.jpg)
I missed the Oscars and yes, I know the Academy Awards are well behind us, but I just happened to come across Sean Penn’s acceptance speech and I was stunned at the hypocrisy of it.
First, let me say that I think Sean Penn is one of the best actors I’ve ever seen. When it comes to plying his trade, he is one of cinema’s finest craftsmen. I thought his performance in Mystic River was brilliant, and as a child of the 80s I’ll never forget his turn as Jeff Spicoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High.
However, when Penn steps off the silver screen and into politics, he’s an unbelievable hack. Here is what he said accepting the award for Best Actor.
“You commie, homo loving sons a guns…I think it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grand children’s eyes if they continue that way…I’m very proud to live in a country that is willing to elect an elegant man president and country for all its toughness creates courageous artists…”
Forget for a moment Penn’s praise for “elegant” Barack Obama even though Obama opposes gay marriage, the very position Penn considers shameful. There is a ton of historical irony in Penn’s call for Proposition 8 supporters to reflect on their great shame and his lionization of “courageous artists”.
First some background.
Sean Penn is the son of one Leo Penn. Leo Penn was a Hollywood actor and communist during the CPUSA’s heyday in the film colony. Leo refused to name names to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and was blacklisted with many other Hollywood communists. However, Penn was also an ardent Stalinist, denounced Franklin Roosevelt as a war monger, advocated for American neutrality toward Europe, and supported the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939—which eviscerated Poland and set the stage for the Katyn Forest Massacre. It should be noted as well that Josef Stalin is responsible for the murder of over 20 million people, whether it be from the Ukrainian Terror Famine, the Gulag, or the Great Terror.
Of course, when Hitler abrogated the treaty by invading the Soviet Union in June 1941 Penn, the Hollywood Reds and the rest of the CPUSA became full-throated supporters of FDR and American intervention into World War II.
The quick 180 degree turn by the CPUSA was due to the fact that Penn and his party comrades took their marching orders directly from Moscow and the Communist International (COMINTERN), which Josef Stalin personally controlled.
This is the shameful past the younger Penn would rather you not bring up. It is hard to ignore the irony though as Sean is a shill for thugs like Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmedijindad and Hugo Chavez. Like father, like son.
To be fair Leo Penn like the other Hollywood communists did not deserve to be blacklisted. However, their defenders use that point to obscure the larger truth about Hollywood communists and American communists in general. In the conventional telling of the story the Hollywood Ten were innocent liberals, martyrs caught up in the dark night of fascism, which descended upon the nation after World War II. In this telling, thinly veiled propaganda movies like Mission to Moscow and The North Star were not straight party line advocacy rather they were art. To put a spin on Barbra Streisand’s vapid film about the blacklist this version of events could be called The Way We Weren’t.
Hollywood Reds were not “courageous artists” they were Stalinist bootlicks, who were called on the carpet for toeing the line for a murderous, megalomaniacal dictator and his brutal regime. In short, they were part and parcel of an organization controlled by a less than friendly foreign government, an in many cases whose members committed treason against their own country on behalf of that government.
I doubt Penn feels any shame for Leo’s useful idiocy, or his own for that matter. However, his call for Prop 8 supporters to “…reflect and anticipate their great shame…” is its own interesting historical irony.
Hollywood communists were masters at shaming those who disagreed with them, even their own. The prime example is the case of Hollywood Ten screenwriter Albert Maltz. Maltz earned the wrath of his fellow travelers because he had the temerity to publish an article in the communist journal New Masses (once edited by Whittaker Chambers), in which he praised the work of non-Stalinist writer James T. Farrell, even though Farrell was at one time a Trotskyite. His fellow party members summoned Maltz to a meeting where they subjected him to the most foul form of degradation. Humiliated, Maltz recanted his argument and penned a retraction to his own article in New Masses in order to stave off expulsion from the party. To be sure Leo Penn was not part of this particular incident, but it is typical of how American communists emulated the ways of their Soviet masters. They didn’t take slights lightly and grudges carried on through generations. Witness the reaction of some Hollywood leftists to the honorary Oscar bestowed upon director Elia Kazan in 1999.
Kazan, a brief member of the CPUSA, director of classics like A Streetcar Named Desire and On the Waterfront, was one of the few who “named names” to HUAC. For his testimony Kazan was persona non grata in many Hollywood circles.
The award sparked protest by blacklist survivors, and Sean Penn was a signatory to a Daily Variety ad that said Kazan “'validated the blacklisting of thousands…his action did enormous damage to the motion picture industry.” As with Albert Maltz the signatories demanded an apology from Kazan for testifying.
This is telling since the central lesson of Kazan’s widely renowned masterpiece On the Waterfront is the value of testifying i.e., “naming names”. In the end, the film’s protagonist Terry Mallory, played by Marlon Brando, testifies against the mob instead of staying “deaf and dumb.” At the time of his testimony in 1952, Kazan rightly noted that communism was a “dangerous and alien conspiracy…and liberal must speak out against it.” He reiterated that sentiment 36 years later in his memoirs stating that he would do the same thing again.
Sean Penn has no qualms heaping mounds of shame on those who disagree with them. However, his self righteousness rings hollow given the fact that he is the ideological and literal heir to a group of Hollywood artists, who unflinchingly supported and apologized for one of history’s worst tyrants.
But keep quiet, Penn and his fellow travellers don't like it if you speak out about their shame.
Comments
Get a life. Sean Penn is a very courageous person, Watch the movie.
Couregeous how?
How does the movie rebut my argument?
What have you done to support equal rights for all - including marriage rights?
Sean Penn is neither courageous nor good. He's just a liberal hack out to make a buck and a name for himself. He's embarrassed himself with his gay movie but he's also played anti-gay roles before too. He's just so stupid, it goes beyone the realm of understanding.
Terrific revisionist history near the end there, but I'm still not sure how even you believe that Elia Kazan naming names to HUAC was the right thing to do. It was a witch hunt. Didn't you ever read the Crucible in high school? Kazan's On the Waterfront was a very obvious defense of his own actions, but testifying against the mob versus testifying against *possible* Communists in America -- where it is, I should probably remind you, perfectly legal to be a Communist -- so that their careers would be destroyed is scarcely the same thing. That's what HUAC was about, and Kazan was complicit in it.
It's weird. Your grammar is good, your sentence structure is sound, you clearly did research, and yet your article is still all over the place and doesn't make a clear argument. Write an outline first next time.
That's what I thought.
To Chris, I'm agnostic on the that subject. I believe that the issue should be decided at the lowest governmental level possible. That being said your question is an evasion of my larger point.
To Michael. All history is revision, as new evidence becomes available history is revised. In the case of American communists we now know, based on the Venona documents and Soviet archives that there was indeed a massive infiltration of the federal government by Soviet intelligence, aided by the CPUSA. There is nothing "possible" about it. The Hollwyood Ten along with others on the blacklist were indeed communists, not just that they were ardent Stalinists and supported and apologized for the Soviet Union at every twist and turn of its policy. These facts are not in dispute.
Your invocation of Arthur Miller no longer applies because his argument is irrelevant to the current state of the history. The allegory of The Crucible was that there were no witches(communist spies). In reality, as I mention above there were indeed American communists spying for the Soviet Union--Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs being the most infamous.
History has born out the honor of Kazan's stance and crystalized the utter shame of Hollywood communists for supporting a man and a regime that murdered more people than Hitler and the Nazis did.
Did HUAC overreach in some cases? Sure, but don't try to create some moral equivalence between the blacklist and the Great Terror.
Why oh why is the press obsessed with "liberal" celebrities like Penn and Streisand. We get op-ed after op-ed on them and how hypocritical they are. They're ACTORS and PERFORMERS who are smarter and more vocal than other actors and performers. Most of us in America can listen to them, agree or disagree, then move on. We don't spend time thinking about hypocrisy or how they are influencing Americans, or how liberal or Democratic they are. Most of us know the difference between George Bush (you *should* write about his hypocrisy, because he is the President of the United States) and Sean Penn (he's a great actor and loudmouth activist who has some good points ... sometimes).
Ah, wisdom in the spirit of Joe McCarthy. Didn't know there were still passionate supporters of McCarthy.
Revisit your title and logic. Your story belies your title. Perhaps this is witty satire. One would hate to say that the author is just in need of a dictionary.
Mr. Newgent:
I agree that you make no clear argument. For better or for worse Leo Penn stood for something by standing firm against HUAC. Your politics seem weak and opportunistic. You association of Leo Penn's politics to his son Sean Penn is ridiculous. Your blanket statement about the "Hollywood Reds" is irresponsible. Sean Penn spoke out about something he believed in. While the excerpt from Sean Penn's acceptance speech is not elegant, nor clear, the same must be said of this article. Sean Penn learned from his involvement with the history of Harvey Milk, as I too learned from Mr. Penn's extremely skillful portrayal.
Your article is based on the assumption that a son is bound by his father's actions. That is, most obviously, an asinine assumption. Without that assumption your article looses all hope of relevancy. To found your argument on such a premise is irresponsible. Your editor showed a lack of professionalism in allowing this drivel to make it to press.
Gerald Gray
Fredonia, NY
To Kerr_Lee
Where in the piece did I passionately support Joe McCarthy? If you disagree with me at least make reasoned argument stating your position. Snarky comments do not an argument make.
To Gerald Gray:
Yes Leo Penn stood for something he stood for Stalinism. He and his comaredes were apologists for Stalin and his murderous regime. He willingly associated himself with an organization dedicated to the overthrow of the American constitutional order. The history on this is crystal clear as we know from the Venona decrypts and the archives of the American and Soviet communist parties.
Leo and Sean's politics are of a piece and spring from the same idological well.
I'm not making an argument for or against gay marriage. I'm pointing out that it is hypocritical for Penn to heap shame upon people who take a perfectly legitimate political position while at the same time he himself has shilled for thuggish tyrants, yet feels no shame at that at all. Leo did the same thing only worse in his support for Stalin. Still with the history known (terror famine, purges, gulags etc...) Sean still defended his fathers defense of the indefensible.
Then again had you read what I wrote you would have known that.
@Chris- Hypocrisy is exactly the right word for it. In an election with massive voter turnout (especially Liberal Democrats) Prop 8 still passed. The people have spoken loud and clear. The next step is to legislate from the Judge's bench and let an attorney in a black robe (appointed for life) tell us all what the word "marriage" means.
We already have equal marriage rights. Each man is free to marry one woman and each woman is free to marry one man (at a time). How is that "unequal." The problem is the definition of "marriage" isn't what gays want it to be. Would you like some cheese with your "whine?"
The HUAC that you appeal to was largely the brainchild of Joe McCarthy. Perhaps you lack passion?
Didn't say I agree or disagree with you. You say that Penn is a hypocrite, yet argue that he is consistent.
Please refer to a dictionary or a book on rhetoric.
Why can't people just admit McCarthy was right? Admitting the facts doe not mean you condone his methods. Roosevelt's & Truman's State Depts. were riddled with commie spies & sympathizers. You do an excellent job of demonstrating where Penn gets his anti-American sentiments and showing how he can't get over the fact that his father was on the wrong side of history.
Good ol' Uncle Joe (Stalin)....
What's that saying? The enemy of my enemy is my friend? And with that the millions of Soviet murders, executions, tortures, etc. got wiped off the slate. Disgusting, inexcusable, tragic, sad. The danger and ignorance of "black and white" thinking.
Thank You for mentioning Katyn.
You honor yet more of the forgotten.
Jan
Why wpuld anyone pay attention to any "celebrity activists"? Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Bruce Springsteen...they all live in a fantasy world. All are extremely wealthy and work or play as they choose. None of them know or remember what it is like to HAVE to get up and go to work EVERY DAY. They pretend to know how real people feel, they don't have a clue. How can anyone say an actor is courageous? Thats the silliest thing I've ever heard
Why would anyone discuss a homely looking little rich kid from Malibu,who leaves his wife and children at home alone.He is off seeing other women.
I am certain that Penn,via his Oscar speech is the consumate homophobe and negrophobe.
Kerr_Lee
Umm you might want to check your facts as they pertain to the two chambers of the federal legislature. HUAC or the House UnAmerican Activities Committee was an organ of the House of Representatives and was formed back in the 1930s well before SENATOR McCarthy came on the scene. Quite the anachronism you've created there.
What has all that garbage got to do with the actual content of his acceptance speech? He advocated marriage rights for gay's who pay taxes and have the right to live their lives the way they like-you obviously are looking to find fault-you're an idiot.
Ah yes, you're right, McCarthy was affiliated with the downfall but not the formation of the HUAC.
You miss the point, or at least avoid it relative to either not understanding the meaning of hypocrisy or not presenting the argument. You present nothing of behavior inconsistent with beliefs.
Please use the dictionary. It will help you in your use of terms like hypocrisy and anachronism. I was inaccurate, not anachronistic.
The hypocrisy lies in Penn's heaping upon those who he considers should be shameful, yet sees nothing inherently wrong with his shameful shilling for tyrants, which as I point out runs in the family.
newagent man come on you're all over the place,not liking penn and his political stance is fine but to actually pass this drivel off as journalism is ridiculous. firstly since when do you start judging a person for what his father did, your argument instantly loses any merit. secondly putting together a mass murderer like saddam hussein amongst ahmadijindad and chavez who despite their aggresive barking and some aloof views are popularly elected leaders.come on breathe history into your work not bias. also im sure you're more informed onn this than i am but just because artists back in the day were communists it does not mean they supported the gulags and torture,you have no way of knowing if leo infact was a boot licker of stalin or not, by inextricably linking him with stalins barbaric acts you are trying to lead astray your redears shameleslly. and why was kazan booed at his oscar because he ratted out innocent people who had not commiteed any crime but held a particular ideology.artists felt betrayed that someone inside their circle gave them up.mccarthys witch hunts were nothing but that and that is how history remembers them surley you cannot disagree on that matter in all honesty.to go from an actors oscar speech in which he essentially states that every human being should be equal and free to live as they want, to tdigging up his past like that in order to paint him a certain way, i think even you probably have moments where you recognise yourself as a hack.
What Penn's father did has nothing to do with him. And Penn has every right to call shameful those who deny civil rights to people just because they find them distasteful.
I took think Sean Penn is a great actor, and respect his talent. Have enjoyed his movies over the decades. But that's where it ends. I don't understand how he can be for gay rights, or any rights here in the U.S.A., but then cozy up to dictators in foreign countries where people don't have rights, aren't free to oppose the government and being gay could be a death sentence. For example, Iran, where Mahmoud Ahmedijindad states at his speech at Columbia University, "there are no gay people in Iran".
And his love of Hugo Chavez. Where people there get arrested if they disagree with Chavez, or the Government.
So yes, I do see some hypocrisy.
But that's what is great about our country. I served in the Army and fought for our freedom, and right to say and believe what we want Even Sean Penn has the right, and is free to say, support and believe who and what ever he wants, even if I don't agree with it.
Greg
Encino, CA
Sean Penn can believe, do, and say whatever he wants as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights and liberties of others as outlined by our Founders.
The trouble with Sean Penn is that he openly cozies up with and supports the ideology of many of the worlds dictators that are out to destroy the very same rights and liberties. It seems very wrong.
Sean Penn doesn't like anyone who asks questions....
Sean Penn is a good man. He speaks in a way that you may see as liberal. However, what does he actually support? Not killing Americans and Iraqis for oil. Not restricting homosexuals from their happiness of marriage. He clearly supports things that help people, so why do so many people hate him for it?
I do disagree, however, with the Penns' stance on Elia Kazan. Kazan was one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, and the fact that he named names only shows that he cares more for his filmmaking career than he does for his reputation. Who can blame him? Blame McCarthy, he was the real problem. Kazan just wanted to keep working. And his receiving an Honorary Oscar says nothing about him as a man, but as an artist, and he sure as hell deserves it after films like On the Waterfront, East of Eden, and A Streetcar Named Desire.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!