A Nation of Star-F%*#ers: Why We Embrace 'The People Speak'

In a publicity event for the new History Channel film “The People Speak” held at UCLA last week, actor/producer Josh Brolin was charming, self-effacing, funny, and down-right likeable. And, that was the whole reason he was there. We live in a culture obsessed with celebrity and in full adoration of movie stars in particular. In short, we are a nation of Star-F%*#ers. And people like Howard Zinn know it.

Part of the discussion at Friday’s Q & A event centered on the appearance of hypocrisy by the filmmakers for using big-name stars in their film, considering the overall thesis of Zinn’s world view is that REAL history is made by the individual struggling against the elite in power. Producers Chris Moore and Brolin agreed with the criticism but lamented that the only way to get the History Channel to air this movie would be if stars were connected to it. Understandable. But, the inclusion of big name, likable Hollywood stars like Matt Damon, Don Cheadle, Morgan Freeman, Marisa Tomei and Brolin serve a greater purpose than just aiding the pitch meeting at the network.

Being a nation of Star-F%*#ers, we are inclined to sycophantically agree with whatever our idols say. Or, at the very least, we hold our tongues while in their presence for fear that contradicting them might put us out of their good graces. We are all yes-men to these stars. We let them go off on their wild tangents and incoherent rants about America so that when they are done we can ask them what it’s like to work with George Clooney, or whether you call Barbara Streisand “Mom” or “Babs” when you are visiting for the holidays.

That is why when Josh Brolin referred to the Pat Tillman tragedy in Afghanistan as “fratricide,” no one in the audience at UCLA gasped or challenged that characterization. When his co-producer, Chris Moore, relayed a conversation with a History Channel executive who allegedly said, “We’ve got five hundred hours of World War II programming while we have two hours of anti-World War II programming. So, the balance is still pretty off,” no one thought to ask him “What does being ‘anti-World War II’ even MEAN?” or, “Are YOU anti-World War II?”

This is also why our host for the event, History Professor Ellen DuBois, spent her time on stage (in front of many of her history students) gushing and giggling with Brolin and Moore, lobbing softballs in the spirit of James Lipton (she jokingly said “Welcome to ‘Inside the Actor’s Studio'” at the beginning of the Q & A portion) but then held her true opinion about Zinn’s People’s History of the United States from the audience. In a candid conversation after the event, I heard her admit that she was never really a fan of the book and that she had some real problems with it. It would have been nice for her to offer those gripes during the presentation. It could have been “a teachable moment.”

It is also why, when promoting the film, Chris Moore said on the “Today Show” about the troops in Afghanistan, “And I’m sure every person there in Afghanistan is thinking about their family back here, thinking about the holidays, and I guarantee you all of them are thinking, ‘Why am I here? What am I doing here?'” To that, co-host Meredith Vieira could only muster up this response: “Well, the point I think of the documentary is for people to think, think for themselves, and to speak out.” That’s some real hard-hitting journalism there, Meredith.

But Meredith and Prof. DuBois and the giggling 20-something UCLA students are all suffering from the same affliction. They lose all powers of critical thought when in the presence of a movie star or a movie producer who is good friends with movie stars. And that is why the event at UCLA was a sad example of superficial thought wrapped in a cloak of intellectual importance.

Andrew Breitbart was two feet from the open microphone, patiently waiting his turn to ask a question, when Professor DuBois cut short the Q & A session. It would have been nice to hear his question. I bet it would have been more interesting than, “As an actor, what was your process for this film?” or, “Could some of your movie-star friends come on my leftist radio station?”

Finally, the most revealing answer came from Mr. Moore when he was asked what criteria was used to select the actors for the film. He informed us that they used three criteria. 1) If they would serve the material well. 2) If they were prominent enough to help sell the program and attract an audience. 3) If they had shown themselves to be activists. He went on to explain that as word spread about the project, the buzz grew and it became a cool thing to be associated with. He would field calls from actors who wanted to get in and he would respond to them: Go out and DO something. Get involved, be an activist for a cause. I wonder if Patricia Heaton’s activism on behalf of the un-born qualifies? Or, Jon Voight’s activism on behalf of our Founding Father’s original vision for our country? Or the late Charlton Heston’s activism on behalf of individual gun-ownership rights? Was that the type of activism you were talking about, Mr. Moore?

That’s right. A Hollywood producer told all of us at UCLA that day that he would not cast an actor if they were merely a big name who could serve the material. No, the actor had to go out and perform political activism. Does anyone out there still doubt that Big Hollywood puts pressure on people to embrace leftist politics? Anyone? Class?