In a word, neither. I’m tired of reading the endless comments on Trump by entertainers, (mostly, as we notice, negative). It goes on and on. And on. Now here’s an exercise: Think of something positive to say about him, and say it. If you can’t, it’s because your liberal streak won’t let you. Then you may be one of the closed-minded people. That’s why I don’t vote, never have, never will. I am a follower of nobody. That’s what’s interesting and even fun about being an actor; you are forced to get into the skin of your character. Which is what surprises me about the mouthings of Meryl Streep.
An actor should be like the Speaker of the House of Commons (definitely not of the U.S. Congress). No side, no prejudice, no bias. Ready instead to take a leap into the unknown. The difference between good and great and genius.
I am a lifetime member of the New York Players, created by Edwin Booth, (some say as a penance for his brothers dastardly act, remember Lincoln?). My wife was the president for a while, until they offed her, for activism, I guess.
So I was welcomed as a guest at the Garrick Club in London, surrounded by actors and oil paintings and extraordinary gentlemen (no lady members, sorry,) of the theatre, as well as gentlemen not of the theatre, there to relax in the texture of the place. The conversation mostly stayed clear of the political. Wonderful and intelligent eccentricity abounded, in the faces and in good and useful conversation, which was mostly of the anecdotal kind. Boy, I miss it.
Meryl, beware. Even if you want us to think of you as a sublime actor, we may no longer let you. Your fans will want you to assume a reliably liberal, political, identity. Take a hint from Glenda (Jackson). She got it out of her system, and now she’s back.
And I’m back, to Hollywood.