Film & TV Editor Cillian Howley ponders the role of artists in society - should they stand up or shut about politics?
Actors exist in an interesting limbo. They are artists, of course, but their work does not represent their worldview. They act as vessels in film and television, for writers and directors. What’s more, actors are some of the most accessible artists on the planet. Those at the height of success in their field are celebrities with multimillions, if not billions to their name. Actors, especially those we consider “stars,” contradict the traditional role of an artist in society.
“I’m in the arts. I’m not here to speak on politics,” said Sydney Sweeney. It was just a jeans ad, one she was likely paid millions for, and we overreacted. Ethan Hawke and Michelle Yeoh would prefer not to discuss current affairs at the Berlinale. Vince Vaughn visited Trump in the Oval Office but says the comedians and late night hosts are alienating viewers with their overt politics. These artists vary wildly in talent but they are sending the same message: art and politics are separate.
Despite this, the MeToo movement was a convergence of art and politics. Revelations of sexual assault allegations against notorious film producer Harvey Weinstein began a reckoning that rippled throughout Hollywood, Washington and workplaces everywhere. A year into Trump’s first term, a reckoning of this sort was not only much needed but much desired. Actresses, from A-List to unknown, experienced abuse from Weinstein. Their stories were the springboard of a watershed moment. Artists were at the centre of politics.
Actresses, from A-List to unknown, experienced abuse from Weinstein. Their stories were the springboard of a watershed moment. Artists were at the centre of politics.
Donned in all black, attendees at the Golden Globes in 2018 were enthusiastic to make a political statement, albeit as a collective. Actors, writers and directors wore pins in solidarity with MeToo and TimesUp. The projects celebrated that night included Big Little Lies, The Handmaid’s Tale and Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. Not only were these stories widely acclaimed, they captured the zeitgeist. Their depictions of gender-based violence, patriarchy and injustice were significant given the political context; a sexual predator and misogynist held the highest political office in America.
Cut to 2026, the same man is once again at the reins. However, this time around, the artists are all of a sudden hesitant, apprehensive and shy. Do not ask them about ICE or Israel at festivals and do not expect them to explicitly address politics in their speeches. Trump won despite a stacked roster of celebrity endorsements for Kamala Harris in 2024. This should serve as a wake up call for politicians and not artists. The role of an artist is not to enact structural change but to inspire it.
Moreover, creatives who choose not to answer questions about politics are making a political decision. Being apolitical in this moment as an actor conveniently appeases the Trump-friendly oligarchs in charge of Hollywood studios. When an artist self censors, they are submitting to this authoritarianism. That said, in the ever-divisive world around us, a stance on almost any issue can generate controversy. The far-right is unrestricted on social media and is always looking for its next clickbait. Gen-Z flood comment sections with their moral superiority complexes and whataboutery. These are choppy waters. Still, how cowardly is an artist who submits to the whims of the masses.
Being apolitical in this moment as an actor conveniently appeases the Trump-friendly oligarchs in charge of Hollywood studios. When an artist self censors, they are submitting to this authoritarianism.
These artists possess a misguided sentiment I believe much of the general population share: Actors getting on their “soapbox” and preaching is an entirely recent celebrity phenomenon. That is wholly inaccurate. During the Vietnam War, Jane Fonda was nicknamed “Hanoi Jane” and faced significant backlash for her antiwar activism. She paid the price but her career recovered with overtly political films including Julia and The China Syndrome.
Fonda’s co-star in Julia, fellow acting royalty Vanessa Redgrave similarly utilised her platform for political activism in the 70s. Upon acceptance of her Academy Award, Redgrave condemned “Zionist hoodlums” and pledged to fight antisemitism and fascism. The reception in the room was mixed; she was booed and applauded. Like Fonda, her career took a hit which is now hardly a bump in her illustrious career.
By contrast, at this year’s Oscars, Paul Thomas Anderson shirked outright political commentary. One Battle After Another is unmistakably political. Of course, he is a filmmaker and film is his medium to express his beliefs. Still, artists can be activists in their work and in their words. The political context of the film’s release no doubt helped its awards campaign. Lest he and other artists forget the words of a wise woman, “you exist in the context.”