Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Welcome to a very special pre-Oscars edition of The Point. I’m actually really excited
by this one. First of all I’ve got three fantastic point videos for you guys. Mimi
Kennedy who was one of the stars of Midnight in Paris which is an Oscar nominated movie
actually sent in a point about how Hollywood exports violence abroad. It’s a really interesting
point. Then Jordan Zakarin who is a writer for the Huffington Post, he’s their entertainment
editor as well, sent in a point about the cozy relationship between the film industry
and the Pentagon. I can’t wait to talk about that. And then our third point brings us back
to 1973 for possibly the most controversial moment in Oscars history. And we’ve got
a great panel here for you guys. Mike Farrellll of course is known for his roles in M*A*S*H,
Providence, Law and Order Special Victims Unit, and of course for his activism including
the death penalty which we’ve discussed several times. Great to have you here Mike.
Thank you. And Ed Rampell is a historian and author of Progressive Hollywood: A People’s
Film History of the United States. And of course our friend Tina Dupuy is a syndicated
columnist and the managing editor of Crooks and Liars .com. Alright. So our first video
is from Mimi Kennedy and it’s brilliant. Let’s watch. My name is Mimi Kennedy and
I’m an actress. I’m also an activist and chair of Progressive Democrats America. My
point is that as an actress, I would like to be proud of the United States’ exports
to other country and our home grown stories that we tell to ourselves and each other in
the United States. And I think it’s time for Hollywood to admit that the easy story
telling of mass random violence and force as being the only story, the only way to win
a conflict, has really been toxic for world culture. And I would hope in this period after
the real wars and still ongoing the blood in the streets that we see in so many places
and the blood we haven’t seen in places like the Congo that has been horrendous. We
would say enough is enough. There is that blood. Bodies are maimed. Bodies are blown
apart. We could go on seeing them forever and it would just numb us. We need stories
about surviving this terror and processing it. No more mind numbing body gore violence.
Let’s have better imagination. I will say one thing. Globally it’s very difficult
to translate beautiful language stories. And that’s been a reason I think people hit
on the head and ha ha ha for comedy or tragedy. It’s legible to people. But Shakespeare’s
translated into almost every language and seen everywhere. We understand each other’s
cultures better now. This is the time to start telling different stories and not relying
on the physical blood and gore that only numbs us. Let’s lift our stories up. Start identifying.
Feeling compassion, mutual feeling. Telling those stories. Stop the numbing stuff. We
need something better. And that’s my point. And you can catch me in Midnight in Paris
or 5 Year Engagement. Those are comedies. I hope they have some elevation. And PDAmerica.org
if you wanna get active inside the system as we have it now and really make an effective
change so that we can survive and live with dignity and compassion with each other. Alright
Mike. Do you agree with her that Hollywood is producing distributing these movies that
are contributing to violence throughout the world? O sure. But you know we have to remember
that this is a business and Hollywood will make movies about whatever will sell. I like
Mimi and I think that her point is good one. A bit unrealistic in my view. I actually totally
agree with that. Yea. I mean I love her for it but Tina. Is this part of what sells? Is
that why we’re doing it here? Well I also love Mimi but I disagree with the premise.
I think there are a lot of foreign films that are incredibly violent. I think that there
are a lot of other countries that are incredibly violent. I don’t think it has anything to
do with what we’re exporting. I mean of twenty five hundred movies that are made per
year, only five hundred or six hundred are American films and a lot of those other films
from other countries are not let’s say uplifting to use one of her words. So I disagree with
the premise. However, I love when people are way more liberal than I am. And I just wanna
celebrate that. I wanna encourage them to talk. But to me, what it reminds me of is
the Hays Code. It reminds me of censorship. It makes me very nervous to like so how do
we implicate this? Trying to inspire people to make better films, absolutely. But trying
to keep people from making films that are violent; stay away from my zombie films. I
didn’t get the impression she was trying to tell people what they couldn’t do. I
think she was trying to say let’s lift it up. And that makes sense. I’ve made a number
of pictures and I think my partner and I always tried to find a way to make a picture about
human beings and human interactions and do it in a way that made a point to people that
was I think of value. Sean Penn once said to me in conversation, films should either
be life affirming, films either are he said life affirming or life denying. So I think
there’s a place for violence in motion pictures and television as we see. But I think the
concern should be about what the ultimate point of it is. Right. And by the way, whenever
I wanna have someone give me an opinion more liberal than mine, I bring Mike on. So can
I get a liberal perspective on this Ed? I think that Mimi has an excellent point and
I think it’s part and parcel of US imperialism. They have to desensitize people at home and
abroad to violence. When Americans cover the wars in the Middle East, it’s filled with
the wiz *** gadgetry of the drone missiles and oh. Look at the shock and awe in all of
this. When Al Jazeera covers it, it’s more like look at the suffering of human beings.
Violence does have a place in the movies. M*A*S*H for example was known for being very
bloody, especially the original movie. The surgical unit and so on and that was quite
shocking around 1970 or so. But it’s not just showing violence. It’s how you show
it to denigrate people. To rob their dignity. To rob their humanity. It’s just a video
game. Just press a button. Wipe him out. You could sit somewhere in the continental United
States, press a button, and kill civilians on the other side of the world in Pakistan
or something like that. I think there’s some interesting points there I mean in terms
of desensitizing the actual violence on the ground. It looks like a video game. Can I
just ask you, do you agree with Tina at least that look. We have the ability to make those
kinds of movies because we have these high production values etc etc that if the French
or the Indonesians or whoever else could, that they would probably make similar movies.
Well I don’t think that violent movies are solely an American domain. But I think it’s
sort of a house specialty. And our TV shows. How many of our TV shows are cop dramas? It’s
totally disproportionate to our daily lives, the amount of these programs that deal with
the constant titillation through mindless sex and even more mindless violence. And so
I do think that Mimi has an excellent point. It’s also because a lot of these filmmakers
are not gifted enough to be able to generate stories about human conflict the way that
maybe the French director Francois Truffaut did by just the interaction between people.
They’ve got to show high drama by shooting somebody as if daily life doesn’t have enough
of its own tensions and so on. But you know I think first of all I agree with many of
the points you made. But you suggested at the outset I think that there’s a purpose
to this that we are doing. That these messages are being put out there for a reason. I think
that gives much too much credit to the people in the industry. I agree with that. Much too
much credit. I mean they wanna make movies and they wanna make money. I personally would
prefer if there was a more human connection in films, even what we would call the violent
films as I said I think earlier. But to suggest if you did that it is a part of an American
propaganda move, I disagree with that entirely. But I also disagree that watching these things
dehumanizes us. I interviewed a guy. He’s been sleeping, he was sleeping at McPherson
Park at Occupy DC. An Iraq war vet. He grew up playing video games and he was totally
raw, I mean he was eleven years old when the towers fell. He’s twenty one years old now.
He watched these films his entire life and it wasn’t until the Wiki leaks video of
the Apache helicopter shooting down, we’re all familiar with this, that he was actually
able to see war. I mean he was there on the ground and he was completely desensitized
to it. And so it was actually seeing the video of these images that changed his mind set
and he became an activist. So I think it’s arrogant to presume that there’s only one
thing for violence and that is to do, to make us desensitized to it or to make us better
soldiers or whatever. I think that we are all scared of our own mortality and that’s
what violence is. So in that way it is rather attractive because it’s such a base fear
that we have. So can I throw one more thing out here for you guys? You know some have
a theory that it encourages violence and others have the theory that it’s a good outlet
so that it actually causes less violence. They have the same debate about the *** industry.
Does it create more aggression towards women or maybe less? What’s your take on that
because I’m a little torn on that. I mean I like my violent movies too but on the other
hand, I can see how some maybe drive people over the edge. It could affect different people
in different ways. Human beings are wired differently. They’re raised differently
by different family units or a lack of. And also, just getting back to an earlier point.
It’s not just showing violence. It’s how the violence is framed. It’s how you show
it. In 1925, the great Soviet director Sergei Eisenstein made probably the most violent
scene in non-slasher movie history in Battleship Potemkin. The famous Potemkin step sequence
when the Cossack slaughter innocent civilians. That was done as an outcry against violence
and against oppression. You could also frame violence in such a way and we’re gonna deal
with that in a future segment as to being propaganda to promote desensitization of the
masses of people so that the war machine can flow more easily. I think if you look at the
data, we have more violent video games than ever before. Our crime rate’s down but our
obesity rate is up. So they’re sitting at home playing video games. So I think that
it makes them fat, not violent. They’re too out of shape to fight. That’s what the
data is telling us. You can have a causation argument but we can look at the numbers. There
is a desensitization going on, whether it’s coming from motion pictures and television
or not, there is a desensitization that is happening I think. And it’s happening and
is visible in our society in the way we react to each other, in the way we now accept much
of what’s coming at us on television. And I go to television far more than I go to the
motion pictures actually in terms of responsibility because it’s a question of pushing the edge
of the envelope. That’s become the kind of cause of the industry of the moment. How
risqué, how sensationalized, how ugly, what can you get away with kind of is what’s
happening. And I do think that that has a really negative effect. You know my last point
on this is it’s not just television. I think specifically news has desensitized us more
than anything else including the movies. When CNN made war look like a video game, I think
that’s when we forgot that there are people at the end of those bombs. Some aunts, some
uncles, some grandmothers, little kids who die at the end of those bombs. Now when we
come back we’re gonna discuss how the Pentagon is influencing movies. If you don’t know
this, it’s amazing what they do to influence movies. And there I think we’re gonna get
a lot more progressive. SO come right back.
Alright we’re back on The Point and our next point is sent in by Huffington Post entertainment
editor Jordan Zakarin and he’s talking about how the Pentagon secretly influences the movie
industry. This is really interesting. Watch. Hi. My name is Jordan Zakarin and I’m a
writer and editor for the Huffington Post. Here’s my question. At what point does entertainment
become military propaganda? This coming weekend, a movie called Active Valor is gonna hit theatres.
You may have seen commercials for it during the Super Bowl, touting that it has active
duty Navy Seals starring in the film instead of actors. What you may not know is that the
movie originally came out at the Navy as a recruitment video. They decided that hard
hit by the wars in the Middle East, they needed to up their image and get more recruits to
the special forces. So the idea for a video came along, eventually became a feature film,
and now millions of people next weekend and in the coming weeks are gonna see this movie
without quite realizing that it’s supposed to play on their emotions more than really
any other type of Hollywood movie. Then again, the military doesn’t have much of a problem
getting its message into movies already. You might have also seen an advertisement for
Battleship. Or maybe you were one of millions of people who saw Transformers. Now those
movies worked closely with the military as do many others to get all the guns and ships
and airplanes that you see that make the movie realistic. But the tradeoff is they have to
vet their image with the military. If they don’t put up a positive portrayal, no toys.
Now at what point are we being tricked, and at what point is this ok? Another question
is, why don’t we look more into it. Military doesn’t hide this fact. They even tout it
on their website. Sometimes you even see reports about it. But it seems that it’s not quite
an issue the way it should be. Questions of free speech and First Amendment rights and
all those other things. So should we be discussing this more? Is it even a problem? Please discuss.
We will. Thank you. So Tina, I think he has an excellent point. And this whole, I’m
gonna go over the top. The Active Valor movie actually, I’m gonna say it. It disgusts
me. Ok. And because of the Navy Seals in it. They actually apparently in the beginning
didn’t even wanna be in the movie. And I feel bad saying that given that they’re
in the movie. But it feels to me like out now propaganda and I hate it. You know there’s
a long history of this with Hollywood and the Pentagon. I mean you can go back to Donald
Duck fought the Nazis. Veronica Lake famous for her peek-a-boo bangs was asked by the
Pentagon to put her hair back so Rosie the Riveter wouldn’t blow her hair up. That’s
actually a true story. We’ve always kind of because Hollywood is a propaganda machine.
It just is. I mean it’s been that way for the Gay movement. I mean go to anybody who’s
an activist in GLADD and they will happily tell you the same thing. That because of positive
media portrayal images, that’s what has led to homosexual rights and to the majority
of the public now being fine with gay marriage finally. It’s been for two decades of this
stuff. So yea. Hollywood is a powerful tool and the military likes powerful tools. Yea
I understand that. I don’t think this is a shock. But I think that Ed, I think that
most people at home have no idea. I don’t think they know the history of how the Pentagon
has worked with the movie industry. Like Act of Valor’s the first one where they might
get a sense ‘cause they say hey we have active duty Navy Seals in this things and
you’re saying huh. That’s strange. Well this works hand in hand with the first segment.
US imperialism and militarism has to desensitize the masses of people in order to constantly
never-endingly invade country after country after country that never attacks us. It goes
hand in hand. The Pentagon has had an office in Hollywood and this is how it works. I’ll
give you an example. Black Hawk Down. Who has the godfather who got it made? Senator
Jesse Helms, one of the worst segregationists in the US Congress. I got this straight from
the lips of Jerry Bruckheimer at the Egyptian Theatre. What happens is that the Pentagon
will vet scripts, and if they approve of the way that the military is depicted, in a favorable
way that will retain recruits and get new recruits and protect their appropriations
on Capitol Hill, then they’ll let you have low cost to free access to Pearl Harbor like
Jerry Bruckheimer did for the movie called Pearl Harbor. They’ll let you have access
to their equipment and so on. If they don’t like the depictions, you don’t get those
freebies. So the pro-war pro-militaristic movies are subsidized by the Pentagon. Oliver
Stone is an actual Vietnam veteran. He’s never ever gotten any military support for
his anti-war films. Jerry Bruckheimer, I researched this. I never found that he ever served a
moment in the US military. I could be wrong but I never found that he was in the military.
He should have called Black Hawk Down Chicken Hawk Down. O wow. Strong words. Mike, how
about M*A*S*H? Did you guys get authorization or no? No. We were thought of as anti-military.
However, not by the military. By the brass, but you know, our whole point was thumbing
our nose at dogmatic authority so that doesn’t go down well with the military. God bless.
With the military high command. But I have to say, duh. If you’re gonna make a movie
about a war and the military wants you to be promoting their stuff, then of course they’re
gonna support that. I agree with you they’ve gone over the line with regard to this new
things where they’re actually using real military men. So but the thing is I feel like
there has to be some sort of truth in advertising. To us because we’re in the industry to some
degree, well you’re totally in the industry. You know we know that this is happening but
how many people at home know that the first movie ever to win an Oscar Wings was authorized
by the military? And that they worked with them etc… How many people know that there
was the Office of War Information where there was a Bureau of Motion Pictures and the Office
of Censorship and they worked with those companies. And then we still have the Film Liaison Office
and the points that Ed was making. And if you’re a bad boy then you don’t get their
aircraft carries in your movie. But the question is Tina, how do you solve it right. Or that’s
it. They’re never gonna find out in most of the cases the kids who watch Transformers
are gonna have no idea that the Pentagon is helping to feed propaganda to them about how
glorious it is. Well it’s also in fairness the Navy Seals have been big news. They have
been big headlines. So to have them in a movie, I gotta admit it’s kind of interesting.
I’ll just be the devil’s advocate. But I also think that movies are subsidized all
the time by say Michigan has movies that are filmed in Michigan and they subsidize it heavily.
There was a big, a couple of years ago a big story in Hollywood was that we had runaway
production. And movies were not being filmed here because all other states were heavily
subsidizing. Everything was going to Canada and other parts of the States. And those movies
depicted those states in a positive light. I mean like I said. It’s a powerful tool,
Hollywood. I just don’t think that this is a, I think that this is one of those moments
like ok yea. And I think that full disclosure, I’m always a fan of but I just don’t see
it as something nefarious. It is what it is. I mean movies glorify all sorts of stuff.
They also sell us all sorts of stuff. Alright then let me go over the top. So the Germans
during World War II also had their propaganda movies. And they glorified the German soldiers
and they were the greatest and they were the best. Now of course the German government
is not like our government and the whole point of that and the end goal of that was much
more nefarious and was horrible etc. We all agree with that. That’s obvious right. But
they do propaganda films glorifying their soldiers. We do propaganda films glorifying
our soldiers. Isn’t that wildly disturbing? And again, I don’t know what we’re supposed
to do about it. But I feel at least we gotta educate the public on it. But come on. That’s
like saying Hitler was a vegetarian. Isn’t it really disturbing? Just because the Nazis
did it doesn’t make everything the Nazis did including having organic vegetables bad.
But look. This is how it works. Getting back to Black Hawk Down which really Scott said,
if they hadn’t gotten support from the US military, it would have been called Apache
down. And it was based on a real incident in I believe Somalia. And what do you remember
from that? The dead American soldiers being dragged in their underwear through the dust.
Remember that? Why isn’t it in the movie? Well that’s the deal you make. You take
out what shows that we’re vulnerable, that Americans are not invincible, that we could
lose, that we could be killed. Take that out of the film because that won’t help people
to recruit people to the military. That’s the tradeoff that’s made and it’s very
dangerous. Well I agree. If the Pentagon is dictating what the script says then that’s
very dangerous. But there are people that are making anti-war movies. Yes. And they’re
not gonna get the cooperation of the Pentagon. I quite agree. But where would they expect
to get the cooperation from the Pentagon. So Mike let me drill down on that though because
the Pentagon, if you’re gonna get their approval for a movie actually does look at
the script before you start filming. I understand. And at the end, in fact for Hurt Locker, they
withdrew their approval when they added a scene to the movie towards the end. So they
said ok we’re not backing it anymore. So for those movies that get their approval,
aren’t they state sponsored propaganda? Because they looked at the script before and
after and un-authorized it. I guess so. But Hurt Locker was still released and it was
still a hit. So the filmmaker has a responsibility in that. And if you wanna sell yourself to
the military then you have to live with that. Dave Robb wrote a book called Operation Hollywood
and he argues in the book that this preferential treatment visa vie the First Amendment is
illegal. That there’s been court cases where the government cannot give subsidies to people
because they support their speech and then deny it to others. So this may actually be
illegal. And by the way, the CIA has had an office in Hollywood too for similar type of
vetting of film scripts. That’s an interesting point to which I hadn’t considered. Let
me throw one thing out here. Look. I know it’s unrealistic. I know the Motion Picture
Association’s never gonna go for it, but do you guys think it would be decent policy
if before a movie began, if it had the authorization of the Pentagon, that it said clearly, this
movie was authorized by the United States military. Truth in advertising. Absolutely.
That’s fine by me. Sure. Approved by the USA. And people might look at that and go
oh hell yea. US of A. Alright. Here we go. Our military etc… And what do you think
of the directors that play ball? Again and keep it real. And this can get into a whole
quagmire of the director’s cut versus the studio cut and like whatever other guy they
brought in to add another scene. I mean this will never stop. I mean having veto power.
If you’re gonna play ball, that’s what you do. I love that you brought this up. There’s
tons of films that are made every year, tons of them. And tons of them have anti-war sentiment.
Tons of films that are made that are not violent, that are different things. You can always
not go see these films. You can always just kind of dismiss them. I never saw Black Hawk
Down. I also didn’t see the United 42. Was that what it was called? Because that seemed
to me like really creepy war on terrorism propaganda. So you can always turn it off.
I had to sit through the entire Sarah Palin film, Undefeated. All two hours of it. And
that was propaganda. And I’m not moving to Alaska any time soon. So it doesn’t always
work. Can I just add that the implication of what you just said is that personal responsibility
has a lot to do with this. I don’t wanna blow my own horn but I was asked to do a film
some years back about the Enola Gay. And they sent me the script and they said we’d like
you to be, and I said not only do I not wanna be in your movie where you glorify killing
hundreds of thousands of Japanese with this awful bomb, but I don’t understand why you
wanna make this movie. And they said ok, we’ll look for somebody else. Well I think that’s
the real way of handling this situation. And I face this in television. When somebody tells
you to play ball and to toe the line, everybody’s got a responsibility at some point. Not to
toot your own horn. But seriously as an actor, host, director, producer, you gotta say hey,
you know what. I’m not gonna glorify this and this isn’t the right way to go. So now
let’s take one more break here guys and when we come back, we’re going to discuss
the most controversial moment in Oscar’s history. So come right back for that.
Alright. We are back on The Point and our third video is going to be about one of the
most controversial moments in the Academy Awards history. It was in 1973 when this happened.
Alright. Ed you say this is the greatest political moment in Oscars history. Why? And in fact
I put it on the cover of my Progressive Hollywood book along with a picture of Mike Farrellll
among others. And what a wonderful thing. Instead of slapping yourself on the back.
Look how great I am. To take that one minute of time and to give it to the people who are
the victims of genocide. The wiped out victims of Manifest Destiny, expansionism. To stand
up for indigenous rights at the moment that Wounded Knee was going on. And ask the people
at Wounded Knee, how did they react to that? They were under tremendous pressure and it
bucked them up. It lifted all their spirits up at Wounded Knee. What a great thing to
do instead of getting up there and telling everybody how great you are, how wonderful
you are. I thank my agent, thank my manager. No. Thank the indigenous people of this continent.
So you heard some people booing the background there. Does anybody think that part of this
was a publicity stunt? Or do you all think that Marlon Brando was absolutely genuine
about this? He has a long history going back to the 1950’sof getting arrested for Indian
rights. This is nothing new for Mr. Brando. He was involved with the Black Panthers. He
told Larry King that the best movie he was ever in was called Burn about third world
revolution in a Caribbean island that Brando co-starred in. So this was nothing new for
Mr. Brando. So you’re voting publicity stunt. Absolutely. I’m kidding. But if it was then
in the best possible sense. It raised awareness of this issue and the image of the American
Indians did improve afterwards. Dances with Wolves. Smoke Signals. Powwow Highway. We’ve
had an advance in the screen image of American Indians since that happened. And Marlon Brando
helped to raise that image. I think that’s quite right. I think what he did had a tremendous
effect and I think the audience’s response was really interesting, the few people that
started to boo who were overwhelmed by the applause for the woman. I was very impressed
with her. I thought she handled herself with dignity, with grace. It’s not what I would’ve
chosen to do where I’m Marlon Brando. And by the way let me say that Paul Winfield was
wonderful in Sounder. So you know that’s funny ‘cause as I was watching it I thought
o yea. Look at all those people who were in those movies. And I also thought man. She
must’ve been so nervous before that speech. Oh god. The courage that it takes to do that.
No no she wasn’t. The reason why is that Brando was writing it by hand at home right
before the Oscar ceremony. She didn’t have time to think about it. She ran with Brando’s
secretary named Alice to the Oscars so they have their tickets so they got in. So she
said she didn’t have time to get nervous. That’s interesting. But you said you wouldn’t
have done that. I wanna go back to that. Why not? I don’t, for me it wouldn’t have
been the appropriate thing to do. You know Michael Moore did what he did and he got heat
for it. I thought what Jane Fonda did when she got the Oscar for Klute was to say you
know there are many things I might have to say but it’s not appropriate here and now.
But you know what, Tina let me go to that because a lot of times people get heat for
doing things in the moment. You remember the Black athletes in the Olympics with the raised
black gloved hand. And people were furious about that at the time. But those are the
moments we remember. We remember Littlefeather coming out here. We remember the Black athletes.
And looking back on it, it’s almost always seen in a positive light I feel even though
it gets so much heat at the time. Right. And I think that’s the reason why. Because it
got so much heat. Because they had, specifically those Black athletes had to give back their,
they lost their medals. Here people, they won their chosen contest, they stood up for
a political issue, and their award was taken away. So of course we’re gonna remember
stuff like that. But you know, I’m probably not a good person to ask about this because
I cover politics. So when I watch the Oscars because it’s culturally relevant and I have
to watch the Oscars, I always want them to be more political. So I thought that it was
really, when we invaded Iraq and the only person who said anything was Michael Moore.
And everybody was going up and just kind of acting like everything was fine. And I know
that you know, this is appropriate and whatever, but I find that when the Oscars are so afraid
of challenging themselves, it makes it out to be more of a ceremony to pat themselves
on the back instead of celebrating what art is. And art is supposed to make you feel uncomfortable.
Yea and my bias is in favor of anything interesting versus what is dull. So like if it’s awkward.
I don’t care what people are wearing. Yes. If it’s awkward, even better. Just don’t
make it dull right. So whenever a moment like this happens I think like oh great. Ok we
have something to talk about. That’s fantastic. But you know to switch topics for a second,
his original point in that was how Hollywood covered Native Americans. And i think that
is one of the best points that is rarely ever made. I remember, and I recently made this
point on The Young Turks, when I was a kid and I was watching the cowboy and Indian movies,
I was like why are the Indians the bad guys? I don’t understand. It seems like the cowboys
are coming and taking their their land. Why are they the bad guys? In fairness those Indians
were White guys. Right. And some of them were Italians, some were Jewish. The actors of
course. But do you think that this was the pivotal moment when that began to change or
had it already changed by then? It enormously raised people’s consciousness and I think
that it did have a huge impact on a positive depiction of the indigenous people. And not
only by White filmmakers but in movies like Smoke Signals, by so called American Indians
themselves. Yea. I just want to ammend something. When I said I wouldn’t have done it, I wouldn’t
have sent in Sacheen Littlefeather. If I felt there was something appropriate to say, I
wouldn’t said it myself. Yea. That was an interesting choice too. That’s true. He
could’ve shown up. He also didn’t accept the Oscar. Right. And that was an extra layer
of. It wasn’t like she accepted it for him. Good point. They didn’t accept it at all.
But he wanted America to see the indigenous people. He did not want the glory for himself.
It was like when Charlie Chaplin at the nadir of human history in 1940, before America entered
World War II, when the continent of Europe was almost completely overrun by the Nazis,
When Stalin had in a treaty with Hitler, Charlie Chaplin made the Great Dictator. And he upheld
the little Jew, the little barber as the hero of the movie. And it’s a similar thing.
Even though Chaplin played the little barber, he himself wasn’t Jewish. His brother was
half Jewish. He wasn’t. It’s an important thing to bestow this prestige and honor onto
the oppressed group themselves. Alright now I wanted to discuss one other thing. Mike,
your book is called Just Call Me Mike, a Journey to Actor and Activist. And you get a lot of
heat and conservatives are great at this. Oh these Hollywood liberals. Why would we
ever wanna hear from them? Why don’t they just shut up? Until of course it’s Ronald
Reagan and then in which case they’re like let’s make him president. Or Arnold. Well
it’s always about if they disagree. If they disagree with the point we make then it’s
why should these Hollywood liberals have a chance to talk. But it’s really about the
issue. It’s always about the issue. Hollywood has been involved in politics for all these
years and appropriately so. We’re just like plumbers and carpenters. We’re supposed
to have our rights as Americans to speak our mind and if somebody gives us a podium, and
it is part in parcel of the accoutrement of being a celebrity, then you use it either
to sell soap or to magnify your own importance, or to do some good. And Tina, isn’t this
look. We both cover the media. Isn’t this one of the problems with the media? That they
never call them on their BS. So like when they’re like ah. Why don’t all these actors
shut up? So now next on the set, Chuck Norris. Right exactly. Well I mean my thing personally,
I don’t care if I disagree with them. I don’t care if you’re Charlton Heston or
John Wayne, or you know my politics are different from your politics. That doesn’t bother
me at all. What bothers me is when celebrities are just flat out incorrect. You know Jenny
McCarthy would come to mind. Where you know, every time a child dies of whooping cough
in 2010, 2011, 2012, I would blame her for that because she’s just wrong. The science
is wrong. But since she’s a celebrity, like you said no one kind of fact checked her for
a decade. She’s still able to go in and denounce getting immunized, even though that
is quite literally killing people by not getting immunized. That is when I have a problem with
it. And that’s when the system, like we don’t have the setup to where we fact check
celebrities. We just go oh isn’t that cute. Something pretty and actor is saying something
and they’re for something. But it can be a force for good. If you look at Angelina
Jolie. They’re people who are activists. I’m actually all for activists just as long
as they are factually correct. And my final point on this is look. We have Mike Farrelll
on the show every once in a while, The Young Turks, etc. Talk about the death penalty not
because he’s a celebrity but because he knows more about the death penalty than almost
anyone I’ve talked to right. He’s already been dead. Thank god not. And then on the
other hand you have celebrities like Hank Williams Jr. Right. Obama? Come on. Come on.
What is that? Is that an opinion? I don’t even know what the means. So you have to use
your mind to figure out what they’re saying. Does it make sense or does it not make sense?
And if you’re worried about celebrities speak on issues, I debated Chuck Heston once
on the Larry King show. I’d be happy to debate Chuck Norris or whoever they wanna
throw out there. Oh I like that. Throwin’ down. What do you got Chuck? Ok let’s make
that happen. And you know who’s a conservative celebrity who I think actually comes across
really well? Correct me if I’m wrong. Gary Sinise. Gary’s yea a very bright guy and
very wrong. I was just having this discussion yesterday. Kelsey Grammer's a brilliant actor
and I don’t agree with him on a lot of things. But I never got a sense that he’s hateful
or anything like that. I just think he’s conservative and he wants lower taxes. He
makes a lot of money. I get it right. Alright so this has been a great show. I wanna thank
everybody here. Of course we wanna thank Mimi Kennedy and Jordan Zakarin for sending in
their points. And then I wanna thank Mike Farrelll who’s book is Just Call Me Mike.
Look at this. A Journey to Actor and Activist. Take a shot of this. O yea, there you go.
And then of course Ed Rampell and his book is Progressive Hollywood: A People’s Film
History of the United States. And of course TIna Dupuy. Not only a syndicated columnist
but the managing editor of CrooksAndLiars.com. I wanna thank all of you guys for coming and
I’m looking forward to the Mike Farrellll versus Chuck Norris debate. I’m getting
some popcorn. Let’s do it. Ok let’s do this. Alright. See you next week.