“The answer is no. Once a star has been added to the Walk, it is considered a part of the historic fabric of the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Because of this, we have never removed a star from the Walk.”
—Leron Gubler, Hollywood Chamber of Commerce president and CEO, answering a question about whether Bill Cosby’s star would be removed from the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Cosby was formally charged with sexual assault today in Pennsylvania, the first time allegations of any of his nearly 50 accusers have resulted in a court appearance. The Cos is out on a million dollar bond.
Variety also quotes the late Johnny Grant, a former chairman of the Hollywood Walk of Fame Committee, who once addressed the status of another fallen star’s place on the walk, saying:
“Stars are awarded for professional achievement to the world of entertainment and contributions to the community. A celebrity’s politics, philosophy, irrational behavior, outrageous remarks or anything like that have never been cause to remove a Walk of Fame star.”
On this matter of ethics, at least, Hollywood gets it, unlike Disney World, Harvard Law School, Princeton, the University of Kentucky, the World Fantasy Award, Connecticut Democrats, the National Park Service, Saltzburg University…and many others.
14 thoughts on “Ethical Quote of the Month: Hollywood Chamber of Commerce President Leron Gubler”
I cannot help but think that at least in the case of Disney, his “Hall of Fame” entry was at least in part due to his family friendly image; thus his removal might not be completely outrageous, though still part of a disturbing trend of revisionism.
The TV image was and is family friendly. The problem is the real guy. If you had a Hall of Fame for comics and comedians and clowns, 3/4 of the enshrinees would have private lives that would curl their fans hair. WC Fields, Chaplin, Milton Berle, Danny Kaye, Johnny Carson…Cosby’s one of the worst, though.
That’s exactly what actors do, portray the part as written and directed, and some actors do an exceptional job at it.
Amen to that!
The exceptional acting accomplishments exist because of the exceptional acting talent of the person playing the part(s). What the public sees in performances from actors do not usually reflect the actual personality, character, morals, etc. of the real person behind the “character” that is being played. I’ve worked directly with some exceptional actors that played some great morally bound characters and they played them fabulously but yet the real life person playing the character was a real slime bag devoid of genuine morals; on the other hand, I’ve worked with some actors that are great people and have played slime bags on stage that you really want to hate and done it fabulously – it’s acting!
When are people going to realize the fact that the actual people playing the part are NOT the characters they see? You simply cannot fathom the feeling you get when you walk down the street and someone walks up to you and calls you by one of your memorable character names and has no freaking clue what your real name is. Here’s a clue people; never, ever, ever, never, approach an actor in public and address them by a character name, if you can’t remember their real name, don’t approach them at all, let them live their life in peace; if you can remember their name and feel the uncontrollable need to approach them, use their real name respectfully and simply tell them how much you appreciate their work and move on. It’s very much like simply thanking a member of the military for their service, KISS!
Why would people think the fiction they see on television, on stage, or in the movies is fact unless they have been specifically told that it’s no-fiction; the viewing public should never assume that what they see on television, onstage, in the movies, or even on YouTube, etc. etc. is actual fact. This paragraph reminds me of a previous conversation.
It’s a bit more complex than that. Some performers access their ideal self, which is a part of their character, kind of like the Good Kirk, and radiate a compelling presence because it’s not all acting. A lot of the old movie stars were like that: Cary Grant, Tracy, James Stewart, Bing Crosby, Danny Kaye, John Wayne most of all. Reportedly John Wayne was asked to be George Wallace’s running mate in 1968, and Wayne turned him down, saying 1) he was a Republican and 2) most of all, while some people got the Movie John Wayne, the Duke’s lifetime project, confused the real man, Wayne himself wasn’t among them.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Cosby was in this group too. He wants to be the Cos; he can access that light part of himself that is the Cos; he knows how the Cos thinks. But he can only be that guy on screen or stage, just as Henry Fonda said that he was only happy with himself when he was playing the kinds of people he didn’t have the character to emulate in real life.
From your overall comment I’m understanding you to mean that they’re not what they’d like to be, but what they’d like to be is somewhere in their character, they just have to access it? Unless their a child still developing their character, I respectfully disagree. Root character drives who we are; if it’s part of their root character it’s there for all to see; if it’s not part of their character, it’s simply not there to access. Changing your own character is a hard, hard road to go down.
As far as acting goes, sure we use pieces of ourselves in acting; what happens with me and what I’ve personally seen with other actors, whether their novice actors, experienced community theater actors, semi-professional actors, or equity actors, is actors always return themselves to their root character when they are done playing a part. Just because an actor explores different character traits through the portrayal of a character that displays what they might consider to be “their ideal self” it’s usually has no root character affect, it’s just a temporary pie in the sky and they return to their root character in short order.
Personally, how I assemble my stage characters has been a blend between Stanislavski’s method, Meisner technique, method acting, a rigorous regiment of Alexander technique “exercises” prior to rehearsals and performances to give me added ability to focus on the character, and daily character related diction and pronunciation exercises. I worked with one director a number of times and at an audition the assistant director was rather verbally told during a reading of mine not to be concerned about something because “he grows into it and becomes the character”, I took that as a validating complement and even though there was some truth to what was said, I completely let the character go and the facade comes down at the final curtain call, I think most actors let it go otherwise they can’t move on.
It’s not changing their characters, it’s their flawed characters with training wheels and guard rails…known as a script. I have long said that 99% of the population can play at least one character to a professional level, if it’s close enough to their own. And if it is, no pure technique actor could play it better, or even as well.
“Root character drives who we are; if it’s part of their root character it’s there for all to see; if it’s not part of their character, it’s simply not there to access.” That’s not different from what I said, is it? The root character is there, but in real life, it has to deal with all the dirt around it. Technique actors bring none of their character to the stage or screen at all—they just have mastered the tools of appearing to be as needed. Movie stars, the best ones, take what is best in themselves and feature it in performances. That connection with who they really are is what constitutes the mysterious stage or screen presence.
We’re really not getting anywhere with this part of the discussion, just spinning our wheels, and that’s ok. Sorry my comment turned out to be a bit of a deflection, that’s truly not what it was meant to be. I should have just ended it at “amen to that” but I got a little wordy again. Oh well.
We agree about Cosby’s likely character and the star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, that’s good enough for me and what this blog is truly about.
Incredibly edifying. Thanks.
Geeze, the man hasn’t even been convicted yet, don’t these people understand anything about the concept of “Innocent until proven guilty”. At least these idiots could have waited to ask Gubler if the Star was going to be removed AFTER there is a conviction, if there is ever a conviction.
I am sick and f’ing tired of the court of public opinion.
What the hell is wrong with these people?
If Cosby is convicted of what he is being accused of, I hope they throw the damn book at him but the star was earned and the star should stay.
Cosby may well be acquitted on this charge. He’s still guilty. You don’t have that many identical, uncoordinated accusers of sexual assault over that long a period and pay out one settlement with a confidentiality agreement and not be guilty. I’m more certain of his guilt than O.J.’s, and OJ is guilty as hell.
I certainly wouldn’t want you on the jury if I were Cosby. 😉
Au contraire. I doubt they can prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. I’m certain he’s guilty, but the state still has to prove.
Darn it; I forgot again to check that little box to “Notify me of new comments via email.” I suppose I’ll start remembering one of these days.
The star should stay. I think it might be many years before anyone will be able to look at it without shuddering, but he earned that reaction as well.