James Lipton, circa. 1951
James Lipton, he of the most pompous interview show in the universe, Inside the Actor’s Studio, has decided to celebrate that franchise’s 250th episode by cheerily revealing that he worked as a pimp in Paris in the 1950’s. This was apparently legal there and then, and Lipton, he tells us, was out of a job, so why not earn your money by recruiting desperate women into accepting cash to have sex with strangers, and take a cut of their proceeds for your trouble?
“I had to be okayed by the underworld; otherwise they would’ve found me floating in the Seine.The great bordellos were still flourishing in those days before the sheriff of Paris, a woman, closed them down. It was a different time.”
Oh…you mean there was a time when dealing with organized crime was good? There was a time when it was admirable to trap innocent young waifs into the sex trade because of their poverty? To facilitate adultery and infidelity? To tell women who they had to have sex with, and accept a percentage of their fees for doing so? There was a time when doing all of this didn’t mean you were an exploitive, venal, amoral, low life?
I don’t think so. I don’t think there has ever been such a time, no matter what France may think.
Lipton apparently has chosen now to reveal how deplorable his character is—all these years, and we just thought he was an insufferable but harmless old gasbag—because he thinks it will garner publicity for his show, and that American values and regard for decency have sunk so hopelessly low that most people will think his revelation is cute. Maybe he’s right.
I have no respect for pimps, however, nor those who consort with pimps…even old, pompous pimps who now swear that they don’t think people should pay for sex…especially when they are in the process of refusing to express the slightest regret, contrition or shame about their post-war activities, as if shuffling young girls off to debase themselves by giving oral sex to sailors was no different than selling magazine subscriptions.
Now, it is true that character and values have little to do with the entertainment field or performing arts, which is why that industry’s ethics are approximately on par with those of Colombian drug lords. Two factors disqualify Lipton from any dispensation, however. One is that he is also a teacher, and though he is not teaching decency or ethics, all teachers are role models. When an 86-year-old man who is also a role model blithely waxes nostalgic about the good old days when he skimmed francs from the pitiful wages of a 15-year-old girl in his stable she just earned by giving a rim-job to Smelly Maurice, he loses me forever—you may make your own judgments.
The second is that while I long ago realized that if I was to enjoy the arts at all, the personal lives and conduct of the artists had to be ignored, there are limits. I will not seek out Frank Sinatra performances, because kissing the rings of Mafia dons crosses the line for me. I stopped watching Woody Allen movies or laughing at his witticisms after he cheated on his crypto-wife to have sex with their crypto-adopted daughter, whom he later married. And I would rather tear out my eyes than watch any film directed by the proud child-rapist Roman Polanski. All of these artists, unlike Lipton, have given quite a bit that is sublime and indispensable to the world via their talents, and James Lipton is hardly in their class. Wherever that line is—I suspect I would still love Richard Rogers’ music if I learned he was a pimp, just as Charlie Chaplin’s fondness for Communism and little girls doesn’t quite stop me from enjoying his artistry (though it’s close)—James Lipton isn’t talented, entertaining or essential enough to make me forget he was a pimp.
To hell with him.
______________________________
Pointer: Other Bill (Thanks!)
Facts: Daily Mail
Graphic: Brokenbarnet
Ethics Alarms 
I never could stand this guy and didn’t even know his name.
Sent from my iPad
When I first saw Lipton on TV, I assumed he was just playing a role for the purpose of giving his guests something weird to rebound off of. Apparently, that weirdness was not all faked. How could anyone want to revisit something like that for public consumption? It’s bad enough that he aided in the exploitation of young women (or did it even stop there… in France?), but to literally boast of it now? I think that he not only reveals his own depravity, but that of his circle of peers. Hollywood, in its innate arrogance, has a way of projecting its skewed morals on everyone else.
I can’t disagree with that assessment. How profoundly…creepy.
I don’t get Bravo, so I didn’t know who he was either (Wikipedia to the rescue). Do the hosts of third rate talk shows have to prove that they have street cred now? Is he trying to prove that he is tougher than Conan O’Brien because he used to be able to slap teenage girls around? So the values of gansta rap have spread to the rest of the entertainment industry. OK, they may have always had those values, but it seems they have lost the realization that they should try to hide it.
You have to get out more. Will Farrell’s impression of him on SNL was a high point. He’s a regular guest of Laura Ingraham. He’s supposed to epitomize gentility, erudition, and sophistication. And pimping, of course.
David Cross’s parody of Lipton on HBO’s Mr. Show is better than Farrell’s, IMO. Cross also ripped Lipton in his stand-up act. He said it was really awkward when they had to do scenes together in Arrested Development.
I have children and a time-consuming job. I am exhausted and asleep by the time SNL comes on and I would have to look up Laura Ingraham. I get most of my news from internet news and when I look at the TV listings, I don’t see anything worth watching.
Well, it seems to work for you!
Thanks for this posting, Jack. All of what you’ve written needed to be said.
And hey, I got a pointer! Yippee. Kind of like getting a gold star in grade school. I bet the last one I got was in, oh, fifth grade in 1962. You’re welcome, Jack.
I figured mentioning this to you would be like hanging a sixty-five mile an hour curve/change-up in front of David Ortiz after he’d been relayed the pitch by another Sawk on second base who’d stolen the sign.
I always knew he was a colossal douche.
What I find strange is that he said in an interview that he wasn’t a pimp but a “mec”. Which he thought was somehow the more benign equivalent. But although “mec” just means “guy” in French – the word is typically used for male prostitutes.
I’m a little late on the scene since this article was published in 2013, but man!!!!!…the guy that wrote this article sounds like a real tight-butt. In addition, the tone of the article makes me wonder about the real nature of the axe this writer is grinding. Ok…so you don’t like the ethics of a 20-something James Lipton – a valid point. But, what dirty little ethics blunders might the writer, Mr. Marshall, have in his closet? It just seems to me that someone who can be so damning of person, when he is only judging a segment of his past, must have some skeletons of at least equivalent size. As the age-old saying goes…”when you point your finger at someone there are three pointing back at you.” Furthermore, the writer’s comment about the pomposity of Lipton’s TV show is way overboard. So, is his ethics the problem or his mannerism? I happened to like the show and even if I did think Lipton was pompous, it didn’t detract from the quality of the interviews he gave. In conclusion, Mr. Marshall just needs to get off the soapbox.
1. Yes, I’d say seven years is a bit late.
2. No, I don’t like the ethics message of Lipton as a much older man brushing off pimping, which is per se unethical whether it is or was legal or not. This is a core ethics principle. This is an ethics blog. I am a professional ethicist. You, apparently, are an idiot.
3. “But, what dirty little ethics blunders might the writer, Mr. Marshall, have in his closet? It just seems to me that someone who can be so damning of person, when he is only judging a segment of his past, must have some skeletons of at least equivalent size.” This assertion makes no sense whatsoever.
4. Coming on a site that covers a topic you clearly are completely ignorant of and not bothering to do minimal research here so you don’t embarrass yourself is also unethical.
5. See you in another 7 years.