In Praise of People Who Read Articles

My niece gave me shit the other night for my post about George Clooney's Oscar acceptance speech (I deemed it one of two quotes of the night). She thought I was being sarcastic and couldn't believe it when she discovered I was serious. As I explained to her, I thought the speech was geniune and that it made the very valid point that often it is the movies which champion underdog causes way before anyone else does (my wife correctly pointed out that, actually, it's the soap operas which usually tackle "difficult" subjects well before the movies do: AIDS, interracial couples, homosexuality, etc.). Regardless, I stand by my little post, even if my niece thought the speech was self-serving (of course it was, but...) and even if Peggy Nooner thinks that the un-edu-macated have no business having opinions of their own:

Orson Welles was an artist. George Clooney is a fellow who read an article and now wants to tell us the truth, if we can handle it.

More important, Orson Welles had a canny respect for the audience while maintaining a difficult relationship with studio executives, whom he approached as if they were his intellectual and artistic inferiors. George Clooney has a canny respect for the Hollywood establishment, for its executives and agents, and treats his audience as if it were composed of his intellectual and artistic inferiors. (He is not alone in this. He is only this year's example.)

And because they are his inferiors, he must teach them. He must teach them about racial tolerance and speaking truth to power, etc. He must teach them to be brave. And so in his acceptance speech for best supporting actor the other night he instructed the audience about Hollywood's courage in making movies about AIDS, and recognizing the work of Hattie McDaniel with an Oscar.

Was his speech wholly without merit? No. It was a response and not an attack, and it appears to have been impromptu. Mr. Clooney presumably didn't know Jon Stewart would tease the audience for being out of touch, and he wanted to argue that out of touch isn't all bad. Fair enough. It is hard to think on your feet in front of 38 million people, and most of his critics will never try it or have to. (This is a problem with modern media: Only the doer understands the degree of difficulty.)

But Mr. Clooney's remarks were also part of the tinniness of the age, and of modern Hollywood. I don't think he was being disingenuous in suggesting he was himself somewhat heroic. He doesn't even know he's not heroic. He thinks making a movie in 2005 that said McCarthyism was bad is heroic.

How could he think this? Maybe part of the answer is in this: The Clooney generation in Hollywood is not writing and directing movies about life as if they've experienced it, with all its mysteries and complexity and variety. In an odd way they haven't experienced life; they've experienced media. Their films seem more an elaboration and meditation on media than an elaboration and meditation on life. This is how he could take such an unnuanced, unsophisticated, unknowing gloss on the 1950s and the McCarthy era. He just absorbed media about it. And that media itself came from certain assumptions and understandings, and myths.

Sorry Pegs, but George doesn't think his audience is inferior. He thinks people like our incurious Preznit and drunks like you who worship at the altar of Ronald Reagon are inferior.

Here's Clooney's entire speech. Tell me where he suggests he is "somewhat heroic" (not counting his admission that he once played Batman):

"Wow. Wow. All right, so I'm not winning director. It's the funny thing about winning an Academy Award, it will always be synonymous with your name from here on in. It will be Oscar winner, George Clooney. Sexiest Man Alive, 1997. Batman, died today in a freak accident at a -- Listen, I don't quite know how you compare art. You look at these performances this year, of these actors and unless we all did the same role, everybody put on a bat suit, and we'll all try that. Unless we all did the same role, I don't know how you compare it. They are stellar performances and wonderful work, and I'm honored, truly honored to be up here. And finally, I would say that, you know, we are a little bit out of touch in Hollywood every once in a while. I think it's probably a good thing. We're the ones who talk about AIDS when it was just being whispered, and we talked about civil rights when it wasn't really popular. And we, you know, we bring up subjects. This Academy, this group of people gave Hattie McDaniel an Oscar in 1939 when blacks were still sitting in the backs of theaters. I'm proud to be a part of this Academy. Proud to be part of this community, and proud to be out of touch. And I thank you so much for this."

Proud? Yes. Heroic? Methinks Peggy was perhaps already on her third martini when George accepted his award.

In response to Noonan's dig at Clooney's article-reading habits, I'd like to know what makes columnists who have "experienced life" by achieving a degree from Fairleigh Dickinson University followed by an early career in television that included being a producer at CBS News in New York, writing and producing Dan Rather’s daily radio commentary before going on to becomming a special assistant to President Ronald Reagan from 1984 to 1986 and a chief speechwriter for George Bush, along the way giving us such gems as "a kinder, gentler nation" and "Read my lips: no new taxes" think that their opinions are any more valid then someone who never received more than a high school education, tried out for the Cincinnati Reds but got cut, picked tobacco for a year and then landed a roll in Return Of The Killer Tomatoes before getting a steady gig on television's The Facts of Life? Sure, we can all have a good laugh over George's resume. But do former speech writers who helped popularize the phrase "a thousand points of light" actually think people with similar educational backgrounds as Clooney's are "intellectual inferiors?" Gosh, dear me, I hope not.

Which brings us to George's "I am a liberal" post in today's Huffington Post. Here it is in all it's tinny glory:

I am a liberal. And I make no apologies for it. Hell, I'm proud of it.

Too many people run away from the label. They whisper it like you'd whisper "I'm a Nazi." Like it's dirty word. But turn away from saying "I'm a liberal" and it's like you're turning away from saying that blacks should be allowed to sit in the front of the bus, that women should be able to vote and get paid the same as a man, that McCarthy was wrong, that Vietnam was a mistake. And that Saddam Hussein had no ties to al-Qaeda and had nothing to do with 9/11.

This is an incredibly polarized time (wonder how that happened?). But I find that, more and more, people are trying to find things we can agree on. And, for me, one of the things we absolutely need to agree on is the idea that we're all allowed to question authority. We have to agree that it's not unpatriotic to hold our leaders accountable and to speak out.

That's one of the things that drew me to making a film about Murrow. When you hear Murrow say, "We mustn't confuse dissent with disloyalty" and "We can't defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home," it's like he's commenting on today's headlines.

The fear of been criticized can be paralyzing. Just look at the way so many Democrats caved in the run up to the war. In 2003, a lot of us were saying, where is the link between Saddam and bin Laden? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We knew it was bullshit. Which is why it drives me crazy to hear all these Democrats saying, "We were misled." It makes me want to shout, "Fuck you, you weren't misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic."

Bottom line: it's not merely our right to question our government, it's our duty. Whatever the consequences. We can't demand freedom of speech then turn around and say, But please don't say bad things about us. You gotta be a grown up and take your hits.

I am a liberal. Fire away.

Well, I gotta say: Compared to the Democrats he's referring to (I'm talking about people like you, Ms. Clinton), he's taking a heroic stance. But I don't believe he called himself heroic. Just proud. Take your best shot Peggy.