak truth to power and tell the king what other people were only thinking.
I have sort of begun to wonder if celebrity endorsements have become a bit counter-productive to progressive causes. That the association with “Hollyweird” and all these limonene riding celebs have kind of undermined the Democratic Party’s reputation as fighters for the working class and made them look like a bunch of out of touch fat cats. I certainly don’t think the George Clooney’s of the world should start pretending to be Republicans out of some sort of galaxy brain reverse psychology strategy and I’m sure their advocacy can help in reaching certain inaccessible demographics but overall the actual politicians should probably stop going out of their way to associate with them or bringing them on the campaign trail and the like.
Why aren’t you asking the same thing about the right when Clint Eastwood shows up at the RNC ranting about empty chairs?
In all fairness Clint was a mayor… and came across as completely nuts in the convention speech equivalent SNL skit that had a minute of material but ran for seven.Stil better than Pat Buchanan’s I like it in the original German speech.
And that didn’t exactly work out great for them, did it?
What does that have the do with the point? There are plenty of celebrity endorsements on the Right too that you don’t seem to be complaining much about.
I’m arguing that celebrity endorsements may be counter-productive in elections… and as someone who wants Republicans to lose elections I’m not exactly going to be “complaining” about them doing something counter-productive.
1. You should have made that clearer in your post. 2. Where is your evidence to support that? Because some studies have found that friends and family were more influential than celebrities on young voters.
1. Did you even read my original post? 2. Friends and family being more effective at influencing young voters than celebrities is exactly my point.
1. Your orginal post specifically singled out liberals. Now you’re backtracking to say you meant everyone. 2. No, its not your point. You’re arguing that liberal actors scare away more moderate and conservative voters. But if people don’t really care about celebrity endorsement anyway, then it doesn’t really matter what a left or right wing actor says and they should be free to do so.
I am not saying I meant everyone, I said it affected liberals because they are the ones I care to offer strategic advice to. It might also affect conservatives, but I do not care because if they want to do something stupid and counterproductive that’s their problem.
And this is where you contradict yourself. You can’t call it stupid and counterproductive while it being irrelevant and immaterial on the other. Which is it?
I am saying it is immaterial in getting our own people out to the polls and therefore not worth the optics downsides of making the party look like it’s the party of the wealthy elite.
But if you admit that it doesn’t matter either way as far as influencing voters then who cares if it makes it look like the party of the wealthy elite in the eyes of voters (it doesn’t btw. Corporations and their lobbyist do far more). You spent all day long arugung in circles absolutely nothing to push some nonsensical progressive talking point instead of just admitting you were wrong in the first place.You will inevitably reply to this because in good internet pedant commentor fashion you will insist on having the last word and wont let it go. Have at it then. I’m done here.
That Hollyweird canard should surely change after the film industry in Georgia helped swing it blue this year.
i think your mistake is thinking the democratic party in anyway represents progressive causes.
I love telling Bernie Bros that Harris is further to the left than Sanders.
Well, it’s not the republicans advocating for $15 minimum wages or requiring coverage for pre-existing conditions is it?
The Court Jester’s primary role is speaking truth to power Kurt, so maybe rethink your choice of words- along with some other things.
Famously, Walt Disney’s last words were “Kurt Russell, please don’t talk about politics.”
That’s not true! Disney’s last spoken words were “Put my brain in the machine so I may never die!!! Bwahahaha”. Now he communicates exclusively through a dot matrix printer stored under Spaceship Earth
You’re a court jester? Name your three favorite marottes!
Hi everyone.Not that anyone here disagrees, but I want to get it down:The ONLY thing you have ever gotten from a celebrity was its politics.Their art of the possible informed your worldview, right up until they said something you didn’t like.The whole point of actors is they’re the median value on a face with 10 million slight variances in America and if you put them in anything people who vaguely look like them will empathize without being told to.All you EVER did was let them guide your politics. I daresay it’s the primary source you first formed a political opinion from.If an actor is acting, they are being political.
Kurt Russell is an older wealthy straight white guy who has succeeded in Hollywood, good for him that’s fine. Here’s the thing though tell that to actors that are themselves in a group of people facing systemic racism and have their voices suppressed constantly in real life and in their profession. Representation does help (not fix) and does teach people things. Imagine thinking if only Regina King would shut up about politics and stick to entertaining us with happy-go-lucky apolitical shows like Watchmen. It would be hard for any actor to be part of that show than say “I don’t talk about politics”.Politics and entertainment are not entirely seperate not have they ever been. And while many actors may be wealthy they are no where near banking, business or tech wealthy. People who have TONS of say in politics all the time and may also not be experts.
I think his point about audiences being less capable of separating actor from role is spot-on, though, especially as our political climate continues to burn hotter.
Yeah it really is hard to watch things when someone in them had raped people or is painfully racist. Or supports people that are.
Most works of art are political statements, either by commission or omission. Has Kurt paid attention to any of the most famous movies he starred in?
That’s a weird response. I don’t think he’s arguing that movies should be apolitical, only that actors should keep their true politics mostly concealed, so they can disappear into roles in a wide variety of films with different points of view. Basically what he’s talking about is how being overtly political can cause an actor to be typecast (in actuality, or at least in the minds of audiences).
When was the last time we were unable to see Kurt Russel in the role he was playing? I say this as someone who very much enjoys watching him work, but he is always Kurt Russel, and we can always see that.
Your inability to separate reality from fiction is not relevant to this discussion.
“I don’t think he’s arguing that movies should be apolitical, only that actors should keep their true politics mostly concealed”
Wow, what a disingenuous god damn reading of it.
/read as Jack Burton from Big Trouble in Little China
Exactly. Leave the politics tor reality show hosts, as God intended.
I think where he is most mistaken is in his idea the actors like himself are court jesters. Throughout the period of time when there were jesters (as such), there were also actors, orators, and playwrights. They served different purposes. Most of the plays that have survived throughout history are overtly political, and the people who first performed them were well aware of that.
This attitude always comes from conservatives in Hollywood, but if all entertainers actually followed this rule, then it would hurt Republicans far more than it would Democrats. There goes Reagan and Trump.
I’m used to people I love on screen being idiots, but I am more bothered by what this says about his views on different styles of acting. Not everybody’s acting method is to disappear into a character and have the audience only see the character. Some people bring themselves to the character so the character is part of them, and some people have no interest in doing anything but making the character ALL them. If these weren’t valid approaches there wouldn’t be TONS of examples of successful actors who do each. The idea that you have to erase your identity to be an actor is pretty revolting, especially for somebody who has sure as hell never actually “disappeared” into a character in his life, Kurt Russell is firmly in the “meet it closer to me than the character” camp.
I’m fine with any American citizen expressing their opinion about American politics, opinions being like assholes and all that. The difference being (as many have pointed out here) I don’t begrudge even conservative dipshits like James Woods his right to express his backwards obnoxious opinions. Celebrities opinions about politics should be given the same weight as anyone else’s, which is none.
Agreed.
I can kind of see his point. Whenever I watch a Tom Cruise movie, I see Tom Cruise, the couch-jumping Scientologist, not whatever character he is supposed to be playing. And I certainly can’t watch anything with Kevin Spacey anymore without shuddering. It’s true that whatever actors do in real life affects the characters they play. However, I agree with other commenters on here that this is probably more a problem for right-leaning viewers than left-leaning viewers. I don’t know. It would make for an interesting study.
“Whenever I watch a Tom Cruise movie, I see Tom Cruise, the couch-jumping Scientologist, not whatever character he is supposed to be playing.”
That’s not Tom Cruise’s fault. It’s yours.
AVclub, kindly fuck off. Your articles are so fucking far up their own ass.
And yet you’re here.
Oh no Kurt
So…y’all gonna cancel him now, and prove his point?
How would that prove his point?
Are you genuinely this stupid?
Please, I need an answer.
Funny, I was just about to tell Kurt to shut up.
He’s a self-described “hardcore libertarian” from the Cato Institute set Welp, ain’t ever gonna un-know that!
I read this and the gun control article and listened to the interview and wanted to say that I understood at least some of Mr. Russell’s frustration with even the premise of gun control, I think it was from his own practical knowledge of firearms, which I understand from seeing him use a firearm in ‘Escape from New York’ after having seen John Wayne use the same firearm earlier in the 1970s in ‘Brannigan’ and then having read Guns & Ammo and magazines like Soldier of Fortune, it was the Ingram MAC-10, it was the cheapest and easiest to manufacture firearm in existence, designed to be made with only the simplest tools, from materials costing less than five dollars then, fully automatic, firing the two most common handgun calibers available, 9mm and .45ACP, it was designed by the CIA as an insurgency weapon to fulfil a fantasy need, a desire, to have something that could be mass produced anywhere they wanted to forment political and social unrest, enable political murders, basically fuck with any country they didn’t like and turn it into bloody chaos and mayhem for a couple of thousand dollars and a few how to pamphlets given to the appropriate violent sociopaths or terrorists or freedom fighters, which ever you’d prefer, the MAC-10 was in fact an awful firearm, prone to failure, unreliable, except it worked, cheap and devastatingly powerful at close range, watch one used in the movies, read about them in articles, let alone have the physical experience of actually using them, there’s no possibility of gun control. His politics? He’s, or at least he appears to be, an American exceptionalist, strict constitutionalist, limited government, low taxation, opportunity for all, life is what you make it, how much you get is how much you work. I understand that, understand why he thinks that. Respectfully, I couldn’t disagree more. This isn’t the point. I read these things and there’s always something that stops you cold “I think Snake should always be around 35 years old and shouldn’t ever be older than that. But he could have a son” You can stop right there. No. Snake Plissken could have a daughter. She’d be about 35 years old.
He should shut up and give us a Captain Ron sequel
Bill, you occupy the same fake reality as Russel does. My reality is actual. Don’t tell me what to think, you anodyne monkey. Now, get the fuck off my left-wing lawn. You got Trump elected. Isn’t that enough?
I know we’re all heading into COVID winter, but seriously, people– you need something better to talk about than this.
Yeh, not like it affects the fate of the nation and the death of democracy or anything. Lets talk about BBQ grilles instead.
Kurt Russell is engineering the death of democracy? I don’t know how anyone can squint at Kurt Russell so hard that they see Rudy Giuliani, but OK
I have a Weber Spirit 310. It’s pretty nice, and replacement parts are readily available. Had chicken legs last night.
So what you’re really telling me is that Kurt Russell doesn’t know what a court jester is about.
I kind of agree with Kurt Russel here, and I’m happy that it’s Kurt Russel’s stance. Because, I like that guy a lot, but, given his political stance, well, shutting up is indeed a better policy. I was a bit anxious, given the ambiguous article title (this stupid journalistic trend of saving character spaces with commas), that “should shut up about politics” could be addressed to him. Not that it wouldn’t be a valid point, but, I was like “what did he say again”. So, kudos for having taken the initiative there.But yeah, even though the vast majority of artists (and intellectuals, and people-who-do-cool-stuff) is quite left-leaning, I still have issues with their popularity, with their “model” position, with how they are listened to outside of their area of expertise. Because a person played pretend that they saved the world from cosmic aliens, or because they hurled some ball across some line often enough, they become the most beloved, popular, trustworthy face. And from there on, their stances on politics, society, ethics, become shiny words of wisdom for the masses. I’m already irritated whenever a mathematician publicly talks of biology, and the (french) star-system is full of pseudo-intellectual “philosophers” playing omni-experts on geopolitical or societal issue they’re clueless about. Artists are even more irrelevant, their opinions have an even more disproportionate echo.It’s overlooked because you’re lucky enough to have somewhat morally decent artists (calling them hypocrites for their privilege and wealthy comfort is one thing, but hey, still, better have them advocate decent views than cynically selfish ones). A different moment could have them go full McCarthy, full antisemitism, full nationalism, etc. Nothing in what they are, nothing in what built their notoriety, guarantees moral decency.So, pointing out this disproportion and how unhealthy that people give so much echo and weight to some voices based on completely irrelevant achievements, is always a very valid point. No matter the ideological bias behind it (and Russel’s is easy to guess).That said, it’s hard to tell if these voices impact anything at all. In the USA, almost half the population applauds fascism (under a different name). Is the glass half empty despite the overwhelmingly antifascist bias of vocal artists, or half full thanks to these voices ?
I have no problem with Russell taking the position he’s taking, but Paul Newman sure seemed to survive being extremely open about his political opinions. Beyond that, actors are American citizens and can say what they want about politics. If Russell doesn’t want to, cool.
But there’s a difference between being open and lecturing the public. Newman was unapologetic but also didn’t present himself as some sort of expert on governance and politics whom people should look to for guidance.
I like it when we pretend the person being interviewed just brings shit up on their own.
I think it’s subjective because I actually agree with him and I’m as far from Kurt Russell’s politics as you can get and I’m extremely anti-gun. That being said, I believe “celebrities” can certainly use their status and resources to affect positive change but yes, the pop culture obsession and media’s cultivating the importance of actors and such has really had some negative results. I don’t take actors or musicians too seriously over, say, a teacher or a nurse. So there’s validity in what he says, to say nothing of maintaining mystique for a performance.
I don’t know – I think that if his point is (as it seems) he doesn’t want to get into politics that seems wise and fair. And there are a LOT of other artists who do the same, but we don’t notice because they are silent about it. It’s a loud, crowded world – do I need to know Mr. Belding’s take on NAFTA or whether Belinda Carlisle is pro-Brexit? I think we’re fine. (I am personally very passionate and political, but I submit some of our problems now are that too many people care about too many things. And realistically, most of them are just repeating positions they were told by someone else…)
hmm yes this must be a difficult pill for avclub writers and their fans (??) to swallow. consuming cultural products and stanning the good celebs IS politics for you people
How ironic, considering the fact that Trump himself was a ‘court jester’ making believe he was a big man for a cheesy reality TV show. I think Curt’s long career basically of doing a Clint Eastwood impression on camera has spilled over into his private life.
There’s a point in there about celebrity worship and elevating the views of people who are anything but expert to an exaggerated level of importance. Much as we talk about holding problematic and/or monstrous celebrities accountable, we’re also consumers and, therefore, enablers of a culture that puts them on a pedestal. I’m not adamantly agreeing with Russell or anything, there’s just a good point in there somewhere.
Everybody who has a job where they work for other people is a court jester. I’m a court jester, and I’m not shutting up any time soon. Trump sucks.
An actor’s politics is a fact of his/her personal life. Audiences and fans have come to know about actors’ personal lives just fine without allowing that knowledge to affect how they see their characters. Why would their political opinions take you out of the movie more than, say, the actor’s relationship status or knowing where he grew up?This issue with actors reminds me of the far more ridiculous argument that political journalists shouldn’t vote. You know, because we don’t want an important decision made my people who are very knowledgeable about it.
It annoys me the way these opinion sites keep ignoring the reasonable main point just to nitpick the most negative interpretation, but I guess that’s how they get paid. The writer’s mocking Russell’s point, and then you turn the page and a bunch of other like-minded people are complaining about Gina Carano’s comments ruining their enjoyment of the Mandalorian. Sure, jester wasn’t a very good example and Russell might have meant it differently than I’m thinking, but it’s not like he’s forbidding others from speaking. Unless an entertainer has special knowledge or experience of a subject, maybe it would be a good helpful suggestion not to spout off every dumb ugly thought that pops into their head. Just something that’s been grating about these hit pieces lately.
Maybe this cunt should take his own advice.
I mean, he’s not wrong. At the very least, I think it’s time we stopped asking actors for their political positions: I mean, why does it matter? If they want to speak up about something that’s fine, but lately it seems that a lot of people find it compulsory that entertainers make political stances, and that needs to stop.
One of the few things I agree with Kurt Russell on.
Well, that and every single line he delivered in The Thing.
I refuse to believe that computer cheated at chess. I think that he got outplayed fair and square.
Whenever someone describes themselves as libertarian, I always read that as “pretentiously selfish”.
This is a guy who gave a standing ovation to Elia Kazan.
Court Jester is just a fancy name for a Defanged Trickster.
…how he doesn’t have any opinions on politics, and neither should you.I don’t think it’s a good idea for a journalist of any kind to report that someone said something they absolutely, positively didn’t say.
Um, actors are human people who vote, yes? Why would we expect them to stay silent when they feel like they have something to say about politics?Then I realized he’s talking about actors who don’t support tRUMP (IMPEACHED) and it made sense.I hate when I find out shit like this about famous people who’s work I enjoy.
Kurt – feel free to take your own advice and shut the fuck up.Or maybe I should say something more Deadspin-y, like, “Shut up and act!”
But Russell is pushing for the idea that audiences don’t have as much ability to separate art and artist as we might likeHe’s not really wrong about this, but, it also depends on what that particular artist said, or did offscreen. Some issues can’t be ignored.Also, I don’t think Kurt really knows what a court jester is apart from their portrayals in media.
Make millions or billions on wall street, you can be so political you buy politicians, but make millions in movies and music and, even is you are a voter, you are supposed to shut up? Sorry if you vote you can complain how the job is being done. On a side note it is easy to be a libertarian if you have been living on movie and tv money for almost 60 years.
I always think of libertarians as “conservatives who think they’re smarter than everyone else, especially other conservatives, and are therefore obligated to share that intelligence with the world,” and Kurt doesn’t do anything to change my mind in that regard.
I’m as left as they come (I believe.. I’m not even sure anymore), and I kinda agree with Kurt, if for no other reason than it doesn’t matter what “spectrum” you fall under, you’re fucked no matter what.
As a caveat to what I just said, I don’t see speaking up on racism, sexism, homophobia or other such issues of human rights as political; unfortunately those issues have been/are being politicized, and speaking out on them lands you on one side or the other…
He’s right
If the press didn’t pay attention to what celebrities had to say they’d pay attention to NOBODY. Celebrities speaking up on issues are basically the only voices we hear telling right wing propaganda organs that their prejudiced opinions are not universally held.
shut the fuck up you pretentious cretin and take your sassy quips and oh-so-clever writing style with you.