Katherine Cramer Brownell, photo: Ian Willoughby
Was it the case in the early days of the Hollywood studios that for
the
executives, many of whom were Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, being
connected to politicians gave them a kind of legitimacy or social
acceptance?
“Absolutely. That was what actually drew Hollywood into politics from the
beginning.
“The Hollywood studios in the 1920s and 1930s were run by Jewish
immigrants, who were very eager to gain acceptance into American life.
“This is at a time when anti-Semitism ran high in American society, so
they were very eager to show that they had value and a contribution to make
to American politics and culture.
“So the early days of political mobilisation is overwhelmingly defined by
figures like Jack Warner and Louis B. Mayer, eager to cultivate those
political relationships, to assert their social legitimacy.
“And it helped their pocket books too, because they were able then to
negotiate favourable economic conditions as well.”
I guess their backgrounds would have also been one reason they were so
keen
to support the war effort. Was Hollywood more powerful after the war than
it had been previously?
“Actually before war broke out it was very controversial. Studio
executives were slow to support intervention.
“Because there was a pushback from many senators, who feared that they
were promoting a war fever, with films like The Great Dictator, for
example.
“But they felt like they needed to get involved. And especially once
Pearl Harbor happened, the entire industry – regardless of whether they
were conservatives or New Dealers – got on board.
“They used motion pictures as what they called weapons of war, weapons to
raise awareness about the importance of fighting.
“During the war people recognised how powerful motion pictures could be
in American political life.”
“And also to raise important money, in terms of war bonds.
“What happens during the war is that people, the broader public and the
American government, recognised how powerful motion pictures could be in
American political life.”
Notoriously in the 1950s many Hollywood writers and directors were
blacklisted, during the time of the House Un-American Activities Committee
headed by Senator Joseph McCarthy. Were there many Communists in
Hollywood?
“There were Communists in Hollywood, just like there were Communists all
across the country.
“But the reason they went after them is linked to what happened during
WWII – that recognition by politicians that Hollywood is powerful.
“There was a concern that if entertainment was deployed by the other
side, then that’s dangerous.
“You see that a lot of Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats
did not like the kind of politics that was happening in Hollywood, which
during the 1940s was overwhelmingly liberal and progressive – and of
course you do have some Communists in there as well.
“So they were quick to attack entertainment for ‘bedazzling’
audiences, and they thought that was very dangerous.
“But then they were also very quick to deploy the exact same strategies
to advance their own agendas as well.”
Today we’re used to Hollywood stars endorsing politicians and
speaking
about politics. When did that begin?
“Well, during the 1930s you had some celebrities that would work on
campaigns.
“But again it was a little controversial for them to be involved in
politics.
“It was something they did very carefully in terms of promoting
charities.
“In terms of promoting particular candidates, this does happen in the
1940s and 1950s, but you really see it expand in the 1960s.
“In many ways that’s linked to changes in the studio system. When the
studio system broke down, its control over the public image of actors
really started to dissipate.
“So actors had more authority to negotiate their contracts – and also
negotiate what they wanted to do in the public sphere.”
[embedded content]
Were there many well-known endorsers? I know for example that Sinatra
had a
song about Kennedy.
“Kennedy had many celebrities on his side, although Nixon did too, in the
1960 election.
“But Kennedy was more effective at deploying them to promote his own
celebrity. That’s a distinctive difference that you see in the 1960
election.
“Somebody like Sinatra added to the star power that Kennedy saw as
central in terms of how he was going to gain political legitimacy.
“His theme song extended and expanded the appeal of Kennedy.
“While with Nixon he also had people who promoted his candidacy, most
famously John Wayne.
“But Nixon didn’t put those celebrities at the centre of his campaign.
He saw that as something that could perhaps help him win in California, but
not as a national strategy.
“Trump builds on changes that would allow for someone to assert their
credibility and their legitimacy based on their skills to entertain.”
“Ultimately that changes in 1968.”
Why did it change in 1968?
“It changes in 1968 because Nixon looked back at why he lost in 1960 and
he firmly believed it was because Kennedy had this celebrity persona and
that he had the support of Hollywood – and most importantly that he had
turned himself into a celebrity to gain political power.
“There are many reasons outside of that that Kennedy won the 1960
election. It was very close.
“But Nixon believed that this showbiz politics was why he won.
“So he emulated Kennedy when he ran for the presidency in 1968.”
In what specific ways has Hollywood influenced US politics, especially
when
it comes to the presentation of politicians?
“Hollywood has brought entertainment into the American public sphere and
the American political sphere more generally.
“It has made media mobilisation central to gaining political power.
Hollywood entertainers have taught politicians the tools of the trade to do
that.
“But most importantly it shifted the way people think about
entertainment.
“It’s seen as a valuable addition to American politics – making
emotion, appealing to the hearts, not necessarily to the minds, of voters a
central tactic of political communication.
“This has shifted the power away from the party and urban party machines,
which used to control messaging and strategies of communication to voters,
to now where you have showmen and professional PR figures and entertainers
– they’re the ones that are really controlling the message from
candidates to voters.
“Overwhelmingly this shift away from the party to the media has also
shifted the focus onto the personality of individual candidates who are
running for office, and not just the platform for the party.”
There are a few conservative actors who really stand out, like John
Wayne,
Charlton Heston and, of course, Ronald Reagan. But actors often tend
towards the liberal. When did the acting profession become essentially
liberal?
“It’s really interesting, because that is the perception – that
Hollywood is liberal.
“But there are many conservatives in Hollywood even today. And in fact
the Republican Party has been more successful at turning entertainers into
candidates.
“This was a conscious strategy by Republicans in the 1960s to capitalise
on the age of television and those figures who are well-known to American
television viewers.
“So they started to recruit actors to run for office themselves as the
Republican Party was trying to rebrand and rebuild itself in the 1960s.”
If we could speak about Trump, is he the ultimate showbiz president?
He
wasn’t a politician before and was known to most Americans as a reality
TV star, I guess.
“Yes. Donald Trump builds on the changes in the party and the changes in
American culture that would allow for someone to assert their credibility
and their legitimacy based on their skills to entertain.
“Trump’s celebrity relies on spontaneity and impulse and very much
reality television.”
“So he absolutely follows the trajectory that I chart out in my work.
“But he also changes it, because he embodies a different type of
celebrity.
“His celebrity is not artfully crafted and honed in a production studio.
It doesn’t rely on years of training in terms of studying how to be an
actor, how to present a message.
“It relies on spontaneity and impulse and very much reality television.
“The difference between Hollywood production and reality television in
many ways shows a different approach to celebrity that’s happened over
the last 30 years with cable television and the internet that has
democratised celebrity.”
Looking to the future, what happens after Trump? Do you think it’s
possible there could be another showbiz personality, like an Oprah Winfrey,
who could, now that he’s broken the mold, do something similar?
“I think of this moment as very much similar to the 1960s when figures
such as George Murphy and Ronald Reagan did run for office, and it forced
both sides, both parties, to think about, What now? We see that this works,
so how can we channel this media strategy to our advantage?
“Both sides are figuring out how to respond to new media and the
opportunities that something like Twitter has to bypass the press and
present candidates directly to American voters.”
I saw a [Washington Post] piece recently by you in which you suggested
that
even though Trump is the “ultimate showman” his stagecraft isn’t
actually that great.
“Yes, this is something that’s actually very different about Trump.
“He has very much promoted himself, his brand, what he wants to do, and
he has not actually deployed the production team that so many celebrity
presidents in the past have.
“They’ve relied on the Office of Communications, on speechwriters, on
press secretaries to coordinate the messaging so its packaged in a polished
way.
“Trump is not polished. And he doesn’t have that packaging team really
working for him.
“This is something that he tried to use to his advantage during the
campaign against Hillary Clinton, who was very polished and very packaged.
“But it also infringes on his ability to actually govern or legislate.
Because there isn’t a coherent message that he’s putting forth.”
Let’s block ads! (Why?)