23/04/2007
By now, I’m sure you’ve heard or heard about the unbelievable voicemail that Alec Baldwin left for his 11 year old daughter (listen to it here).
Hearing this and all the press that it’s been getting, it reminded me of a conversation I had with my parents a while back. I knew that 30 Rock would be a show that they would enjoy, and I recommended that they should check it out. They both quickly said that they would never watch it. When I pressed them further, their answer was simple. “Alec Baldwin.” See, my parents are very much Republican, while Baldwin is about as red state as a person can be. His many tirades against the Bush administration drove my parents, along with many others, I’m sure, to the point where they will not have anything to do with anything connected to him. I’m sure that the recent voicemail tirade against his daughter will serve to further that gap.
So…when do an actor’s actions warrant a boycott? At what point does the off-screen behavior of a performer bring us to the point where we can’t maintain the ‘temporary suspension of disbelief’ any longer? I know that it will differ from person to person, but here’s my stance on it.
30 Rock is not ‘The Alec Baldwin Show’. It’s a show with many talented individuals that Baldwin just happens to also be on. Personally, I don’t think it’s fair to not give an entire show a chance simply because of one actor’s actions. Now, if a talk-show host said some of the same things, you might have a case, since that person largely is the show. Case in point, the Bush-bashing that the country group Dixie Chicks gave a couple of years ago. (Don’t take this post as being political…these two events were just the first couple of things that popped into my mind.) Their actions resulted in being banished by the majority of country radio. This makes a little more sense, with the boycott affecting the ones that performed the offending action, rather than penalizing a large production for the actions of one small portion.
So there’s my rant for the day. What do you think?
2 Responses to: When Do an Actor’s Actions Warrant a Boycott?
AhmedF
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:57 pm
People have lost the ability to have intelligent discourse.
I’ve been yelled at by my parents. I’ve said something nasty things to my parents. It happens in private, it happens between us, and we are both sorry pretty damn soon. You say stupid things when you are angry.
As for political views - politics and art rarely mix. Which means while I may think Actor X or Singer Y’s political viewpoints are stupid, if their art is good - well, their art is good.
I personally found the boycott to be childish (more because of the ensuing death threats and accusations of being unpatriotic for voicing an opinion).
BOB
September 9th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Alec Baldwin stated he was going to leave our great country if an election had not gone his way. Well I think he should have left, many of us may feel the same way at one time or another but jumping ship is cowardly. Many in Hollywood feel their political beliefs should have more weight than anyone else because they are actors. They become bitter and nasty and I am sick of listening to them. Political discourse is encouraged in a free and open democracy. I applauded it. But they must be aware that if someone disagrees with their viewpoint they made be boycotted. That’s seems to be a price they are willing to pay. I still think Jane Fonda is a traitor for meeting with our enemies during Vietnam while many of Americas finest were dying in South East Asia. I will never watch anything she is in and although she is trying to return to her acting career I am not ready for her. Just my 2 cents
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply