Push Me

Time to bite the bullet. I have been stalled on my Matusow background research. I get wound up reading about McCarthyism. It is like reading today's headlines all over again. If we must relive history, is it necessary to do it verbatim? The rest of the world may begin to think we lack culture and intelligence. That sounds sarcastic doesn't it? Even sadder.

At the beginning of the month I posted a blurb to the political discussion at work. I still hope my predicted scenario is wrong, but with this predictable and terrifying group in charge...

For once I agreed with Bush, in limiting the power of an intel overseer, then this came along. The pre-planned scenario I worry about is the whitehouse currying favor, and showing they actually can alter course when it is merited. The nat'l intelligence director will then be granted all the power Gorton recommends, making the new director the most powerful non-elective official in the country. Lots and lots of files on people within and without the borders, and absolute secrecy will of course be maintained in the interest of national security. Are we ready to set up another J Edgar? I hope I'm overly pessimistic, though I'm sure some will call my caution stereotypical liberal hate speech.

It feels ironic at times. I get too wound up by current events to do anything productive regarding them. Matusow as a character caught my imagination, and understanding his milieu takes me into the dark side of the 1950's, which seemingly parallels today's world.

I have read the book (False Witness) he wrote about being a paid witness for McCarthy and company, how he recanted his testimony. Yesterday, after I began this post, I started reading The Matusow Affair, a book by one of the publishers about the book and the era. It has captured me already, and I am already looking forward to reading a bit more tonight.

I got to thinking along these lines after my E-mail to Kipley on goals as an actor was replied to with a clarification. He was looking for more of a goal or purpose with regards to society. Now that is something that I have been mulling over, and it served as just the kick I needed to get my research rolling again.

Hi Kipley,

A societal goal. That is a different question than what I answered, and one I have thought of a lot.

I'll start with the short version. The societal goal of an actor is to engender dialogues in the audience, enabling people to see an issue from different sides. Once a person can embrace multiple viewpoints you have given them the power to change their mind.

Now for the longer version.

Arts at their best give voice to different viewpoints. Now, I'm not running down entertainment for its own sake as that has an important place of its own. Neither am I encouraging further celebrity endorsements, which seem to trivialize most anything. Rather I'm saying we need to raise concerns through our art in a responsible way. In so doing, we need to do give up our tendency to be strident, or to simply attempt indoctrination. It may be satisfying to be righteous, but it is neither effective nor responsible when you are on stage.

I can think of shows I have watched or participated in where views were simply presented as part of the story. People talked after the show; they were thinking about things. Those which were preachy or strident simply created people anxious to be on their way. Complaints were generated, but not thinking.

Currently I am researching McCarthyism for a scriptwriting project which seems to be getting more and more topical. I find myself getting furious when I see us repeating history nearly verbatim. I know the rage won't serve my project, stridency will simply tune out everyone, even the choir. Hell, I might even be wrong in my assessment. All I should do is present what I have found and seen in a way that won't drive away those I'd like to speak to. The challenge is to maintain the balance between engaging people and boring or pissing them off. If I manage to succeed in engaging people with a good story, I'll also have created something that has more potential for longevity.

It is similar to the obligation I feel as a combat veteran. I spent ten years as an officer in the Navy. I was a navigator, flew numerous missions in Desert Shield/Storm, and am proud to have been part of that effort. That perspective gives me very strong feelings about what we are doing now, as well as a perceived duty to speak out. Literally, I consider support for the war based on mob cowardice and greed of the American populace. Pretty strong words, and to my mind they actually understate our ethical and moral culpability. Yet I must be very careful in using those words, even though I want to shout them to the heavens. For once I utter those words, nothing else will be heard. When I write letters to the editor or to discussion groups, I state my perspective in as gentle a way as I can. People may not agree, but they think about it, if only for a moment.

Whether I am scriptwriting, acting, or expounding as a combat veteran, using stridency or trying to indoctrinate is counterproductive. Recapping, most people tune out vitriol that is counter to their opinion, and resist indoctrination. It doesn't matter if you are well-meaning when you alienate your audience, because you have also widened the gulf. When society is torn apart, the worst thing you can do is contribute to the polarization. In theatre it is our job to present these views through character and story. If you do a good job, people will discuss the ideas, which I believe is the only true way for us to bring about change or awareness. That is my goal as an actor or writer. To do a good job for society.

Thanks,
- Scott